Justification - Rome versus Baptists

[Thinkingstuff]

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?

False delemma. I never said infants are baptized by their choice I said their faith is ultimately their choice. However, with the graces provided at baptism and strong community support they have a more free choice for their faith (at a later point) then if they weren't interred to begin with. You can be baptized but still reject the faith at a later point. Whereas there is no choice if they were never baptized save conversion at a later point in their lives. You are trying to suggest I said Children are baptized by their choice. I never said that. And you can't prove that I did. They are entered into citizenship but just like anywhere else they can reject it. So this argument of yours is a straw man.

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

You've shown a lack of understanding of what I actually said by this statement. Man's natural state is Heaven before the fall baptism restores man to being able to truelly choose as he was able to truelly choose in the garden. When he reaches the age where he can make choices to sin or not then it truelly is a matter of choice to continue to recieve or reject the faith freely given. Again you show a false delemma.

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.

That is not an accusation. It is a fact. Your own language shows your position to be forensic. You just told Biwald in the above post that he was correct that we are "legally" declared righteous which occures in your arguments at a singular point in time. That by definition is forensic. Your theology just based on your statement declairs it to be so. And his says that we do not become righteous but are only declaired so and that there is dual citizenship in both kingdoms. Catholics don't believe that at all. We are either a citizen of the kingdom of God or we are citizens of this world. We prove to which we belong by our lives. If in reciept of faith we are diplomates in this worldly kingdom for a time but our citizenship is heavenly. However, pointing out the forensic nature of your theology by your own argument is not an accusation its just showing the nature of it. And it certainly doesn't compare to your accusations of me that I just want to argue. Or make personal jabs which I have not done to you.

My doctrine of justification is forensic but that cannot possibly be said about other aspects of my soteriology.

You can't take justification out of your soteriology it is a key element.

Regeneration, sanctification, glorification are not forensic

I beg to differ with you and let me explain why. When does one become Glorified according to you? Regeneration and sanctification are the only things that aren't forensic in your view. In fact it is my view that no matter where someone is in their sanctification process according to your theology that when they die the immediately enter into glorification. The only aspect of your view of glorification that isn't forensic is that its not just a legal declaration. However, there is no true requirement to be sanctified as long as you have believe which questions my view of yours about sanctifiation not being in a sense forensic. Ie.. the common statement "I'm blood bought (past tense), Saved (past tense), and sanctified (past tense)" either way if not sanctified in this life immediate sanctification (in your view I believe) with glorification is attained at physical death. Note that though I say death a real believer is not dead. That is how I see your view. If you want to explain how you differ from this by all means go ahead.

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

I think you were more forcused on insulting me than explaining your view. However, I'm not asking you to defend your view but if you say its not forensic then explain how. Justification is inseperately connected to Salvation.

You need to get out and read more widely. Experiential salvation is a very common expression used among many denominations by many different theologions.

Who? Where? I never heard of it and I've graduate from Lee University which is Pentecostal and from Eastern University which is American Baptist. And I have associates that are graduates of Gordon Conwell. And my brother in law is a advid Ruckman follower (which makes family get togethers difficult). I think I'm pretty widely read. But I can't say I've read everything so maybe there is a theological aspect to "Eperiential Salvation". Perhaps you can direct me to an author.

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

Provide me a book or paper discussing this issue so I can see what you are talking about.

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

Okay. You don't have a Total forensic view of Salvation you have a totally forensic view of a key part of salvation. Is that better?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

Two seperate topics. You haven't seperated the topic and are stubornly combining two topics of the catholic view and trying to make it one. Again there is the Topic of Infant baptism which has nothing to do with catogorizing sin. And then there is a second topic that does talk about catorgorizing sin. Two issues.

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

there is.

 

[The Biblicist]

Okay. You don't have a Total forensic view of Salvation you have a totally forensic view of a key part of salvation. Is that better?

Thank you! I have never denied that justification is forensic but I have denied that one aspect of my soteriology does not necesstate all aspects are forensic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Two seperate topics. You haven't seperated the topic and are stubornly combining two topics of the catholic view and trying to make it one. Again there is the Topic of Infant baptism which has nothing to do with catogorizing sin. And then there is a second topic that does talk about catorgorizing sin. Two issues.


there is.

Well, lets get to the real issue then. The whole Roman soteriology and ecclesiology completely crash and burn if sacramentalism is proven false and it is false.

Abraham is Pauls primary illustration for the doctrine of justification by faith in both Romans and Galatians.

1. Abraham was PRE-Israel

2. Abraham was PRE-Moses and Mosaic Law

3. Abraham's justification by faith was PRE-ceremonial rites.

Catholicism admits that circumcision, and particularly the circumcision of Christ is sacramentally comparable to baptism and this is admitted at least two times in the CCC.

Abraham was justified "IN" uncircumcision and not "IN" circucmision and thus WITHOUT circumcision - Rom. 4:9-11

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, lets get to the real issue then. The whole Roman soteriology and ecclesiology completely crash and burn if sacramentalism is proven false and it is false.

Abraham is Pauls primary illustration for the doctrine of justification by faith in both Romans and Galatians.

1. Abraham was PRE-Israel

2. Abraham was PRE-Moses and Mosaic Law

3. Abraham's justification by faith was PRE-ceremonial rites.

Catholicism admits that circumcision, and particularly the circumcision of Christ is sacramentally comparable to baptism and this is admitted at least two times in the CCC.

Abraham was justified "IN" uncircumcision and not "IN" circucmision and thus WITHOUT circumcision - Rom. 4:9-11

Paul spoke about Abraham as an example polemically to deal with specific Jewish identifiers as I've discussed before. There is nothing in Paul which does away with sacramentalism especially when you regard James who put the distinction clearly in the universal perpective rather than directing it specifically at the Judiazers.

Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul spoke about Abraham as an example polemically to deal with specific Jewish identifiers as I've discussed before. There is nothing in Paul which does away with sacramentalism especially when you regard James who put the distinction clearly in the universal perpective rather than directing it specifically at the Judiazers.

Ok, we both have put forth are perspectives but that proves nothing. I will prove that Paul's presentation is squarely in the middle of a universal application to both Jews and Gentiles and I will prove it by the Biblical context alone as anything extra Biblical is mere speculative and uninspired.

On the other hand, you must demonstrate from the context this is a limited application. I don't think you can IF honesty and integrity to the context are guiding principles.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

when does the Holy spirt come to indwell us as christians? Wher do we experience new life in christ, new natures?

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.

Are they required in order to be saved by God? if the person stops in good works, does he lose eternal life? And just WHEN does he possess eternal life?

just trying to see how the RCC can still be caliming they have the 'real" Gospel of Christ alone, as they still refuse to see that the Lord grants eternal life SOLELY by His grace, received by faith alone, and that our good works earn us eternal rewards but contribute NOTHING to salvation, as that was/is etenerally secured for us by God!

just concerned that there would many RC who rest upon their water baptism or the taking of mass to be the basis of God salvation, yet never coming to know the Gospel of Grace in christ!





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.

Are you saying that one can be justified by God before he is even saved by God and having eternal life? Are you saying that sacraments somehow infuse us with more grace apart and addition to that granted by God to us when saved by the Cross? The bible states that we are conformed daily by him into image of Christ, and that comes by faith and allowing the Holy spirit to do that work in us! NOT thru external means like sacraments!

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.

[

quote] Where is the assurance of salvation? Does a catholic hold to absent from his body immediatly into presense of Christ in heaven? Can he forfet salvation by refusing to do the sacraments or by cease being catholic than?
the ONLY sin given by God unforgiven is to habitually reject jesus as saviour, 'spitting" on his sacrifice...

how can a Christian lose salvation as long asChrist died for him, and God the father will NEVER lose him, eternally secured?

ONE sin is enough to have God judge us, why is there sins that damn even after saved, others don't?[/quote]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems you got a few misunderstanding issues about Catholic doctrine. However, let me know I can't read what you've colored in light blue so I have no idea what you are saying in those places. But let me correct the errors I do see.

just trying to see how the RCC can still be caliming they have the 'real" Gospel of Christ alone, as they still refuse to see that the Lord grants eternal life SOLELY by His grace, received by faith alone, and that our good works earn us eternal rewards but contribute NOTHING to salvation, as that was/is etenerally secured for us by God!

Catholics believe that God's salvation is given by Grace alone. The Catholic view is that We are saved by Grace through Faith working in love. Period. Good works are a participation in the life of Christ as is baptism. But its the Merits of Jesus alone that grant us salvation. Your problem is you can't see salvaton beyond a forensic condition. You believe its a singular event and done. Whereas we believe there are entry points into salvation and the divine life thereafter is salvation continued. Thus no matter what we do we cannot merit eternal life. Period. Grace makes us see and understand the gift of Faith. Grace allows us to accept faith. Once we accept faith for ourselves that is the entry point into salvation or the gate into salvation and the divine life. Once we enter through that gate provided by faith we partake in the divine life being baptized does as it symbolizes (its not a work) Good works are the results of living out our faith because now we are truelly sons of God and have the rights and responsibilities as heirs.

just concerned that there would many RC who rest upon their water baptism or the taking of mass to be the basis of God salvation, yet never coming to know the Gospel of Grace in christ!

If a Catholic does not have faith and participates in these practices they do not attain the full promises and grace these practices provide and condemn themselves. However, in faith these activities which are participation in the divine life are effecasious and add to the divine life already recieved and these things work to the fullness of our salvation. If a Catholic were what we call cultural catholic or a catholic in name only they are decieving themselves and have not converted themselves to the faith. That being said the basis of a Catholic salvation is Jesus Christ alone. And Salvation brings about our transformation into his image.

Where is the assurance of salvation?

In the statement Jesus made in the scriptures. "Remain in me, as I also remain in you" Because it is clear that if we do not remain in Jesus then "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." which is scriptural discription of hell.

Does a catholic hold to absent from his body immediatly into presense of Christ in heaven

Yes and God's presense is a "consuming fire" as described in Hebrews "for our “God is a consuming fire."

Can he forfet salvation by refusing to do the sacraments or by cease being catholic than?

He can forfet salvation by rejecting the faith given to him.
A note because I think you really are asking a different question. Can a Catholic forfet salvation if he leaves the Catholic Church. That depends on his understanding and reciept of the faith. As I've just said there are many Catholics who do not have faith and will go to hell because though the Catholic Church teaches the faith many reject it even while surrounding themselves in the trappings of the Church. If they do not know what they believe and they leave the "trappings of the Catholic Church" for a protestant denomination there may be salvation for them if they attain faith from grace that works in love. These are the ones who believed they worshiped statues and made gods and goddesses of the saints. I would say these first did not know their own faith they claimed to have and if that is what they were doing it is best for them to have stopped doing such. However, the more you know the more you are responsible for. If a person leaves the church knowing full its proper teaching and yet rejects that faith then they have rejected Jesus Christ. I place men like John Crossian into this catagory.

the ONLY sin given by God unforgiven is to habitually reject jesus as saviour, 'spitting" on his sacrifice...

By rejecting faith and not repenting of your sins isn't that what you've just described? however, I agree with this statement. God is always willling to forgive the repentant heart.

how can a Christian lose salvation as long asChrist died for him, and God the father will NEVER lose him, eternally secured?

if he rejects that salvation by not remaining in Jesus Christ.

ONE sin is enough to have God judge us, why is there sins that damn even after saved, others don't?

All sins are an offense. Some sins sever our relationship with God. Others are the result of concusipence. Let me ask you a question if you have a choice between prayer and watching a tv show and choose the tv show will that sever your relationship with God? Or will God require you to just be more disciplined. If you prefer to eat a full stack ribs with greasy fries regularily when you are overweight further causeing damage to your temple created in the image of God, have you severed your relationship with God? These are sins that don't sever our relationship with God but they are still an offense. These are venial sins and still must be repented of, but they won't send you to hell unless you keep choising them over God and they become your god. However, if you willfully break any of the Ten commandments commit adultry etc.. then what does that do to your relationship with God? Without repentance of these types of sin where does that leave you?

 

[The Biblicist]

TS does a fine job defining the Catholic view of salvation here. A view that is not only totally incompatible with Scriptures but is explicitly condemned by the Scriptures. Basically it is the doctrine of the Galatian heretics that Paul condemned - mixture of Old Covenant and New Covenant ideas.

Catholics believe that God's salvation is given by Grace alone.

Because Catholics define "grace" to include works which Paul absolutely denies in regard to justification (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8-10)

The Catholic view is that We are saved by Grace through Faith working in love. Period.

What Catholics mean is that the Grace of justification and regeneration is received in baptism and maintained through sacraments and that "faith" is defined ultimately as "faithuflness" or "good works" and thus "love" is "good works" that ultimately justify one before God.

Good works are a participation in the life of Christ as is baptism. But its the Merits of Jesus alone that grant us salvation.

What Catholics mean to say is they believe regenerative life is imparted in baptism along with the grace of justication and that it is only through participation in the sacraments that Catholics participate in the life and merits of Jesus Christ.

"Once we enter through that gate provided by faith we partake in the divine life being baptized" - TS

Your problem is you can't see salvaton beyond a forensic condition. You believe its a singular event and done.

This is the Roman Catholic slander of our position. Regeneration/justification is a singular event in time and is done. However, reegeneration is the beginning of the progressive sanctification of our Person whereby we are being progressively changed and our actual daily life is being saved for the glory of God and we are being progressively conformed to the image of Jesus Christ completed only in glorification.

Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the forensic act whereby the believer is "perfected" positionally which is an act of eternal and completed sanctification by the finished and complete satisfaction provided in the works of Jesus Christ which secures eternal life and heaven for the believer (Heb. 10:10,14). This is precisely why Paul can speak in the past tense completed actions of salvation in regard to His people in Romans 8:28-31 as all whom are foreknown will be glorified.

Whereas we believe there are entry points into salvation and the divine life thereafter is salvation continued. Thus no matter what we do we cannot merit eternal life. Period.

Notice the plural "entry POINTS" whereas the scripture restricts to only ONE entry point into salvation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal. 1:8-9). And thus Catholics have many EXIT points to salvation as well.

Catholics believe salvation is completely conditioned upon the individual's continuing participation in the merits/life of Christ = faithfulness = works = defined as Roman Catholic "grace."

Grace makes us see and understand the gift of Faith. Grace allows us to accept faith.

The vast majority (at least 95%) of Catholics enter the Catholic church as infants and so what Catholics teach here is simply utterly false in regard to infants. If it were true there would be no need for later confirmation. Infants are not made to see and understand faith neither does grace allow infants to "accept faith" as they are incapable of doing so. So the Catholic doctrine of proxy faith enters picture at this point.

Once we accept faith for ourselves that is the entry point into salvation or the gate into salvation and the divine life.

Nowhere does Scripture speak about or teach "accept faith" as Biblical faith IS accepting or commiting trust in something or someone. This Catholic idea is similar to the Pentecostal idea of "faith in faith." Instead, the Bible teaches that faith is a gift of God which IS believing in Christ (Jn. 6:64-65).

Once we enter through that gate provided by faith we partake in the divine life being baptized does as it symbolizes (its not a work) Good works are the results of living out our faith because now we are truelly sons of God and have the rights and responsibilities as heirs.

Here is where the crux of Catholic Salvation exists. There is no justification, no regeneration, no salvation apart from a little water sprinkled on the head of a person.

However, even TS admits they are "PRACTICES" (see next quote) and the term "practice" or DOING is a Biblical definition of works.

If a Catholic does not have faith and participates in these practices they do not attain the full promises and grace these practices provide and condemn themselves.

Interesting that here TS makes a distinction between "faith" and "participates in these practices." Is this a "faith" without works as he says it is a "faith" without participation "in these practices"???????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Notice the plural "entry POINTS" whereas the scripture restricts to only ONE entry point into salvation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal. 1:8-9). And thus Catholics have many EXIT points to salvation as well.

Unfortunately, you're making to much of my typo. Having been a Security Policeman in the Air Force I'm used to saying Entry Control Points or Entry Points. Seeing my use of the singular with gate should be evidence enough I meant point rather than points.

As for a mischaracterization of salvation theory by Yeshua you're entirely wrong. That may be true for you but not necissarily for him. Saved is a singular event for Yeshua upon which there resolution entirely in that a person can not then reject it and there is a guarantee of it. I was responding to his assurance question. He believes by his language all is already said and done. Sanctification is optional. Whether or not sanctification occures in the believer is not relevant because all sanctification is met in the single glorification event in his view.

 

[The Biblicist]

Unfortunately, you're making to much of my typo. Having been a Security Policeman in the Air Force I'm used to saying Entry Control Points or Entry Points. Seeing my use of the singular with gate should be evidence enough I meant point rather than points.

However, Rome believes in many entrance POINTS as in PLURAL. You have defined the meaning of "point" to be equal to "gate" and the gate the infant comes through is not the gate for non-infants as I proved in that post. Read what I said before responding.

Infants are not made to see and understand faith neither does grace allow infants to "accept faith" as they are incapable of doing so. So the Catholic doctrine of proxy faith enters picture at this point. - TB

On the other hand, I believe regenerative faith is one and the same in both dying infants and adults and the object is the same - Jesus Christ.

Saved is a singular event for Yeshua upon which there resolution entirely in that a person can not then reject it and there is a guarantee of it. I was responding to his assurance question. He believes by his language all is already said and done. Sanctification is optional. Whether or not sanctification occures in the believer is not relevant because all sanctification is met in the single glorification event in his view.

Even you believe it is optional in the case of dying infants. The extent of sanctification differs greatly from the theif on the cross or similar salvation experiences to the long life of Abraham. I doubt if you are correctly representing the views of Yeshua.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

However, Rome believes in many entrance POINTS as in PLURAL. You have defined the meaning of "point" to be equal to "gate" and the gate the infant comes through is not the gate for non-infants as I proved in that post. Read what I said before responding.

Now you're just making garbage up. The Catholic Church believes that Everyone who is saved is saved by Grace. And that Jesus Christ is the only gate to salvation. Your point is not valid.

Infants are not made to see and understand faith neither does grace allow infants to "accept faith" as they are incapable of doing so. So the Catholic doctrine of proxy faith enters picture at this point

You did not understand one thing I said about infant baptism. So according to you if someone cannot understand faith who is mentally retarded then grace is not provided to them because they cannot "accept faith". You've condemn all infants by this same statement. Sorry I can't buy that. There is no Catholic Doctrine of proxy. All baptised infants go into heaven by Jesus Christ and his grace as well. Again you are making stuff up and you accuse me of falsly claiming forensic doctrine on others! Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

On the other hand, I believe regenerative faith is one and the same in both dying infants and adults and the object is the same - Jesus Christ.

According to you regenerative faith is progressive and ties in with sanctification. What progression is their in an infants death? You contradict yourself.

Even you believe it is optional in the case of dying infants. The extent of sanctification differs greatly from the theif on the cross or similar salvation experiences to the long life of Abraham. I doubt if you are correctly representing the views of Yeshua.

I don't know ask him.

 

[Yeshua1]

Unfortunately, you're making to much of my typo. Having been a Security Policeman in the Air Force I'm used to saying Entry Control Points or Entry Points. Seeing my use of the singular with gate should be evidence enough I meant point rather than points.

As for a mischaracterization of salvation theory by Yeshua you're entirely wrong. That may be true for you but not necissarily for him. Saved is a singular event for Yeshua upon which there resolution entirely in that a person can not then reject it and there is a guarantee of it. I was responding to his assurance question. He believes by his language all is already said and done. Sanctification is optional. Whether or not sanctification occures in the believer is not relevant because all sanctification is met in the single glorification event in his view.[/QUOTE]


NO! justification itself is a one time singular event , as at that time god freely and fully justifies us on the basis of the Cross of Christ, grants us new natures, and His HS in us!

AFTER that has occured, THEN the life long process of getting confirmed into image of Christ starts !

2 seperate things here in view, salvation occurs onetime, at moment of one receiving Christ by faith, but than entire other process starts, but requires us tobe saved BEFORE it starts!

Catholics confuse and mingle the two!

 

[The Biblicist]

Now you're just making garbage up. The Catholic Church believes that Everyone who is saved is saved by Grace. And that Jesus Christ is the only gate to salvation. Your point is not valid.

That is Grace as defined by Rome which is a perversion of God's definition of grace.

Rome defines "grace" to include the "works" performed by men or what the Bible declares to be "GOOD works" (Eph. 2:10). Keeping the commandments of God under the leadership of the Holy Spirit are "good WORKS." Baptism is a "good work" as it is a commandment of God.

However, the scripture teaches that justification by faith is without such good "works" (Rom. 4:5-6) and Abraham was a believer when he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11) but obedience to this divine ordinance as a believer did not justify him or regenerate him and the CCC declares that circumcision under the Old Covenant is sacramental as baptism under the new covenant.

So according to you if someone cannot understand faith who is mentally retarded then grace is not provided to them because they cannot "accept faith". You've condemn all infants by this same statement. Sorry I can't buy that.

Salvation is NEVER conditioned upon UNDERSTANDING faith! Never ever! Neither does the scripture teach faith in faith! Never ever! REGENERATIVE faith is something freely given by grace to all of God's elect (Jn. 6:64-65) and the very nature of that faith is BELIEVING IN CHRIST (Jn. 6:44-45). Hence, dying infants are regenerated and thus believers in Christ because there is no such thing as unregenerated saved persons or unregenerated believers any more than there is regenerated unbelievers or regenerated unsaved persons.

John the Baptist was made to understand in the womb and leaped for joy when the birth of Christ was announced proving that being an infant does not restrict God from doing what He pleases.

There is no Catholic Doctrine of proxy. All baptised infants go into heaven by Jesus Christ and his grace as well. Again you are making stuff up and you accuse me of falsly claiming forensic doctrine on others! Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

The Roman Catholic Catechism #1253- 1255 spell out proxy faith for infants.

#1253 .....But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithulf can believe....The catechumen or THE GODPARENT is asked, "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is "faith".


Hence, the Godparent acts as PROXY in behalf of the child and asks in behalf of the child while the catechuemen can ask for himself.

According to you regenerative faith is progressive and ties in with sanctification.

No, that is not my position. Regenerative faith in justification is a completed non-repeatable action at the point of regeneration and continues as a completed action never to be repeated. The only progressive is the completed state.

Sanctifying faith is a progressive maturing incompleted action culiminated in glorification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is Grace as defined by Rome which is a perversion of God's definition of grace.

Your statement is both predujicial and polemical. Factually questionable.

The Roman Catholic Catechism #1253- 1255 spell out proxy faith for infants.

#1253 .....But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithulf can believe....The catechumen or THE GODPARENT is asked, "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is "faith".


Hence, the Godparent acts as PROXY in behalf of the child and asks in behalf of the child while the catechuemen can ask for himself.

The child is entered into the community of believers and that community already has faith. The request is to pass on that faith to the child so that when the child is of the age of consent they can freely accept that faith for themselves. The child has yet to "attain faith". But is still given grace by God so that he has true freedom in that choice when it is time. Proxy therefore is not a good reference to call that belief.

No, that is not my position. Regenerative faith in justification is a completed non-repeatable action at the point of regeneration and continues as a completed action never to be repeated. The only progressive is the completed state.

You're leaning back towards forensic.

Sanctifying faith is a progressive maturing incompleted action culiminated in glorification

Therefore glorification can happen without sanctification and thus no real need for sanctification.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your statement is both predujicial and polemical. Factually questionable.

Factually correct (Rom. 3:24; 4:3-6; 16-22; 11:5-6; Eph. 2:8-10).

The child is entered into the community of believers and that community already has faith. The request is to pass on that faith to the child so that when the child is of the age of consent they can freely accept that faith for themselves. The child has yet to "attain faith". But is still given grace by God so that he has true freedom in that choice when it is time. Proxy therefore is not a good reference to call that belief.

"Proxy" is exactly what it is. First, you admit the child does not have faith for himself and will not even after baptism until later, however, the CCC says it is impossible to be baptized without faith and so if it does not come from the child then from whom? Answer - the godparent and church. Faith comes by PROXY - by the church giving its faith to the unfaithful, by the godparent asking for faith from another source than the child.

You're leaning back towards forensic.

Unquestionably, but leaning backward before forensic justification. I leaning backward to non-forensic aspects of savlation before the world began even to the eternal purpose of election.

Therefore glorification can happen without sanctification and thus no real need for sanctification.

Dying infants proves that to be true! The death of the theif on the cross proves very very very little sanctifying time is necessary to go to heaven and so the theif proves that to be true. It seems that you would deny any "real" progressive sanctification occurred in the thief or someone with a death bed expeirence like him?

 

[Yeshua1]

Your statement is both predujicial and polemical. Factually questionable.

The child is entered into the community of believers and that community already has faith. The request is to pass on that faith to the child so that when the child is of the age of consent they can freely accept that faith for themselves. The child has yet to "attain faith". But is still given grace by God so that he has true freedom in that choice when it is time. Proxy therefore is not a good reference to call that belief.


You're leaning back towards forensic.

Therefore glorification can happen without sanctification and thus no real need for sanctification.

Glorification happens to believers at the time of the rapture/Second Coming of Christ, as THEN we will receive bodies as jesus now exists in...

Sanctification process while here on earth is to get us more as Jesus is thoughts and deeds/actions wise, and prepares us to do good works and glorify God, but NOT used by God to 'glorify" us!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Glorification happens to believers at the time of the rapture/Second Coming of Christ, as THEN we will receive bodies as jesus now exists in...

Sanctification process while here on earth is to get us more as Jesus is thoughts and deeds/actions wise, and prepares us to do good works and glorify God, but NOT used by God to 'glorify" us!

However, according to your soteriology do you agree sanctification is optional? A person can take it or leave it and still having already been saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

However, according to your soteriology do you agree sanctification is optional? A person can take it or leave it and still having already been saved?

believe that the person saved by God should desire to walk with him and becoming more like Him, by his grace and enabling....

we are not saying a saint should sin willingly, but that he should strive to obey the Lord, for that is the will of God for his life...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

believe that the person saved by God should desire to walk with him and becoming more like Him, by his grace and enabling....

we are not saying a saint should sin willingly, but that he should strive to obey the Lord, for that is the will of God for his life...

I would agree with that a person would desire to walk with him and become like him however you still make santification an option.