Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[annsni]

No I wouldn't say that to God. I guess I would have nothing to say to God the Father at the judgement after looking at my life story, and things would look pretty sad. But my faith and hope is that Jesus will say 'good news, your bill has been paid!" and I would get in for free.

Then why did you post that as your statement of salvation?

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

I read about the Erasmus/Luther dispute. What I understand is that Erasmus believed humans have free will and must choose to cooperate and go along with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification. Luther denied that we can ever choose anything good on our own, and so the sanctification is completely done by God.

I definitely agree with Erasmus. I think we have the choice to refuse to be sanctified, which would mean we could be lost after once being justified by faith. So I believe I see the difference now between the two positions.

I still feel that it's not that important of a distinction. I see that it was important to the church (because the church wouldn't allow any one besides themselves to teach) and important to Luther (perhaps for philosophical reasons he wanted to neatly separate faith from works). But in practical day to day terms I don't see how this question will affect my walk with God. I will still give all the credit to God whether or not I freely choose good under the influence of grace, or whether I am compelled to go along with good by grace. None of this would happen without God, and I would have no hope without God.

I guess the problem is that God will be offended that I took some of his free gift and attributed it to my "choice to cooperate"? But if I made this mistake in good faith, wouldn't He forgive that mistake too?

Luther embraced the Augustinian viewpoint; Erasmus embraced a more Semi-Pelagian viewpoint. I would encourage you to read Bondage of the Will and then read Augustine's dispute with Pelagius, I think you will see that the viewpoint is very similar. While I agree with freewill, I disagree with how Pelagius and Erasmus viewed it.

 

[Ruiz]

It is clear hear that the Catholic Church wanted to get away from a Zwiglian perspective where all faith is; is an intellectual assent rather than a life changing event where works naturally follow faith. Therefore You can't have your cake and not eat it as well. Works must naturally flow from faith or you haven't faith. But you wouldn't get that from the canon alone which is why the chapters of the Council must be viewed for context. We can see in this passage that works are the consummation of the faith. and becomes more clear in this quote from Trent

I am familiar with the confession. However, Not as clear as you might suppose because even in the baptist confession we have this comment to assure works of righteousness
I think it becomes at this point a matter of emphasis. Catholics want to assure that with Justification comes sanctification. Protestants want to assure the free-ness of the gift. But both agree Faith is not intellectual assent alone (which seems to be the argument of many protestants) but with the follow up of sanctification or righteous living. as we can see the closeness of words from Trent and the 1689 confession where Trent says


Sanctification is part of Salvation. If we are not sanctified there was no point in saving us. Its like a boat on a lake with a drowning person if that person is picked up (saved) and dried off and is rowed to shore (also salvation) so that they can live their life as they should be it is good (also salvation) it wouldn't matter to rescue the person if they decided to jump back in the water because it felt good. Sanctification is what makes us Christ like and the people God wants us to be. Back to our original state before sin. However, it seems more often than not that the protestant argument is that sanctification can be taken on or not at the descretion of the person because salvation is assured. This is where the disagreement actually lies.

And the other source of contention is infused vs. imputed. The catholic believes in an actual transformation into the New Man thus infusion. However, Protestants do not by their argument hold to actual transformation until after death because they hold to Imputed grace. In otherwords Christ covers the man but his nature is still the same. Snow covering manuer. Catholics believe we indeed are grafted heirs or true adopted brothers and sisters of Christ. Not just covered but changed by grace.

The condemnation of Trent has always been more focused on Luther and Calvin. Zwingli, as well, did advocate more of a mental assencion? I don't think so, from the discussions with Luther, Zwingli embraced the theology of faith the same as Luther.

Trent was not an attack on Zwingli, in fact, most of it never deals with Zwinglian particulars. Rather, it dealt mostly with Calvin and Luther. To support my claim, read the Catholic Encyclopedia's recounting of the Council of Trent here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

As you can see, the major focus was the German Reformation. Most histories of Trent seem to focus on Luther, not Zwingli, in the Reformation.

 

[Ruiz]

THinkingstuff,

I did some more research, and what I am reading is that most scholars believe that Luther was the main focus but Trent did address Zwingli on one issue, the Eucharist. Outside of that, most of the scholars I am reading seems to point to the idea I have been advancing, that Trent was written primarily against Luther.

 

[billwald]

>>You are talking about two different things. 1st Do you believe we can choose for and against Jesus? If we can then when Jesus offers you a free gift are you being noncooperative if you reject it? Of course. Are you cooperating with him when you accept it. Of course. Simple.


>What you have described is blasphemy.
Salvation is a gift. There is no cooperation in receiving a gift. Even an infant (in our world) receives a gift, such as a rattle. What cooperation is there.

Washington State has a program where college credit hours can be purchased for future use. The Wife has purchased credit hours for our thee youngest grandkids. She didn't need anyone's permission and the two year old doesn't know what school is but this asset belongs to him.

Thanks for supporting a universal salvation. "Saved" is the null condition. It is yours until you reject it.

 

[DHK]

>>You are talking about two different things. 1st Do you believe we can choose for and against Jesus? If we can then when Jesus offers you a free gift are you being noncooperative if you reject it? Of course. Are you cooperating with him when you accept it. Of course. Simple.

Wrong. If a friend offers you a glass of water do you have to receive it?
No. The choice is yours. There is no cooperation involve--neither in refusing or in receiving. You are the one receiving. The one receiving does not do the work.
(Mar 9:41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
--A person can receive or reject the water can't he?
The person giving the water is the one doing the work (hospitality).

>What you have described is blasphemy.
Salvation is a gift. There is no cooperation in receiving a gift. Even an infant (in our world) receives a gift, such as a rattle. What cooperation is there.

There is never cooperation in receiving a gift. Do you work for gifts? Do your children work for birthday gifts given to them? You are a cruel taskmaster!!

Washington State has a program where college credit hours can be purchased for future use. The Wife has purchased credit hours for our thee youngest grandkids. She didn't need anyone's permission and the two year old doesn't know what school is but this asset belongs to him.

And Christ purchased our salvation.
I may not have known that when I was young. But when I grew older I found out, and I was thankful, and accepted that great gift that was purchased for me. It is called salvation. But I had to receive it. I had to appropriate it.

Thanks for supporting a universal salvation. "Saved" is the null condition. It is yours until you reject it.

Indeed. It is universal for all who will accept it.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[JarJo]

Then why did you post that as your statement of salvation?

Honestly, I put that because I thought it might seem deceptive, from the perspective of a Baptist, to put something else.

I believe that justification is normally received at baptism, although God is certainly not limited by this situation. This means that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is applied to us, in most people's cases, when we go to be baptized. So catholics tend to blur the distinction between the two, since we believe they happen at the same time, usually.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wrong. If a friend offers you a glass of water do you have to receive it?
No. The choice is yours. There is no cooperation involve--neither in refusing or in receiving. You are the one receiving. The one receiving does not do the work.
(Mar 9:41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
--A person can receive or reject the water can't he?
The person giving the water is the one doing the work (hospitality).

Man, are you folks discussing free will on a Catholic thread?

And wow! Think of the implications if this is true this free will thing you believe. Now your eternal destiny rests in your hands. You alone make the decision on whether you will go to heaven or hell. Hmmmmm!!!! So in the end it is God that is hospitable (BUT NOT REALLY A SAVIOR) It comes down to you & your a sinner. Ahhhh, got to think on that!

However, is that also what Catholics think..... Id like some commentary from the RC's & their supporters for clarification

 

[The Biblicist]

Honestly, I put that because I thought it might seem deceptive, from the perspective of a Baptist, to put something else.

I believe that justification is normally received at baptism, although God is certainly not limited by this situation. This means that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is applied to us, in most people's cases, when we go to be baptized. So catholics tend to blur the distinction between the two, since we believe they happen at the same time, usually.

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Does not the CCC liken circumcision to baptism in regard to a "sign" and "seal"?

 

[DHK]

Man, are you folks discussing free will on a Catholic thread?

And wow! Think of the implications if this is true this free will thing you believe. Now your eternal destiny rests in your hands. You alone make the decision on whether you will go to heaven or hell. Hmmmmm!!!! So in the end it is God that is hospitable (BUT NOT REALLY A SAVIOR) It comes down to you & your a sinner. Ahhhh, got to think on that!

However, is that also what Catholics think..... Id like some commentary from the RC's & their supporters for clarification

The issue is simple.
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God.

The RCC needs to realize that Rom.5:1 (quoted above), does not say "justified by faith and works". It is justified by faith and faith alone. We are justified by faith--the great truth discovered by Luther when he got saved; the great truth so strongly condemned at the Council of Trent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The issue is simple.
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God.

The RCC needs to realize that Rom.5:1 (quoted above), does not say "justified by faith and works". It is justified by faith and faith alone. We are justified by faith--the great truth discovered by Luther when he got saved; the great truth so strongly condemned at the Council of Trent.

I totally agree with this however I do not want our differences in understanding to cloud what you are saying. Baptists are a Christ centered group of Believers, not works plus Christ. :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Didnt the RCC also come up with another way to salvation when they say something to the effect that there will be people saved who reject Jesus Christ but have Holy Spirit type good works?

On this thread we have catholics arguing that catholics believe in justification through faith alone (that would be faith in Jesus Christ I assume, in their definition of this).

So where does this salvation apart from receiving Jesus Christ as Lord fit into this doctrine? Asking our catholic friends here.

For the catholic, can a person say no to Jesus as the Son of God and still be saved by their good works? Like Muslim who reject Jesus as God?

 

[JarJo]

Didnt the RCC also come up with another way to salvation when they say something to the effect that there will be people saved who reject Jesus Christ but have Holy Spirit type good works?

On this thread we have catholics arguing that catholics believe in justification through faith alone (that would be faith in Jesus Christ I assume, in their definition of this).

So where does this salvation apart from receiving Jesus Christ as Lord fit into this doctrine? Asking our catholic friends here.

For the catholic, can a person say no to Jesus as the Son of God and still be saved by their good works? Like Muslim who reject Jesus as God?

There is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ in RCC doctrine. The only way we know of to be saved is through baptism, whether that be actual baptism or the implicit or actual desire to be baptized. However we recognize that God could apply Jesus' sacrifice to others in some way unknown to us if he wanted to, and we know that God wants to save everyone.

At first I said that justification is from faith alone, but I didn't understand your strict understanding of works - that even going to be baptized is a work, or that even the choice to cooperate with grace is a work. So by your definition then yes we have to things that you consider works. I thought by works you meant good deeds.

But baptists require repentance... isn't that a work?

 

[Ruiz]

There is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ in RCC doctrine. The only way we know of to be saved is through baptism, whether that be actual baptism or the implicit or actual desire to be baptized. However we recognize that God could apply Jesus' sacrifice to others in some way unknown to us if he wanted to, and we know that God wants to save everyone.

At first I said that justification is from faith alone, but I didn't understand your strict understanding of works - that even going to be baptized is a work, or that even the choice to cooperate with grace is a work. So by your definition then yes we have to things that you consider works. I thought by works you meant good deeds.

But baptists require repentance... isn't that a work?

First, none of these thing you mention (repentance, faith, etc) are works, they are gifts. If regeneration precedes faith, as historic Protestants teach, then you must admit that faith is the necessary consequence of regeneration, not the other way around as you seem to believe that we believe. I do highly recommend you read some of our literature on this issue, as noted, I would start with Luther's Bondage of the Will because you are arguing points that really are based on things we do not believe.

Also, Vatican II seems to disagree with you on another issue, the nature of salvation. Here is a quote from Vatican II that seems to disagree with your statement above concerning the nature of salvation and who is saved:

The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church.

Pope Benedict has said:

"Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith" Benedict XVI.

According to both of these statements, it is not merely faith in Jesus, but good works that can save a person even without Jesus at all. The Catholic Church believes in a Christless salvation; Protestants have traditionally denied a Christless salvation believing on only Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. We cannot be saved by all the good works encompassed in the world ever by man, but only by the active and passive obedience of the one, Jesus Christ, by faith and through grace.

I like what Dr. Horton put together and was signed by many evangelical scholars on Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialog as seen here. This helps us to see there are clear distinctions.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So in the end, the RCC church will claim that they are the one "True Church" because they have both Christ plus the Teachings of the RCC / Vatican & councils (like Trent) that create dogma.....while you Catholic laity sit in the pews absorbing it all without examining scripture for yourselves which leads to the laity's failure to understand the New Testament doctrines of Justification (in total Salvation) clearly. Essentially salvation means union with Christ, being one with Christ. Then if you have been Born Again (born anew, regenerated etc) You are a NEW MAN in Christ Jesus..... Do you then add & with the "authority of the Catholic Church"? Of course not......What can they add to your Salvation via your walk with Christ? They will tell you Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Marriage, Holy Orders & Extreme Unction, The Assumption of Mary, Purgatory & Limbo & Prayers for the dead to remove them from the places in between Heaven & hell.....oh & the Rosary.

Read Bondage of the Will.....Read Trent.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jarjo,

I don't think I got a response to this post?

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Does not the CCC liken circumcision to baptism in regard to a "sign" and "seal"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is the CCC or are you referring to the RCC?

 

[Walter]

What is the CCC or are you referring to the RCC?

I suspect CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I am currently studying.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I suspect CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I am currently studying.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I suspect CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I am currently studying.

could you answer Binlicists question then?