Justification - Rome versus Baptists

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you hold that there is NOTHING we need to do in order to have God save us, grant us His Holy Spirit, and have eternal life right now, not "maybe"?

That when we place faith in jesus, God immediatly and forever more changes us from sinner to a saint?

You have a forensic view of Salvation. We do not. God saves us. WE can not earn our salvation. We can accept or decline it. If we accept God's free gift of salvation then we start our salvation. We are at that point a saint. But that is just the begining point of salvation. Salvation includes everything after as well which is inclusive of Justification and sanctification, and being a heir of the Father, and deliberately working to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ or Theosis. Let me say that unlike you we believe that sin seperates us from God (not from his Love) and if unrepentant and living in a state of separation from God only leads to eternal separation if we remain so at death. It is in effect choosing against the faith freely offered.

 

[billwald]

Anyone think that everything he does is righteous?

 

[The Biblicist]

You have a forensic view of Salvation. We do not. God saves us. WE can not earn our salvation. We can accept or decline it. If we accept God's free gift of salvation then we start our salvation. We are at that point a saint. But that is just the begining point of salvation. Salvation includes everything after as well which is inclusive of Justification and sanctification, and being a heir of the Father, and deliberately working to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ or Theosis. Let me say that unlike you we believe that sin seperates us from God (not from his Love) and if unrepentant and living in a state of separation from God only leads to eternal separation if we remain so at death. It is in effect choosing against the faith freely offered.

First, infants do not have any choice in your view of recieving the grace of justification but it is forced upon them by the will of Godfathers or proxys.

Second, it is incorrect to say that the Baptist view of salvation is strictly forensic because it is not. No Baptist theologion to my knowledge defines election, new birth, progressive sanctification or glorification as "forensic." You are taking a very broad term ("salvation") and restricting it to something less than what it is.

Third, we make a distinction between an "enemy" of God and a "child" of God in regard to sin and its consequences. God does not treach true children like "enemies" but according to your position He most certainly does as "wrath" is the outcome of sin in your view of God and his children. We believe he treats sin in his children by chastisement and loss of fellowship not loss of relationship as a sinning child is not UNBORN but chastened and fellowship is broken.

Fourth, we do not confuse regeneration with sanctification as you do. The fact that you inseparable mix baptism in water with regeneration makes this confusion self evident. Romans 4:11 repudiates the doctrine and practice of sacramentalism.

Fifth, a child of God dying in an unrepentant state is not choosing against faith as faith is not something you choose but is a gift of God authored and sustained by the power of God and finished by God and has nothing to do with your sanctification but with your relationship to the gospel.

 

[billwald]

Like juries, God declares us guilty or not guilty. I don't recall a NT verse where God declares us innocent.

 

[The Biblicist]

Like juries, God declares us guilty or not guilty. I don't recall a NT verse where God declares us innocent.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, infants do not have any choice in your view of recieving the grace of justification but it is forced upon them by the will of Godfathers or proxys.

There are some things I need to review from your eariler post because I think there are somethings you've mentioned that need be answered but right now I need the time to do so as I have a lot to respond to. So I'll respond to this for now and as I get some free time get back to your other assertions.

Infants are irrelevant to the conversation because they are incorporated into the family but will in the end need to make their own choice.

Second, it is incorrect to say that the Baptist view of salvation is strictly forensic because it is not. No Baptist theologion to my knowledge defines election, new birth, progressive sanctification or glorification as "forensic." You are taking a very broad term ("salvation") and restricting it to something less than what it is.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this statement as can be by your propensity to keep brininging up infant baptism. You're very language belies your view with regard to forensic salvation. I agree Salvation is a broad term but with your forensic view of Justification and salvation apart from sanctification (as you have argued in the past), we can see that salvation is forensic. How common is it to ask by baptist members "Are you saved" Clearly this language shows the forensic nature of your belief regarding salvation. I'm never asked are you justified. No. It's always are you "saved" past tense a one point in time event that begins and ends there.

Third, we make a distinction between an "enemy" of God and a "child" of God in regard to sin and its consequences. God does not treach true children like "enemies" but according to your position He most certainly does as "wrath" is the outcome of sin in your view of God and his children. We believe he treats sin in his children by chastisement and loss of fellowship not loss of relationship as a sinning child is not UNBORN but chastened and fellowship is broken.

So, basically it sounds like your saying by having a faith in Christ you are free to sin and not have consequences or damage yourself positionally with God. The only ones in danger of the consiquences of sin therefore are those without faith! I'm certain Paul did not mean that! Sin always breaks fellowship.

Fourth, we do not confuse regeneration with sanctification as you do.

There is no confusion on our part. You've futher dichotomized Justification into a "regeneration". Which are inseperable from each other.

Romans 4:11 repudiates the doctrine and practice of sacramentalism.

In fact it doesn't and I will attend to that assertion as you've repeated from an earlier post. it does refute Judaic perspective however.

Fifth, a child of God dying in an unrepentant state is not choosing against faith as faith is not something you choose but is a gift of God authored and sustained by the power of God and finished by God and has nothing to do with your sanctification but with your relationship to the gospel.

The very obvious answer is that any gift can be accepted or rejected.

 

[The Biblicist]

Infants are irrelevant to the conversation because they are incorporated into the family but will in the end need to make their own choice.

Don't say this is irrevelant to the conversation because it is very relevant. You claimed that Rome teaches complete freedom of will in the act of justifying grace but that is simply not true and infant baptism proves it is not true.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this statement as can be by your propensity to keep brininging up infant baptism.

Do you understand the term "forensic"???? To claim that my position on "salvation" is forensic is simply not true. The only aspect of my position on "salvation" that is regarded as forensic in nature is the doctrine of justification as that is the only LEGAL aspect of my soteriology.

You're very language belies your view with regard to forensic salvation. I agree Salvation is a broad term but with your forensic view of Justification and salvation apart from sanctification (as you have argued in the past), we can see that salvation is forensic. How common is it to ask by baptist members "Are you saved" Clearly this language shows the forensic nature of your belief regarding salvation. I'm never asked are you justified. No. It's always are you "saved" past tense a one point in time event that begins and ends there.

This is due to your own misunderstanding and perception. Of course, we ask have you been "saved" because that is the root of experiential salvation. That is where it begins and if there is no beginning there is no true salvation. We would never ask "have you been glorified" as that would be absurd. Why ask are you being "sanctified" because that means nothing at all apart from the root experience of NEW BIRTH and CONVERSION.

So, basically it sounds like your saying by having a faith in Christ you are free to sin and not have consequences or damage yourself positionally with God. The only ones in danger of the consiquences of sin therefore are those without faith! I'm certain Paul did not mean that! Sin always breaks fellowship.

No one who read my response to you objectively would ever come away with your conclusion here! You simply choose to read it that way in spite of the clear statements to the contrary. Go back and read it again. Take note of the words "chastening" and the break of "fellowship." Yes, sin always breaks "fellowship" but that is not the same as ones relationship as a "child." Try applying this kind of theology to your own children and see how that works. When they sin and don't repent what are you going to do? Call the sheriff and bring them to court and have them incarcerated? Did they cease being related to you as parent and child? Or has their rebellion against you broken the fellowship between you and unrepentance has brought you to "chasten" them?????

There is no confusion on our part. You've futher dichotomized Justification into a "regeneration". Which are inseperable from each other.

You are simply inventing things as you proceed. I have never dichotomized justification into regeneration. Simply because regeneration produces the belieivng heart does not mean that regeneration is justification. Rather there is a logical cause and effect relationship between regeneration and justification just as there is between repentance and faith and as there is between regeneration and sanctification but to charge me with confusing them with each other is simply a willful and wrong choice on your part.

In fact it doesn't and I will attend to that assertion as you've repeated from an earlier post. it does refute Judaic perspective however.

Pleeeeease do. I look forward to that mental gymnastic attempt.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Don't say this is irrevelant to the conversation because it is very relevant. You claimed that Rome teaches complete freedom of will in the act of justifying grace but that is simply not true and infant baptism proves it is not true.

I don't think you understand grace. Grace doesn't erase choice but provides it. Just because a baptized baby is given grace to be more receptable to God doesn't mean that person is forced to take the faith. You don't really understand that aspect of the Catholic view.

Do you understand the term "forensic"???? To claim that my position on "salvation" is forensic is simply not true.

Absolutely, I understand the term. And by your language I can certainly deduce your acutal view regard you position on salvation. First of all forensic is a legal declaration and secondly its scope is a singular event. Whereas Catholic and Orthodox with regard to Justification distinguish between initial and final. Thus the question "Are you saved" indicates its forensic nature.

The only aspect of my position on "salvation" that is regarded as forensic in nature is the doctrine of justification as that is the only LEGAL aspect of my soteriology.

Your arguments and language seems otherwise. You may have to detail your soteriology.

This is due to your own misunderstanding and perception. Of course, we ask have you been "saved" because that is the root of experiential salvation.

How many salvations are there according to you. I only understand one.

That is where it begins and if there is no beginning there is no true salvation

Sounds Catholic.

We would never ask "have you been glorified" as that would be absurd. Why ask are you being "sanctified" because that means nothing at all apart from the root experience of NEW BIRTH and CONVERSION.

Sounds like you dichotimize salvation into what you experience and what is actual. I'm seeing an issue with this.

No one who read my response to you objectively would ever come away with your conclusion here!

It seems clear to me that is what you are saying. And since I'm a person a least there is one who takes it that way and I suspect there are others. maybe you may want to rephrase. That is not a critisism as such but a suggestion. I'm not attempting to put you down but express how I understand what you are telling me.

You simply choose to read it that way in spite of the clear statements to the contrary

So far there is no statement to the contrary.

Go back and read it again

Certainly

Take note of the words "chastening" and the break of "fellowship."

I did. And you started out by saying God deals with people in two ways depending on their relationship with God. God treats his enemies one way and his children in another. The implication is that one is dealt with more harshley than the other thus justice is commutted somewhat for the children though in theory unrepentant.

Yes, sin always breaks "fellowship" but that is not the same as ones relationship as a "child." Try applying this kind of theology to your own children and see how that works.

It seems to me that in both cases God allows for the consequence to bring about the same result in the child as in the enemy. Bring them to repentance.

When they sin and don't repent what are you going to do?

It's not what I do but what they do to themselves. Seperation from God is seperation from God. People who are unrepentant recieve in the after life what they choose in this life. Either God or Seperation from God.

You are simply inventing things as you proceed. I have never dichotomized justification into regeneration

You absolutely have as you do only state that Justification is forensic or a legal declaration soley and tie in regeneration into sanctification. Clearly thus a man doesn't, in your view, participate in their sanctification and awaits regeneration to take over. Look at your statements. Grace produces the believing heart.

Pleeeeease do. I look forward to that mental gymnastic attempt

I've been civil with you why must you always look for the Jab. There is no "mental gymnastic attempt" on my part. I'm succintly explaining my view as a Catholic and how I regard your statement. I have not at any point attempted to humiliate or make a jab at you personally. I thought you were to leave Dr. Walter online persona behind. Remember I'm not out to convince you of anything just properly expressing my view.

 

[Yeshua1]

You hold to infant regeneration, thru the sacramental grace of water baptism, correct?

is THAT when a catholic receives eternal life then?

When does one actually KNOW for certain that god has saved them under RCC teaching, and MUST one be earning merit by co operating with god thru all the Sacraments before God can and will apply Grace to save?

is it that a Catholic has salvation, but on a probationary basis, as IF Mortal sin is commited, or else one has willfully reject essentially RCC teachings, or else not able to reach high enough in sacramental gracing, they forfet and lose salvation?

 

[The Biblicist]

You are not approaching this objectively or even reasonably at all and that is obvious from reading your responses. You simply want to argure for the sake of argument and this patently clear.

I don't think you understand grace. Grace doesn't erase choice but provides it. Just because a baptized baby is given grace to be more receptable to God doesn't mean that person is forced to take the faith. You don't really understand that aspect of the Catholic view.

Does the baby exercise choice before admission to baptism? Does the baby exercise choice in baptism? The answer is NO and you know it. So don't tell me that justifying grace is a matter of choice from your Catholic perspective because it simply is not. The vast majority of those baptized by Catholics are infants - the overwhelming vast majority and they have NO CHOICE in the matter. Since the Catholic doctrine is that the grace of justification and regeneration are inseparable from the act of baptism there is no choice for the vast majority baptized as the vast majority are infants.

Whereas Catholic and Orthodox with regard to Justification distinguish between initial and final. Thus the question "Are you saved" indicates its forensic nature.

You are attempting to define my position by your own Catholic view of "forensic" justification. As long as you approach it that way you will never represent my view correctly but always skewed by your own subjective perspective.

Your arguments and language seems otherwise. You may have to detail your soteriology.

Again, because you are viewing it from your own theological definition that you are using to interpret my view.

How many salvations are there according to you. I only understand one.

It is statements like this that tell me clearly you are simply arguing to argue. You know very well, because I have stated several times that salvation covers a broad range of individual aspects which cannot be confused with each other or you have a royal mess.

For example, glorificatiion is "salvation" but it is not "new birth." Now am I teaching more than one salvation? Stop arguing to just argue or we will never get anywhere.

Sounds Catholic.
Sounds like you dichotimize salvation into what you experience and what is actual. I'm seeing an issue with this.

Basic soteriology 101 will inform you that there are objective and subjective aspects in "salvation." Do we really have to go back to abc's??? You are just arguing to argue.

It seems clear to me that is what you are saying. And since I'm a person a least there is one who takes it that way and I suspect there are others. maybe you may want to rephrase. That is not a critisism as such but a suggestion. I'm not attempting to put you down but express how I understand what you are telling me.

Again, you are arguing just to argue as I have read the rest of your post before commenting on this statement. My statement is extremely clear IF you are not trying to read it into your Catholic framework. You choose to read my statements through the lenses of Catholic soterioly! Why? Do you think you can fairly and objectively understand my position by intentionally reading it through those lenses? Again, you are arguing just to argue.

I did. And you started out by saying God deals with people in two ways depending on their relationship with God.

Does it surprise you to know that God deals with his enemies one way and his children another way???? If this surprises you and/or if this is something you reject then there is absolutely no hope of any rational and meaningful discussion between us at all. For example, being a child does not make a difference in how God treats you in contrast to being His enemy???????

God treats his enemies one way and his children in another. The implication is that one is dealt with more harshley than the other thus justice is commutted somewhat for the children though in theory unrepentant.
It seems to me that in both cases God allows for the consequence to bring about the same result in the child as in the enemy. Bring them to repentance.

What value was regeneration then? What value is indwelling of the Spirit then? Who is the real Savior from sin then? Is it God or is man giving God permission each time he sins?

It's not what I do but what they do to themselves. Seperation from God is seperation from God. People who are unrepentant recieve in the after life what they choose in this life. Either God or Seperation from God.

The Bible says it is the act of sin that separates from God. In the garden of Eden it was in the day they ate they died. However, you have changed this from the act of sin and extended life and relationship to the act of failure to repent at some distant point from the act of sin. You must do this or you would have a person spiritually dying at the point they sinned and reborn at the point they repented over and over and over again. So you have tweaked the scriptures to fit your Catholic doctrines.

You absolutely have as you do only state that Justification is forensic or a legal declaration soley and tie in regeneration into sanctification. Clearly thus a man doesn't, in your view, participate in their sanctification and awaits regeneration to take over. Look at your statements. Grace produces the believing heart.

You simply refuse to accept my position as I stated it but rather willfully choose to read into my position your own views in order to define my views! Again, you are arguing just to argue.


I spelled out that there is a cause and effect relationship between all individual aspects that make up "salvation" in general. You could not dispute what I said so you simply ignored them and reasserted your unsubstantiated charge that I am confused.

Again, repentance is not faith but just because I distiguish them from one another am I teaching TWO different salvations two aspects in one salvation? Again, regeneration is not justification but just because I distinguish between them and their cause and effect relationships am I teaching TWO salvations or two aspects in one salvaiton? Again, if I make a distinction between new birth and glorification am I teaching TWO different salvations or two different aspects in one salvation?

I cannot break it down any simpler than how I did. We ask someone if they have been "saved" simply because there is an aspect of salvation that precedes other aspects and without no other aspects follow or are possible. Does that meant I teach only a forensic salvation?

Your problem is that you are willfully choosing to put on your Catholic lenses to define my Baptist soteriology and as long as you do that this kind of nonsensical argument will continue.

I've been civil with you why must you always look for the Jab. There is no "mental gymnastic attempt" on my part. I'm succintly explaining my view as a Catholic and how I regard your statement. I have not at any point attempted to humiliate or make a jab at you personally. I thought you were to leave Dr. Walter online persona behind. Remember I'm not out to convince you of anything just properly expressing my view.

You have ridiculed and toyed with me in a sophisticated manner. I have only been more honest and apparent in this response.

 

[The Biblicist]

And you started out by saying God deals with people in two ways depending on their relationship with God. God treats his enemies one way and his children in another. The implication is that one is dealt with more harshley than the other thus justice is commutted somewhat for the children though in theory unrepentant.

You refuse to acknolwedge that God deals with his children differently then he does his enemies in regard to sin because you refuse to accept that God dealt with our sins in the person of His Son fully and completely (Heb. 10:14 "perfected for ever") as a finished work. You simply reject "substitutionary" atonement as the forensic basis for our justification by faith.

Hence, you have God dealing with the forensic penalty of sin in the person of the child of God each and every time he sins rather in the Person and work of His Son. Hence, God charges sin both to Christ and to His people in the Catholic sacramental scheme of salvation never fully making atonement by either as it is always a progressive atonement in this life.

You must parse and dissect sin to avoid the fact that even the justified child of God in his own person is never without sin prior to glorification - hence - sacramentalism that never really appropriates the atonement because there can be no final appropriation until death in the Catholic scheme of things (last rights).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You hold to infant regeneration, thru the sacramental grace of water baptism, correct?

is THAT when a catholic receives eternal life then?

When does one actually KNOW for certain that god has saved them under RCC teaching, and MUST one be earning merit by co operating with god thru all the Sacraments before God can and will apply Grace to save?

is it that a Catholic has salvation, but on a probationary basis, as IF Mortal sin is commited, or else one has willfully reject essentially RCC teachings, or else not able to reach high enough in sacramental gracing, they forfet and lose salvation?

Let me answer with a statement from the document called Exultate Deo.

The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

furhter Catholics hold that

As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me answer with a statement from the document called Exultate Deo.

furhter Catholics hold that

If they die before they "commit sin" they go straight to heaven? Here is where Catholics begin to parse "sin" to make this kind of soteriology possible.

By Catholic definition All Sin is not equally sin in God's sight and not all sin is subject to God's judgment in God's sight in Catholic soteriology.

For example, the baptized infant is still a sinner by NATURE after baptism as before baptism. He sins persistently and consistently. However, sins of ignorance, sins of commission and sins of omission are now the passwords to heaven in spite of sin.

The Law of God has no exception "sin" from its penal consequences. Sin regardless of its nature must be paid for and either Christ paid for it or He did not and if he did not then the sinner must pay for it. Hence, if sin is found in the infant AFTER baptism he is subject to the penalty of sin after baptism as much as before baptism regardless of the nature of the sin.

If dying infants go to heaven they go because Christ paid for ALL their sins not merely for PART of their sins or SPECIFIC types of sin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are not approaching this objectively or even reasonably at all and that is obvious from reading your responses. You simply want to argure for the sake of argument and this patently clear.

This is entirely untrue in this case. I put forth what I believe you are saying and the difficulty that I find with it. I think I've put forward proper discussion on the topic. I find it Odd that you easily slip into accusation when its clear that I've provided objective response to your assertions regarding the catholic belief in relation to your belief. I'm not arguing to argue but to provide expression of my thoughts regarding this matter. You sir have made the first Jab. Why is that?

Does the baby exercise choice before admission to baptism?

What does that have to do with grace? Is grace only applied to "knowledgeable people"? How about is grace only supplied to people with the ability to comprehend salvation? and if so what of the adult mental defectives or mentally retarted people who cannot understand Jesus saves them? What of the clinically insane? Immediately right them off? Are they ushered into hell because of their lack of comprehension? Can grace be supplied to them also? Do these excersise choice?

Does the baby exercise choice in baptism? The answer is NO and you know it. So don't tell me that justifying grace is a matter of choice from your Catholic perspective because it simply is not.

It absolutely is. You're issue with not understanding is you consistently without regard for any other perspective hold to forensic Justification. As you do with Salvation. Catholics as I've explained do not have that view. I think I clearly expressed the Catholic view.

The vast majority of those baptized by Catholics are infants - the overwhelming vast majority and they have NO CHOICE in the matter.

Grace provides freedom. You ignore man's natural state before original sin which was innocense and destined for heaven. Do you claim Adam had no choice? So as a child grows to the age of their capability they also have a choice. If they die before that point they go to their natural state after baptism which is in heaven. It is irrelevant that most Catholics are baptized into the faith. Probably (and this is a personal judgment call) the majority of them will go to hell because they willfully reject the faith they are given and deprived themselves of the further graces God wants to grant them. Whether you are introduced to faith as an adult by an outside agency or grow with in the consistent teachings of the faith you are responsible to positively respond. Babies are incapable of responding as babies but certainly upon age of consent they are able to respond and that is what they are accountable for.

You are attempting to define my position by your own Catholic view of "forensic" justification

I'm not attempting anything. I've shown how your language in describing your belief and your explanation reveals the underlying "forensic" view. I don't know why you feel insulted by this because the forensic justification view was proposed by the reformers themselves. I have redefined your view. Using your own terms I've applied the best moniker as I see it.

Again, because you are viewing it from your own theological definition that you are using to interpret my view.

Is that not what you are doing with my view?

It is statements like this that tell me clearly you are simply arguing to argue.

Seriously, how?

You know very well, because I have stated several times that salvation covers a broad range of individual aspects which cannot be confused with each other or you have a royal mess.

I know you try to classify each aspect in your terms certainly. Though I don't always find that it always correct.

For example, glorificatiion is "salvation" but it is not "new birth."

Yes I agree glorification is a part of salvation but it isn't initial justification or "new birth".

Now am I teaching more than one salvation?

Your term which I find singular in you. No one else to my knowledge has ever used this phrase "experiential salvation". I mean seriously what is that. We are either talking about salvation or we are talking about experiences. I can understand the experience of Salvation but when you use the term "experiential salvation" what other conclusion am I to come up with than this is a type of salvation apart from what is regularily meant.

Stop arguing to just argue or we will never get anywhere.

I am not. I'm just pointing out difficulties and how I differ from your perspective. Arguing would lead me to the lowest comon denominator which is insulting you. I have not attempted to do that.

Basic soteriology 101 will inform you that there are objective and subjective aspects in "salvation."

absolutely. So maybe you meant to say the experience one has in salvation rather than "experiential salvation". Is that what you meant to say? If that then is then what is someone else's experience to me or you? What we are discussing is our differing views of Salvation and the efficacy of its component parts and how they work together. The rest of your post just goes on to say I'm arguing to argue. No. I am discussing the Catholic position and what I believe to be the error in your position. Of course we are going to differ on several things thats the nature of this dialogue but I want to present in a fair manner my position. I mean there is a reason I'm no longer baptist and there is a reason you are not Catholic which boils down to our views of these very matters. Its expected that we disagree. I know that no matter how much I try and put forth evidence to support my position or how I debate the matter you will still hold your views. However, I am able to at least properly show the Catholic position. You can either agree or disagree but if you disagree expect that I may have some response as well.
Just as I expect you will disagree with my views.

you have tweaked the scriptures to fit your Catholic doctrines.

And I certainly think you certainly skewed the scriptures to fit your doctrines. Unfortunately, the is no Authority to Judge between you and I save God at the judgement. Even if we relied on consensus there is no guarantee that majority vote is correct. But we can both put forth our argument as reasonably as we can. And ask the Father in heaven to lead us in the right way.

 

[Yeshua1]

Does God require ANYTHING else in addition to one having faith in the person and work of Christ in order to have them saved by him?

Do good works complete or add to salvation, they are the means/basis for God to save
us?

At what point in time is a sincere RC saved by God, how would he know?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If they die before they "commit sin" they go straight to heaven?

Yes. Can I be more clear? Yes.

Here is where Catholics begin to parse "sin" to make this kind of soteriology possible.

This has nothing to do with parsing. An infant cannot willfully sin.

By Catholic definition All Sin is not equally sin in God's sight and not all sin is subject to God's judgment in God's sight in Catholic soteriology.

Oh, man you are way off. You've just shown that you don't understand Catholic view of sin! So, I'll explain as best as I can. "All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" - 1 Jn 5:17 Ie Mortal sin does lead to death which is on the level of Adam and Eve disobedience causing seperation from God the severing of the relationship with God. Venial sin is not that type of sin it certainly is an offense and a strain on your relationship with God but not a complete severing of the relationshipo (examples of what I mean: these are things like being too attached to watching TV. Or not controlling your thought life as you should). However, both are covered by Calvary and both need to be forgiven.

If dying infants go to heaven they go because Christ paid for ALL their sins not merely for PART of their sins or SPECIFIC types of sin

Nothing is said of specific types of sin in infant baptism. An infant who is baptized is saved just as is an adult. Because Christ paid for that sin as in the document I quoted suggested. These have not willfully sinned against God and origninal sin is not held against them. You have created an argument that doesn't even exist. That is a false argument.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Does God require ANYTHING else in addition to one having faith in the person and work of Christ in order to have them saved by him?

As long as that faith is an effectual faith in otherwords it does as it believes there is nothing else required. However we believe baptism is a work of Christ. But it his work alone. We are just participating in his divine life when we do so.

Do good works complete or add to salvation

Good works are the natural result of the Justified. If someone is not participating in the divine life of Christ then they are not his.

, they are the means/basis for God to save
us?

are they the means to transform us into his image which is an aspect of salvation ie sanctification? Then yes. But are they required for initial justification before entrance into salvation? No.

At what point in time is a sincere RC saved by God, how would he know?

A catholic is saved when they accept the free faith God has given him and he is baptized. If he commits sin after baptism then God is ready to forgive if he repents of that sin and he knows he's saved because Jesus promises to save him. However, if he rebells and does not repent of his sin at the point of his death he has forefeited his eternity with God. What we say is if the Christian dies in a state of sanctifying grace he is on his way to heaven.

 

[billwald]

>>Like juries, God declares us guilty or not guilty. I don't recall a NT verse where God declares us innocent.


>You are absolutely correct.

Thus in this life our righteousness is a legal fiction. God declares us righteous. We have our feet in two worlds, a duel citizenship.

 

[The Biblicist]

What does that have to do with grace? Is grace only applied to "knowledgeable people"?

If you cannot admit that infants are baptized without personal choice, and that the vast majority baptized every year by Catholics are infants then why are we even trying to discuss anything because if you will not admit the obvious then what will you admit?

Remember, justifying grace, by Catholic definition is received in conjunction with baptism and infants have no FREE CHOICE in this matter whatsoever.

The reason I point this out is because you claimed that justifying grace is always a matter of free choice to receive or reject and that is simply not true in the case of the vast and overwhelming majority of Catholics baptisms.

I've shown how your language in describing your belief and your explanation reveals the underlying "forensic" view.

How so? I have not read any explanation whatsoever from you! What I have read are accusations not explanations. You have just accused my position to be forensic. Then when I explain my position you consistently deny that I know my own position or that I am truely explaining my own position. Hence, I guess I am left with accepting your view of my position and your accusation that I do not understand my own view.

My doctrine of justification is forensic but that cannot possibly be said about other aspects of my soteriology. Regeneration, sanctification, glorification are not forensic at all but deal with the actual person and their subjective experience. Election is certainly neither forensic or subjective but is an objective aspect of salvation.

I know you try to classify each aspect in your terms certainly. Though I don't always find that it always correct.

Correct according to what and who? I thought I was explaining my view rather than defending my view!

Your term which I find singular in you. No one else to my knowledge has ever used this phrase "experiential salvation". I mean seriously what is that. We are either talking about salvation or we are talking about experiences. I can understand the experience of Salvation but when you use the term "experiential salvation" what other conclusion am I to come up with than this is a type of salvation apart from what is regularily meant.

You need to get out and read more widely. Experiential salvation is a very common expression used among many denominations by many different theologions. Perhaps, if I had used the synonym "subjective" salvation you could more easily see what I am talking about. Not all aspects of salvation are subjective or part of the experience of a person.

However, to accuse me of embracing a totally forensic salvation is simply wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

This has nothing to do with parsing. An infant cannot willfully sin.

You just proved my point by your second sentence. It makes no difference if sin is "willful" or "ignorant" or "omission" or etc. it is still sin and it still violates God's Law and it still must be paid for either by Christ or by the person committing the sin.

"All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" - 1 Jn 5:17

This text has nothing to do with the unregenerate or infants but is in the context of a "brother." I understand the Cathoic use but it is not biblical but rather a perversion of the Biblical text in its context.

Ie Mortal sin does lead to death which is on the level of Adam and Eve disobedience causing seperation from God the severing of the relationship with God. Venial sin is not that type of sin it certainly is an offense and a strain on your relationship with God but not a complete severing of the relationshipo (examples of what I mean: these are things like being too attached to watching TV. Or not controlling your thought life as you should). However, both are covered by Calvary and both need to be forgiven.

Again, you are just proving my point about "parsing" sin!

Nothing is said of specific types of sin in infant baptism. An infant who is baptized is saved just as is an adult.

According to Catholic thinking and Catholic mishandling of Scriptures that is a true statement. According to Biblical teaching it is an absolute false statement for many reasons. (1) The infant has NO CHOICE about baptism but the adult does and is required to voice that choice. (2) The infant has no confession prior to baptism but the Adult does; (3) The infant has neither repentance or faith expressed before or in baptism by his own free choice but the adult does.

There is no Biblical basis for infant baptism under the New Covenant whatsoever nor is there any basis for Catholic defined sacramentalism whatsoever.