Love Alone Saves (Part 2)

[steaver]

It seems to me that you have a tendency to allow the conversation to wander all over the place. Sure your questions are valid. And I am happy to speak to them. But if we want to get anywhere with regard to the stated subject matter at hand, I think we should try to keep focused. That doesn't mean we're always talking about the idea that "Love alone" can save. But it does mean that we're looking more closely at the underlying bases for our respective positions.

Herbert, It was you who posted the example about your wife. I responded to it.

As far as your questions above go, yes, even were I to be unfaithful to my wife, she'd still be my wife. And were the State of Michigan to issue a document which stated we were divorced, we'd still be, in God's eyes, married... until death do us part.

Now you should understand the security of the believer married to Christ.

 

[steaver]

a) Since the Scriptures do not come with an inspired Table of Contents how are you to know which books are and which books aren't actually God-breathed, as a matter of faith (as opposed to as a matter of scholarship or history)?

You are wrong. God Himself, declares through His prophets, tests that the people should use to determine who speaks for God and who does not. God used highly detailed prophecy and miracles to prove His chosen messengers. (Duet 18) So what Pope do you know who has performed miracles before the people on behalf of God?

b) Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Christian instructed to *only* accept doctrines which are clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. Therefore, to judge others' doctrines according to whether or not you find them clearly laid out in the Scriptures is to apply a test of others' doctrines which fails its own standard. It's a self-refuting position, a performative contradiction.

Wrong. (2Tim 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Why would a Christian accept anything other than proven words from God, Scripture?

c) When one "submits" to a doctrine only when he "agrees" with the doctrine, he's actually submitting to his own (fallible) judgment, and not Scripture (though he tells himself otherwise). He's convinced himself that he's clinging to an objective, revealed standard. However, such is not the case. This is precisely why you're utterly Scripturally convinced that Calvinism is, as a system, flawed. Meanwhile "MennoSota," apparently, thinks otherwise. Both of you maintain your conviction... But you can't both be right. Yet you both appeal to Scripture. So what is it that lies at the heart of your disagreement? Not Scripture! Rather, it's your own respective (fallible) interpretive paradigms, which you've mistaken for the direct revelation of Scripture, that account for your persistent differences.

This is true, but it remains a fact that we BOTH believe there is an infallible Scripture by which our beliefs and teaching/preaching shall be judged. We do not forfeit our responsibility to study, to show ourselves approved unto God, over to a man made counsel which will tell us what we are to believe. We understand their is a possibility we could be wrong, which makes us study deep. Menno wants to hear "well done, good and faithful servant" as do I. Whichever one of us is wrong, this wrong belief will be burned as wood, hay and stubble, and we will accept that, yet we ourselves shall be saved.

 

[steaver]

I am going to attempt to speak a little bit to what we recently identified as our most central point of disagreement (as far as this conversation is concerned). You look to this verse as a validation of your belief that one cannot lose his salvation:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

This is not the verse I look to for OSAS. This verse declares that one cannot reject Jesus Christ and still be saved through loving thy neighbour.

So what is, among other things, an essential lesson of this parable?:

• Just as the servant was forgiven and freed of his debt in the parable, so it is that according to the kingdom of heaven, we may be spiritually forgiven and freed in Christ.
• And just as the servant betrayed his master by not extending forgiveness to his debtor in the parable, so is it possible that, according to the kingdom of heaven, we can turn against God in sin.

You sin every day. You will have to determine which sin divorces you from Christ and then we can move forward.

 

[herbert]

The followers are 99% of the time going to go by what their leaders say regardless of what their church's written statements of faith declare. And why is this? Because the leaders spin what has been written even in their own statements. Perfect example is the RCC's declaration that those who hold to "Faith Alone" are accursed. We no exactly what the RCC meant by that when it was declared and now in the 21st century we have the RCC leaders spinning this into another meaning which does not condemn those who actually do believe in faith alone.

steaver,

I suspect that you're referring the anathema of Trent which states the following:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

First, consider the historical context of this Canon. This Canon was presented at a point in history during which "Christendom" was truly a descriptive term. These early days of upheaval (in the 16th Century) saw people who were born and baptized Catholic leaving the faith. There was rampant proliferation of heresies during the time. The Church was very clear then concerning the errors of these new and strange doctrines, doctrines which, in some cases were never even thought up until that very century. According to the social conditions of the time, it's really quite easy to see how these Canons came to be written.

Second, consider the audience. These canons were speaking to those who were Catholics who'd left the faith. They're not meant to be understood as personally directed toward you here in 2017. For as those early generations led later generations away from the genuine faith, there is a process which takes place which, with each successive generation, lessens the culpability of the individual believer until we reach such a time as this... For now, one finds that an average Christian hardly knows what the Christian upheaval of the 16th Century was even about... and they think Martin Luther was an American Civil Rights leader. Surely, the Church doesn't prescribe a "medicine" intended for 16th Century heretical Catholics to modern 21st Century Americans.

Also, consider the impact of the Enlightenment upon modern society. Look how secularism and scientism have come to define existence itself in the minds of so many people. It is within this new and bizarre social environment which the Church must find a way to present its timeless teachings. To "soften" a message, then, isn't to change, alter, or compromise a message, though. For any good teacher considers the readiness of his pupil when presenting his lesson. So it is that the Church presents the same truths to every generation according to its particular needs. There is no "spinning" when it comes to the teaching of the Church. Do individual bishops twist, warp, and corrupt things? Sure, all the time, even Popes do this (sadly). But the actual doctrines of the Church are unchanging and unchangeable. For the Church hands on that which it has received.

Finally, please understand that the Church still does deny the claim that we are saved by "Faith Alone." As Canon 11 states:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (my emphasis)

In other words, if one insists that it is by a faith which is truly alone, a faith divorced from the Charity of Christ, which saves him, he's flat out wrong. This teaching hasn't changed. This same idea is essential to what St. Paul said when he said that a person may have great faith, but if he has not love, he is nothing. In other words, if he claims to have faith, be saved, etc. but he treats another without love, he is nothing. And closing that great passage, St. Paul says that faith, hope, and love abide... but the greatest of these is love. Love is the animation of faith.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[steaver]

In other words, if one insists that it is by a faith which is truly alone, a faith divorced from the Charity of Christ, which saves him, he's flat out wrong. This teaching hasn't changed.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (my emphasis)

Your emphasis is selective. Why?

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

I saith the above Herbert. I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification.

You have just given the perfect example of how the RCC spins it's own declarations in order to support it's 21st century stand that all religious groups (Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Baptist, etc.) all have their own justification with God and will be saved apart from believing in Jesus Christ at all or in Jesus Christ alone.

 

[herbert]

Your emphasis is selective. Why?

steaver,

My emphasis is selective so that I may stress what I see as the most pertinent elements of a passage. To stress on portion of a text isn't a way of disregarding whatever else the text says.

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

I saith the above Herbert. I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification.

Yes, and this is something you have come to believe, which is not actually taught in the Holy Scriptures. And which no Christian professed until the 16th Century. Again, though, the anathemas of Trent weren't written with you in mind, though they do properly outline various important soteriological points. The point is this: If a person was a Catholic and he knew the Church to be founded by Christ but still left in disobedience, he is in a situation which is entirely different from that of a person who was never Catholic and has always believed (wrongly) that the Church is an evil institution (and has a long family history that believed such a thing). The Church acknowledges the fact that different people from different times have varying degrees of culpability when it comes to their rejection of the faith. Further, our common Baptism, common profession of the Trinity, and our common affirmation of various other authentic Christian doctrines does represent a certain unity among us, though it is an imperfect unity.

You have just given the perfect example of how the RCC spins it's own declarations in order to support it's 21st century stand that all religious groups (Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Baptist, etc.) all have their own justification with God and will be saved apart from believing in Jesus Christ at all or in Jesus Christ alone.

I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, I think that your remark above provides a good example of how you read various things into the Catechism (things which aren't there at all) then walk away (wrongly) convinced that you are right to dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church. Let me explain why: Here you claim that the Catholic Church takes a "21st century stand that all religious groups (Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Baptist, etc.) all have their own justification with God and will be saved apart from believing in Jesus Christ at all or in Jesus Christ alone." (my emphasis) If you look back at the Catechism, you'll find that such persons "may" be saved, not "will" be saved. You'll see that the Church looks at non-Christian practices as, in some cases, a sort of "preparation for the gospel." Again, a key phrase in the development of the Church's doctrine concerning salvation is this: "through no fault of their own." For it is possible that, through no fault of their own" various people don't come to know Christ. Neither do they come to know His Church. Does the Church say exactly who it is who me found not guilty of having rejected Christ? No. What the Church does is affirms the fact that whoever finds himself in Heaven will have passed between the One Mediator, Christ. Also, specifically with regard to Muslims, the Catechism says that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. To say that something (Monotheism) is included in a particular plan is not the same as saying "Islam Saves." Islam doesn't save, period. And the Church doesn't teach such a thing. So, again, your comment misrepresents the teaching of the Church.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[steaver]

Yes, and this is something you have come to believe, which is not actually taught in the Holy Scriptures. And which no Christian professed until the 16th Century.

I believe Paul was a Christian and I got this directly from Paul.

The point is this: If a person was a Catholic and he knew the Church to be founded by Christ but still left in disobedience, he is in a situation which is entirely different from that of a person who was never Catholic and has always believed (wrongly) that the Church is an evil institution (and has a long family history that believed such a thing). The Church acknowledges the fact that different people from different times have varying degrees of culpability when it comes to their rejection of the faith.

And then you say this.....

As a matter of fact, I think that your remark above provides a good example of how you read various things into the Catechism (things which aren't there at all) then walk away (wrongly) convinced that you are right to dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church.

After you just gave a whole bunch of explanation of that which is not there.

Again, a key phrase in the development of the Church's doctrine concerning salvation is this: "through no fault of their own." For it is possible that, through no fault of their own" various people don't come to know Christ.

Yes and we have never debated those "who no fault of their own" here. We have always debated those who clearly heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You keep on defending those who flat out reject Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, which btw is ALL practicing Muslims for the Quaran is clear, Mohammad wrote specifically on this matter declaring that Jesus was NOT the Son of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

steaver,

My emphasis is selective so that I may stress what I see as the most pertinent elements of a passage. To stress on portion of a text isn't a way of disregarding whatever else the text says.



Yes, and this is something you have come to believe, which is not actually taught in the Holy Scriptures. And which no Christian professed until the 16th Century. Again, though, the anathemas of Trent weren't written with you in mind, though they do properly outline various important soteriological points. The point is this: If a person was a Catholic and he knew the Church to be founded by Christ but still left in disobedience, he is in a situation which is entirely different from that of a person who was never Catholic and has always believed (wrongly) that the Church is an evil institution (and has a long family history that believed such a thing). The Church acknowledges the fact that different people from different times have varying degrees of culpability when it comes to their rejection of the faith. Further, our common Baptism, common profession of the Trinity, and our common affirmation of various other authentic Christian doctrines does represent a certain unity among us, though it is an imperfect unity.



I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, I think that your remark above provides a good example of how you read various things into the Catechism (things which aren't there at all) then walk away (wrongly) convinced that you are right to dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church. Let me explain why: Here you claim that the Catholic Church takes a "21st century stand that all religious groups (Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Baptist, etc.) all have their own justification with God and will be saved apart from believing in Jesus Christ at all or in Jesus Christ alone." (my emphasis) If you look back at the Catechism, you'll find that such persons "may" be saved, not "will" be saved. You'll see that the Church looks at non-Christian practices as, in some cases, a sort of "preparation for the gospel." Again, a key phrase in the development of the Church's doctrine concerning salvation is this: "through no fault of their own." For it is possible that, through no fault of their own" various people don't come to know Christ. Neither do they come to know His Church. Does the Church say exactly who it is who me found not guilty of having rejected Christ? No. What the Church does is affirms the fact that whoever finds himself in Heaven will have passed between the One Mediator, Christ. Also, specifically with regard to Muslims, the Catechism says that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. To say that something (Monotheism) is included in a particular plan is not the same as saying "Islam Saves." Islam doesn't save, period. And the Church doesn't teach such a thing. So, again, your comment misrepresents the teaching of the Church.

In Him,

Herbert

ONLY those who receive salvation by grace alone thru faith alone are saved, No jew or Muslim who denies jesus is God/Messiah will be saved!

 

[herbert]

I believe Paul was a Christian and I got this directly from Paul.

St. Paul does not teach "faith alone." He preaches that we cannot be saved according to works of the law. But he never divorces charity and faith the way that certain people began to in the 16th Century. St. Paul said "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." and "and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Those verses and the teaching we find in James 2:24 speak of the charity which flows from faith, of the "love of God, shed abroad in our hearts." This is the charity that accompanies faith. It's a charity of Christ, not of ourselves.

After you just gave a whole bunch of explanation of that which is not there.

I am confused. What did I explain that wasn't there?

Yes and we have never debated those "who no fault of their own" here. We have always debated those who clearly heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You keep on defending those who flat out reject Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, which btw is ALL practicing Muslims for the Quaran is clear, Mohammad wrote specifically on this matter declaring that Jesus was NOT the Son of God.

How can you say conclusively just what's going on in the heart and mind of a person who doesn't accept Christ? or hasn't yet accepted Christ? How exactly do you judge the degree of guilt which should be ascribed to such a person for this rejection? What background experiences does each person have? What about 500 years of Protestantism producing thousands of doctrines which, at this point, teach nearly everything under the Sun? What about hypocritical, inconsisten, corrupt bishops, priests, ministers, televangelists, etc? What about Carl Sagan? What about an intensely secular culture that practically blinds people to the truths of the Faith? CS Lewis wrote about all of this beautifully. We don't proclaim Christ so that we may sort and sift the members of the human family. That's God's job. So I am not defending those who "flat out" reject Christ. I have acknowledged the fact that if a person authentically encounters Christ and rejects Him, such a person has turned away from his only hope and cannot be saved (unless he repents and calls out to God at some future date). Just because I refuse to categorize people the way you do, doesn't mean I'm being inconsistent with the Scriptures.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[Adonia]

Just because I refuse to categorize people the way you do, doesn't mean I'm being inconsistent with the Scriptures.

Bingo!

 

[MennoSota]

The problem the RC has is it doesn't teach grace.
Instead it teaches merited works and mistakenly calls it grace. This is not biblical grace, but instead it is merited works falsely labeled "grace."

So...herbert is not describing salvation by grace through faith. Instead he is describing salvation by works through faith in God accepting the good works as merited unto salvation.

Add the twisted layer of imagining that Yeshua and other christened saints merited such favor from God that humans can get some of those merits via the saints or by receiving communion. This twisted system of works is disguised as grace, but it is not grace at all. It is works salvation...an anathema to the gospel of Christ.

Grace is God adopting us though we don't deserve it. Grace is God choosing to pardon us though we don't deserve it. We cannot work hard enough to ultimately be holy enough to receive God's pardon. We cannot be good enough to be adopted by our merit. It must be the Sovereign King casting His gaze upon our wretchedness and choosing to pardon us anyway.

 

[herbert]

ONLY those who receive salvation by grace alone thru faith alone are saved, No jew or Muslim who denies jesus is God/Messiah will be saved!

"Yeshua1,"

Notice how you change tenses here:

You say something about those who (by your estimation) are saved.

Then you say No... will be saved.

Catholics aren't saying who will or who will not "be saved." That is something God is going to decree by his authority.

Catholics are, however, happy to share with someone the gospel and tell him how he may be saved. We could say, for example “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Your insistence that salvation is by faith alone does not make it so. And as a matter of history, the doctrine of faith alone was not taught until the 16th Century, period. No Christian ever conceived of St. Paul's words (or any other Scriptures) in such a way as to conclude that faith and charity must be divorced from one another and only the former is sufficient for justification. That's why James 2:24 says so clearly "you see that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works also." These are not, however, works of the law whose observance could "earn" us Heaven. Rather, they are works wrought in the charity of Christ. Some have described them as His works done through us, which is why St. Paul says that we are co-laborers with Christ. This faith which saves cannot be opposed to the charity of Christ, period. That's the point that the Council of Trent insisted upon as it expressed the unchanging, apostolic faith within a social setting which was in a state of great upheaval, a state of which Hillaire Belloc said the following in 1938: “The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving.”

In Him,

Herbert

 

[Adonia]

The problem the RC has is it doesn't teach grace.
Instead it teaches merited works and mistakenly calls it grace. This is not biblical grace, but instead it is merited works falsely labeled "grace."

So...herbert is not describing salvation by grace through faith. Instead he is describing salvation by works through faith in God accepting the good works as merited unto salvation.

Add the twisted layer of imagining that Yeshua and other christened saints merited such favor from God that humans can get some of those merits via the saints or by receiving communion. This twisted system of works is disguised as grace, but it is not grace at all. It is works salvation...an anathema to the gospel of Christ.

Grace is God adopting us though we don't deserve it. Grace is God choosing to pardon us though we don't deserve it. We cannot work hard enough to ultimately be holy enough to receive God's pardon. We cannot be good enough to be adopted by our merit. It must be the Sovereign King casting His gaze upon our wretchedness and choosing to pardon us anyway.

Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church on grace as explained in the Catechism.

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46


1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

So we read over and over again that grace: "Is favor"; it is "the free and undeserved help that God gives us"; It is "a participation in the life of God"; it " depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative"; and it is "the gratuitous gift that God makes to us...".

Then going on into paragraph 2000 to 2005 the Church also teaches: Grace is "Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift"; It says "God's free initiative demands mans free response"; It also is "first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us". And that "Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith";

So Menno, it is free, free, free - that is what the Catholic Church first and foremost teaches about it and what the faithful believe. Once gain you misrepresent the truth about what the Holy Catholic Church teaches about grace.

 

[MennoSota]

Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church on grace as explained in the Catechism.

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

Grace is not undeserved "help" to respond. Grace is God giving us what we don't deserve. Your church adds works and says that God gives you the boost to save yourself.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

Here your church adds baptism as your work, which initiates God acting. That's not grace. That is works salvation.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

Correct, it is all God's work and none of our work. Any work we add makes grace no longer grace.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

Again with the added caveat of baptism, which destroys grace and makes it works.

So we read over and over again that grace: "Is favor"; it is "the free and undeserved help that God gives us"; It is "a participation in the life of God"; it " depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative"; and it is "the gratuitous gift that God makes to us...".

But we just read that the RC adds works, which nullifies grace. The RC skews what grace is and turns it into works.

Then going on into paragraph 2000 to 2005 the Church also teaches: Grace is "Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift"; It says "God's free initiative demands mans free response"; It also is "first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us". And that "Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith";

The problem is the Bible never teaches this. Grace is not "Please be my child" at which the human responds "Yes or No." First off, that makes God small and wimpy as He must await your approval of His choice. That is never taught in the Bible...ever.
Also, grace is very much experienced as we find ourselves being in Christ at our adoption. We are chosen, adopted and sealed by God. Why? Because God chose to do so...apart from our approval or disapproval.

So Menno, it is free, free, free - that is what the Catholic Church first and foremost teaches about it and what the faithful believe. Once gain you misrepresent the truth about what the Holy Catholic Church teaches about grace.

But, what you shared shows that it is not all God and none of you. You and your church add works and therefore nullify grace.

 

[Adonia]

Grace is not undeserved "help" to respond. Grace is God giving us what we don't deserve. Your church adds works and says that God gives you the boost to save yourself.

"Undeserved: and "don't deserve" are one and the same.

Here your church adds baptism as your work, which initiates God acting. That's not grace. That is works salvation.

We are told to be baptized, the Church adds nothing. I disagree with your assessment.

Again with the added caveat of baptism, which destroys grace and makes it works.

There is no caveat. Jesus said to be baptized - the baptism is the grace and grace flows from it - it (baptism) destroys nothing. We are participants with Christ, He tells us to participate. I disagree with your conclusions.

But we just read that the RC adds works, which nullifies grace. The RC skews what grace is and turns it into works.

No we didn't, those are your flawed conclusions.

The problem is the Bible never teaches this. Grace is not "Please be my child" at which the human responds "Yes or No." First off, that makes God small and wimpy as He must await your approval of His choice. That is never taught in the Bible...ever.
Also, grace is very much experienced as we find ourselves being in Christ at our adoption. We are chosen, adopted and sealed by God. Why? Because God chose to do so...apart from our approval or disapproval.

Even when the words are in front of you in black and white (and red), you misread them and misinterpret what the Church is saying. "God's free initiative"; "first and foremost the gift of the spirit"; "habitual gift"; "Is favor"; "the free and undeserved"; "the gratuitous gift; "gratuitous initiative". Those words are self-explanatory, yet you still cannot comprehend them. Unbelievable!

But, what you shared shows that it is not all God and none of you. You and your church add works and therefore nullify grace.

Nothing is added, we accept what is written in the Scriptures. You are completely mistaken.

 

[Adonia]

"Yeshua1,"

Notice how you change tenses here:

You say something about those who (by your estimation) are saved.

Then you say No... will be saved.

Catholics aren't saying who will or who will not "be saved." That is something God is going to decree by his authority.

Catholics are, however, happy to share with someone the gospel and tell him how he may be saved. We could say, for example “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Your insistence that salvation is by faith alone does not make it so. And as a matter of history, the doctrine of faith alone was not taught until the 16th Century, period. No Christian ever conceived of St. Paul's words (or any other Scriptures) in such a way as to conclude that faith and charity must be divorced from one another and only the former is sufficient for justification. That's why James 2:24 says so clearly "you see that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works also." These are not, however, works of the law whose observance could "earn" us Heaven. Rather, they are works wrought in the charity of Christ. Some have described them as His works done through us, which is why St. Paul says that we are co-laborers with Christ. This faith which saves cannot be opposed to the charity of Christ, period. That's the point that the Council of Trent insisted upon as it expressed the unchanging, apostolic faith within a social setting which was in a state of great upheaval, a state of which Hillaire Belloc said the following in 1938: “The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving.”

In Him,

Herbert

Oh come on Herbert, don't you know that it was nothing but a big lie that existed and was taught before the 15th/16th centuries? How dare you question the truth that took all that time to come about. Shame on you - now get with the program!

 

[herbert]

"Undeserved: and "don't deserve" are one and the same.

We are told to be baptized, the Church adds nothing. I disagree with your assessment.

There is no caveat. Jesus said to be baptized - the baptism is the grace and grace flows from it - it (baptism) destroys nothing. We are participants with Christ, He tells us to participate. I disagree with your conclusions.

Adonia,

You're making some great points here. I'd like to add a few thoughts to what you're saying here. As Ananias said to Paul " And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." and as St. Peter says in Acts 2 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." and as 1st Peter 3:21 says "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." the Scriptures indeed associate the Sacrament with our very salvation. And with all of this Scripture in mind we are made ready to make good contextual sense of what Christ Himself says to Nicodemus 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' These verses and others are why Christians have always taught that Baptism was necessary for salvation.

Another interesting thing about those who deny the clear teaching of Scripture in an effort to uphold their traditions of men (traditions such as "Calvinism") and dismiss Baptism (as a necessity) on the grounds that it qualifies as a "work" is this: These same people often do not hesitate to call others to repent and believe (through various evangelization efforts), as if those things don't qualify as works effected by an individual. "Repenting" and "believing" or "receiving" or "accepting" the Gospel are all "works." So even if someone accepts God's grace by "faith alone" in a Baptist Church, and answers an altar call, he is unavoidably performing a pious work. He is actively "bending his will" to accept the free offer of grace made by God. He is saying "Thy will be done." And no matter how one considers it, these are things that a person does. The reductio ad absurdum here is recognized in the inevitability of these arguments to avoid resulting in a demand for complete inactivity on the part of a human in the salvation process. He who "began a good work in you"? Think again. We must necessarily be understood as automatons, incapacitated agents, fully at the mercy of God's decrees, not "co-laborers" with Christ, as St. Paul says, but as passive subjects utterly and completely receptive of the coercion of His will. This is where the fundamentalism (particularly Calvinism) of Christianity begins to parallel various rather ugly aspects of Sunni Islam.

Again, great insights, Adonia.

In Him,

Herbert

 

[Yeshua1]

"Yeshua1,"

Notice how you change tenses here:

You say something about those who (by your estimation) are saved.

Then you say No... will be saved.

Catholics aren't saying who will or who will not "be saved." That is something God is going to decree by his authority.

Catholics are, however, happy to share with someone the gospel and tell him how he may be saved. We could say, for example “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Your insistence that salvation is by faith alone does not make it so. And as a matter of history, the doctrine of faith alone was not taught until the 16th Century, period. No Christian ever conceived of St. Paul's words (or any other Scriptures) in such a way as to conclude that faith and charity must be divorced from one another and only the former is sufficient for justification. That's why James 2:24 says so clearly "you see that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works also." These are not, however, works of the law whose observance could "earn" us Heaven. Rather, they are works wrought in the charity of Christ. Some have described them as His works done through us, which is why St. Paul says that we are co-laborers with Christ. This faith which saves cannot be opposed to the charity of Christ, period. That's the point that the Council of Trent insisted upon as it expressed the unchanging, apostolic faith within a social setting which was in a state of great upheaval, a state of which Hillaire Belloc said the following in 1938: “The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving.”

In Him,

Herbert

The scriptures are so clear that salvation has justification from God unto us happen atonement that the sinner receives Jesus thru and by faith, and God declares that person to now be eternal secured in Christ...

paul address how to get saved, and there are NO Sacramental graces needed to partake of in order to get saved, while James addresses how to live to shown have now been saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh come on Herbert, don't you know that it was nothing but a big lie that existed and was taught before the 15th/16th centuries? How dare you question the truth that took all that time to come about. Shame on you - now get with the program!

the Gospel of rome is NOT the one found in the bible....

 

[utilyan]

You are wrong. God Himself, declares through His prophets, tests that the people should use to determine who speaks for God and who does not. God used highly detailed prophecy and miracles to prove His chosen messengers. (Duet 18) So what Pope do you know who has performed miracles before the people on behalf of God?


Wrong. (2Tim 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Why would a Christian accept anything other than proven words from God, Scripture?



This is true, but it remains a fact that we BOTH believe there is an infallible Scripture by which our beliefs and teaching/preaching shall be judged. We do not forfeit our responsibility to study, to show ourselves approved unto God, over to a man made counsel which will tell us what we are to believe. We understand their is a possibility we could be wrong, which makes us study deep. Menno wants to hear "well done, good and faithful servant" as do I. Whichever one of us is wrong, this wrong belief will be burned as wood, hay and stubble, and we will accept that, yet we ourselves shall be saved.

"Wrong. (2Tim 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Why would a Christian accept anything other than proven words from God, Scripture?"

Because God says so. Having eyeballs is profitable for doctrine that doesn't equate to "only eyeballs"

Its profitable to drink milk for nutrition, that does not mean ONLY milk is nutritious or that milk is nutrition itself.


He could have easily wrote scripture IS doctrine, scripture IS instruction in righteousness but did not. Profitable means it helps.

Its profitable to have a fire to keep warm. Doesn't mean fire is the only thing that keeps a person warm.

Scripture itself gives good example with Peter concerning the gentiles. God gives him vision directs Cornelius to meet Peter.

Had the church held to the view of scripture alone there is no grounds for questioning whether circumcision of gentiles was not necessary.

Scripture is always right, Any RULE, Instruction or Law that is not backed by scripture is a false rule, false instruction and false law.

There is a RULE a Law, a beautiful law, it LOOKS PERFECT, the rule goes like this, Everything christian the sole and only and final rule of faith is the holy scripture.

I would LOVE to have a rule like that, its just beautiful, No matter how much I like it, Its not in there. That rule is a MAN MADE rule that does not exist in scripture.

Show us the verse in scripture that says this.

Scripture is perfect, agreed. Scripture is true, agreed. Scripture is a good thing, agreed. Scripture is God breathed, agreed. Scripture was written by people guided by the holy spirit, agreed.

Amen to scripture. Hallelujah to the word of God. Amen to not adding anything extra.


Scripture is the only and final rule of faith, We are saying that is ADDING EXTRA, that is going beyond what is written.

Show us a verse that says that. Not a verse that say well scripture is important, we are not debating that, Or this verse that says its PROFITABLE which means helpful, we are not saying scripture is not helpful.