Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[DHK]

This brings up the question that, so far, everyone in this forum has dodged. I keep hearing how any real Christian would be truly miserable as a member of the Catholic Church and would 'come out of her'. I have read many of 'Thinkingstuffs' past posts, including many while he was still a Baptist. I have no doubt he has a better understanding of Catholic theology than anyone posting on this board. He says he returned to the Catholic Church after extensive study and now not only is happy to be back but that he has seen much fruit as a result.

Are you saying that IF he does not leave the Catholic Church he must not ever have been truly born again to begin with?

Not trying to be contentious or pick a fight. The answer to this question is important to me.

I have met some very happy and content Muslims. They are content in their non-Christian religions, content not having to submit to the Creator, but willing to submit to another God instead.
The same holds true for many false religion, especially those cults or religions that base their faith on works. The "joy" that one receives from the satisfaction of "knowing" (being deceived) that they have earned their way to heaven (via baptism, confirmation, church membership, etc.) is very rewarding. They don't need Christ; they have their religion. So it is with most of our religious culture.

With one who claims to be saved and a member of a false religion there is one of two possibilities:
1. He was never saved in the first place.
2. If he was saved, God will chasten him, not let him go, and he will be a very miserable person until he gets right with God. Study Hebrews 12 on this subject.
Remember, there is a sin unto death.
In 1Cor.11:30 God chastened those believers. Some were sick. Some were weak. And some God killed. Beware of being out of God's will. If you are truly God's child he will discipline you; chasten you, until you are right with Him.

Salvation requires obedience. One cannot stay in the RCC and still remain obedient to God. Their doctrine is man-made and diametrically opposed to the Bible. God condemns a works-based salvation.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,
I will read Bondage of the Will, but before that I just want to comment on this part of your post:



While you're correct that the church has said that a person who lacks an explicit faith in Christ might be saved, we believe that this salvation would still have to be due to justification merited by Christ's righteousness. The person's good works may in this case be a result of the person being forgiven and given the grace to do good works without ever explicitly knowing about Christ. They may, for example, be disposed in such a way that they desire Christ, but without having heard the Gospel.

And thus is the divide, you all don't believe in by faith alone in Christ alone. If the Bible is true and no one seeks after God (Romans 3:10-12) and Augstine was correct against Pelagius, then just a desire and good works means nothing, as it is totally wrought in sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

This brings up the question that, so far, everyone in this forum has dodged. I keep hearing how any real Christian would be truly miserable as a member of the Catholic Church and would 'come out of her'. I have read many of 'Thinkingstuffs' past posts, including many while he was still a Baptist. I have no doubt he has a better understanding of Catholic theology than anyone posting on this board. He says he returned to the Catholic Church after extensive study and now not only is happy to be back but that he has seen much fruit as a result.

Are you saying that IF he does not leave the Catholic Church he must not ever have been truly born again to begin with?

Not trying to be contentious or pick a fight. The answer to this question is important to me.

Even as a Baptist, Thinking Stuff rejected the Baptist doctrine of Justification by faith. Hence, his soteriology did not make any significant changes between leaving the Catholic church to the Baptist and returning to the Catholic church. In essence, he remained a Catholic in soteriology and thus never really made any significant change. He simply returned to the institution that held his soteriology most consistently. No wonder he is happy back in the Catholic church!

 

[JarJo]

I'm really struggling with "bondage of the will". The translations I found are in Olde English and I just can't seem to follow it. I'm going to try listening to it on youtube and see if that's any better. Is there a summary in modern english somewhere that would do the trick?

 

[JarJo]

One must make a choice: Put your faith in Christ, or put your faith in the RCC. You can't do both. If you put your faith in Christ, you will be obedient to the commands of Christ and leave the RCC. You will be baptized as an adult, after salvation, and become a member of a Bible-believing church that does actively preach the gospel. There is no turning back.

The RCC is not a Christian church and never has been.

Surely you must understand that a Catholic puts his faith in Christ, and only belongs to the church because he or she believes that it was Christ's will to create a church under the direction of the apostles and their successors.

Some of us read the bible and concluded that infant baptism was practiced right from the beginning, when 'entire households' were baptized. It's not that we choose to disobey the bible to follow the RCC. It's that we think the RCC is in line with biblical teachings.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even as a Baptist, Thinking Stuff rejected the Baptist doctrine of Justification by faith. Hence, his soteriology did not make any significant changes between leaving the Catholic church to the Baptist and returning to the Catholic church. In essence, he remained a Catholic in soteriology and thus never really made any significant change. He simply returned to the institution that held his soteriology most consistently. No wonder he is happy back in the Catholic church!

This just isn't true. When I was at RVA (and for DHK's sake not RCIA), and was inspired by an evangelist to believe and have faith in the one who could save by calling upon his name. I did and held that belief. The next four years I spent at RVA I learned my theology from Protestants not catholics and I left the Catholic Church believing what most believe when they left the Church. Even though it cost me my relationship with my family. I held on to this soteriology of faith alone through out my stint in the Air Force where I attended many Navigator and Christian Servicemen's Center's bible studies. And after I left the Air Force and attended a Evangelical University for both my Undergraduate and Graduate work. In fact one of my typical evangelical questions I would use to witness to others is this "if you were to die today do you know you would go to heaven?" In my mind I played out the senario of meeting Jesus at Judgement and if asked the question of why I was worthy to enter into eternal life. My answer would be "There is nothing I could do to enter into eternal life, My trust is in Jesus who died and rose again for me. Its his sacrifical work on the Cross that I hold on to." However, now my answer is the same except to add a phrase from Paul to the above statement.

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
"

In other words I haven't left faith in my Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

This just isn't true. When I was at RVA (and for DHK's sake not RCIA), and was inspired by an evangelist to believe and have faith in the one who could save by calling upon his name. I did and held that belief.

Anyone can read your discussions with DKH over that issue and see that you never believed in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. What you received and believed in was a distorted idea. You embraced the idea of justification by faith separated from regeneration which the Bible nowhere teaches.

Your very presentation of what you perceived to be justification by faith proves you never understood or embraced the Biblical doctrine.

You consistently portrayed the concept you embraced to be a dead faith when in fact the Biblical doctrine of justification is inseparable from regeneration which does produce good works.

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without our participant works but it is not without regeneration by which the Holy Spirit works in us both to will and TO DO His good pleasure.

In your past "Baptist" view of justification you embraced one without the other whereas James is viewing justification in its inseparable connection with LIFE (regeneration) and its manifest fruit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Anyone can read your discussions with DKH over that issue and see that you never believed in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. What you received and believed in was a distorted idea. You embraced the idea of justification by faith separated from regeneration which the Bible nowhere teaches.

A couple of things Biblicist. You don't seem to have a consept of time or growth over a period of time. When I first believed I was 15. I'm in my 40's now and a lot of growth and understanding has developed over time. Second of all I have always believed in the Biblical doctrine of Faith. And Just recently in the past several Years have come to understand that Faith Alone is not a biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone. In fact the only place where faith alone is even mentioned in the bible is in James saying that faith alone does not save. So you don't really know what you are talking about.

Your very presentation of what you perceived to be justification by faith proves you never understood or embraced the Biblical doctrine.

wrong again. You are showing your true judgmental colors. I did and and I grew to understand more.

You consistently portrayed the concept you embraced to be a dead faith when in fact the Biblical doctrine of justification is inseparable from regeneration which does produce good works.

As spoken of in the Scriptures Faith must be evidenced by Good Works or else you don't have faith. Its very simple. You cannot have faith and remain in Sin. What does Paul Say?

God Forbid!

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without our participant works but it is not without regeneration by which the Holy Spirit works in us both to will and TO DO His good pleasure.

Your understanding of alone is lacking you can't have two alones. Thats like saying the Lone Rangers. It makes no sense. You can't have it singular and viewed plurally! You are either saved by Grace Alone or you are saved by Faith alone and when you say Faith you don't mean Faith you mean belief. Faith is evidenced by what you do about it. Every one has a belief. Or an intellectual assent. However, Faith is powerful and transformative and it turns an Alcoholic into a sober man, It turns a sinner into a saint. However, intellectual assent does nothing. I know many Alcoholics who say Yeah I need to give up drinking but never do. This is your faith. Which really isn't faith but a belief. And the Scriptures say even the demons believe and shake. I am saved by grace through faith working in love. Simple as in they work together. You claim to be saved by an oxymoron. However, I believed like you for many years until I discovered the truth behind these things.

Unfortunately, since you don't believe in apostasy or any freedom of the will you must hold to the time old tried but tired saying "you musn't have been saved in the first place." Which shows a lack of intellectual vigor.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

A couple of things Biblicist. You don't seem to have a consept of time or growth over a period of time. When I first believed I was 15. I'm in my 40's now and a lot of growth and understanding has developed over time. Second of all I have always believed in the Biblical doctrine of Faith. And Just recently in the past several Years have come to understand that Faith Alone is not a biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone. In fact the only place where faith alone is even mentioned in the bible is in James saying that faith alone does not save. So you don't really know what you are talking about.


wrong again. You are showing your true judgmental colors. I did and and I grew to understand more.


As spoken of in the Scriptures Faith must be evidenced by Good Works or else you don't have faith. Its very simple. You cannot have faith and remain in Sin. What does Paul Say?



Your understanding of alone is lacking you can't have two alones. Thats like saying the Lone Rangers. It makes no sense. You can't have it singular and viewed plurally! You are either saved by Grace Alone or you are saved by Faith alone and when you say Faith you don't mean Faith you mean belief. Faith is evidenced by what you do about it. Every one has a belief. Or an intellectual assent. However, Faith is powerful and transformative and it turns an Alcoholic into a sober man, It turns a sinner into a saint. However, intellectual assent does nothing. I know many Alcoholics who say Yeah I need to give up drinking but never do. This is your faith. Which really isn't faith but a belief. And the Scriptures say even the demons believe and shake. I am saved by grace through faith working in love. Simple as in they work together. You claim to be saved by an oxymoron. However, I believed like you for many years until I discovered the truth behind these things.

Unfortunately, since you don't believe in apostasy or any freedom of the will you must hold to the time old tried but tired saying "you musn't have been saved in the first place." Which shows a lack of intellectual vigor.

Good post, brother! :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Second of all I have always believed in the Biblical doctrine of Faith. And Just recently in the past several Years have come to understand that Faith Alone is not a biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone. In fact the only place where faith alone is even mentioned in the bible is in James saying that faith alone does not save. So you don't really know what you are talking about.

Thank you for proving my point convincingly! You state it so much better than I did. You said, "I have ALWAYS believed in the BIBLICAL[Catholic] doctrine of faith." That very statement demonstrates you have never varied from the Roman Catholic doctrine of faith.

Second, again you confess your complete ignorance of the true Biblical doctrine of justification by faith in your final statement "'Faith Alone' is not a Biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone."

The BAPTIST doctrine of justification by faith never teaches that faith is ALONE but is accompanied by many other things.

You still do not understand the fundementals of the Baptist - Bible doctrine of justification.

You still are unable to distinguish between justification and regeneration as distinct and SEPARATE acts of God but yet INSEPARABLE from each other.

Here is what I mean. Justification is a distinct and separate act of God and constitutes being legally and positionally made right before God by grace alone through faith alone in the works of Christ alone. That is a complete work in and by itself. However, that work is not ALONE as it always accompanies another work of God that deals with the personal condition of man - regeneration. This is how a man is "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works (Eph. 2:10). It involves restoring the image of God to the inward man in true holiness and righteousness and indwelling of the HOLY Spirit who progressively manifests Himself in the life of the believer by working in both to WILL and to DO His own purpose in a progressive manner.

Your problem in the past as well as now, is that your whole argument against justification by faith alone without works is based upon your own failure to distinguish the THEOLOGICAL/PERSONAL difference between justification and regeneration from the PRACTICAL/PERSONAL inseparability of justification and regeneration.

James deals with the PRACTICAL/PERSONAL inseparability of justification with regeneration while Paul deals with the THEOLOGICAL/PERSONAL separability of justification from regeneration. However, Paul also deals with both in regard to consequences of their inseparability in Romans 6-8.

Bottom line it is the difference between faith "IN" Christ versus faithfulness "TO" Christ. Justification by faith alone "IN" Christ but in the practice of the Christian justification is inseparable from regenerative LIFE so that faith "IN" Christ is manifested by faithfulness "TO" Christ. Regeneration is God creating us "in Christ Jesus" as far as our CONDITION of righteousness which is always made manifest "UNTO good works" while justification is by faith "IN" Christ Jesus which obtains legal POSITION of righteousness before God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for proving my point convincingly! You state it so much better than I did. You said, "I have ALWAYS believed in the BIBLICAL[Catholic] doctrine of faith." That very statement demonstrates you have never varied from the Roman Catholic doctrine of faith.

You make too much of that line. Because what I meant by this statement is that I always believed what scriptures say about faith and that you must have it to be saved. It wasn't till I got older that I understood faith to be more than intellectual assent. My understanding what scriptures grew.

Second, again you confess your complete ignorance of the true Biblical doctrine of justification by faith in your final statement "'Faith Alone' is not a Biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone."

That is me speaking now and in total accordance with the scriptures. However, If I had spoken when in my 20's it would have been different. So again you show your weak argument and in ability to understand personal growth over time. Ie. I once was but now am.

The BAPTIST doctrine of justification by faith never teaches that faith is ALONE but is accompanied by many other things.

exactly my point. Why I converted. Plus it shows your lack of understanding what the word "alone" means. You are either saved by Grace alone or (not and) saved by Faith alone. You are siting an oxymoron.

You still do not understand the fundementals of the Baptist - Bible doctrine of justification.

I do understand it. I just disagree with it because you keep arguing against what faith means. If you and I agree to what faith means then that would be one thing. But you will not acknowledge that faith must be evident in the things the believer does. Therefore you belief all faith is; is an intellectual assent or maybe even a heart felt assent. But never a transformative event that changes behaviors and actions.

You still are unable to distinguish between justification and regeneration as distinct and SEPARATE acts of God but yet INSEPARABLE from each other.

Now you are just being silly. I'm arguing against your view I'm not going to side with you. I know what you believe about regeneration. I just don't agree with it because in your view regeneration doesn't assure one of good works but of faith. God makes one alive at the appointed time of his decree at which they will believe upon God. Or have faith which saves. Evidence of this faith is not required. A person can stay in sin (misserable as you well may believe they will be) but because of being chosen they will be saved. I disagree with you view and I am emphasising the disagreeable part.

I understand your view of Justification because in reality all it is; is a declaritive statement of being justified. Rather than being justified in deed. Thats the secret you don't want to be put out because in your mind when God made you alive (regeneration) that accounts for new nature. Justification is just a legal term. Ie your sinful self is covered not really gone. But God turns a blind eye to your imperfections and doesn't want to make you better until you die because he gave you a new nature at his regeneration. Though baptist differ on when they believe regeneration occurs.

 

[DaChaser1]

Hi,

I'm a Catholic. I hope Catholic is considered a 'christian denomination' for purposes of this board. I wanted to come here and talk because I have a lot of respect for the Christian example I've seen in the baptists I've met.

I'm having trouble understanding what is so different between Catholic and Baptist beliefs about salvation regarding faith and works. Here's what I believe, isn't this basically the same as what Baptists believe?

1. Jesus died for my sins. My sins are forgiven, that is, I am justified because I believe in Jesus and repented and asked Him to forgive me.
2. God plans for us to be sanctified. I can't accomplish this sanctification on my own. My only hope is to ask God to compete the work of sanctification in me.
3. I believe God will complete the work of sanctification in me because I believe my name is written in the book of life and I am going to be in heaven one day. In other words I believe I will be given the gift of final perseverance. I have faith and hope in this.
4. I was regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit and I am a child of God.

Any help to understand what I'm missing would be appreciated!

have to understand that Catholic church teaches that we are saved by Grace, and by us 'co operating' with God in regards to taking the sacramental grace elements God has given to us in the "7 elements"

Teach we need to get ourselves right with God well enough in order for Him to declare us saved, as they cannot hold to one still being a sinner and yet being declared by God to having state of grace!

So they teach mixture grace and works that save us, have Christ resacrificed each mass, baptism regenerates one etc

Add tradition as being equal to bible, authoritative source, add extra books to canon etc...

Adding to the simple Gospel of Grace...

So the RCC from baptist perspective teaches a false/another Gospel!

Individual catholics are saved by the elective grace of God, despite their church teachings!

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for proving my point convincingly! You state it so much better than I did. You said, "I have ALWAYS believed in the BIBLICAL[Catholic] doctrine of faith." That very statement demonstrates you have never varied from the Roman Catholic doctrine of faith.

Second, again you confess your complete ignorance of the true Biblical doctrine of justification by faith in your final statement "'Faith Alone' is not a Biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone."

The BAPTIST doctrine of justification by faith never teaches that faith is ALONE but is accompanied by many other things.

You still do not understand the fundementals of the Baptist - Bible doctrine of justification.

You still are unable to distinguish between justification and regeneration as distinct and SEPARATE acts of God but yet INSEPARABLE from each other.

Here is what I mean. Justification is a distinct and separate act of God and constitutes being legally and positionally made right before God by grace alone through faith alone in the works of Christ alone. That is a complete work in and by itself. However, that work is not ALONE as it always accompanies another work of God that deals with the personal condition of man - regeneration. This is how a man is "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works (Eph. 2:10). It involves restoring the image of God to the inward man in true holiness and righteousness and indwelling of the HOLY Spirit who progressively manifests Himself in the life of the believer by working in both to WILL and to DO His own purpose in a progressive manner.

Your problem in the past as well as now, is that your whole argument against justification by faith alone without works is based upon your own failure to distinguish the THEOLOGICAL/PERSONAL difference between justification and regeneration from the PRACTICAL/PERSONAL inseparability of justification and regeneration.

James deals with the PRACTICAL/PERSONAL inseparability of justification with regeneration while Paul deals with the THEOLOGICAL/PERSONAL separability of justification from regeneration. However, Paul also deals with both in regard to consequences of their inseparability in Romans 6-8.

Bottom line it is the difference between faith "IN" Christ versus faithfulness "TO" Christ. Justification by faith alone "IN" Christ but in the practice of the Christian justification is inseparable from regenerative LIFE so that faith "IN" Christ is manifested by faithfulness "TO" Christ. Regeneration is God creating us "in Christ Jesus" as far as our CONDITION of righteousness which is always made manifest "UNTO good works" while justification is by faith "IN" Christ Jesus which obtains legal POSITION of righteousness before God.

The Roman Catholic attempt to justify its soterioloyg of works is by PITTING James against Paul. Romans 3:24-5:2 condemns justification through works of any kind (personal good works, sacramentalism, law keeping, joint participation with God). Hence, their last refuges is to build a straw man by PITTING James 2 against Romans 3:24-5:2.

However, Paul deals with justification in connection with imputed righteousness in Romans 3:24-5:2 while James deals with justification in connection with regenerative LIFE in James 2:14-25.

Paul deals with justification by personal FAITH "IN" Christ in Romans 3:24-5:2 while James deals with justification by personal PRACTICE in Christ in James 2:14-25.

While Paul condemns justification by faith plus works of any kind BEFORE GOD in Romans 3:24-5:2, James condemns justification without works BEFORE men in James 2:14-25. Contradiction? No! James is dealing with justification in PRATICAL relationship between the believer and men while Paul is dealing with justification in its DOCTRINAL relationship between the believer and God.

Rome and all followers of the "wide gate" and "broad way" soteriology fail to distinguish between things that differ.

Apples versus oranges.

 

[JarJo]

Hi,

have to understand that Catholic church teaches that we are saved by Grace, and by us 'co operating' with God in regards to taking the sacramental grace elements God has given to us in the "7 elements"

Teach we need to get ourselves right with God well enough in order for Him to declare us saved, as they cannot hold to one still being a sinner and yet being declared by God to having state of grace!

Catholics definitely believe we can be a sinner and still have a state of grace. We are sinners covered by grace, but this requires that we remain in a relationship with God. So, you can, and will, commit sins every day, and remain in a state of grace. But a major sin like apostasy or worshiping a false god which brings you completely away from God would make you lose that state of grace. On the other hand, if you are a child of God, He will give you the strength (more graces) to not do that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me ask you this question Biblicist.

If a man were to hear an evangelist and say the sinners prayer(evidence of faith) and follow up with an alter call (public show of a personal need for Jesus Christ before the congregation). Would you believe he is truelly saved if he then persued the life course of being a pastor. How about if he then got married, had some kids whom he abused (not sexually) and humiliated citing scripture to support this behavior and then his wife developed alzheimers which all he did was ignore her and not take care of her? How about if he was quick to judge without facts? But instead "preached the gospel" to people he didn't know while he lost those of his own household? Not taking care of his wife humiliating and abusing his chrildren driving them from God. I personally think the man had his priorities crossed and I would question his salvation. because the scriptures say

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

What do you think?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Roman Catholic attempt to justify its soterioloyg of works is by PITTING James against Paul.

Nonsense Paul agrees with James. Paul never says faith alone saves. You will not find than in any of Pauls writings.

 

[DaChaser1]

The Roman Catholic attempt to justify its soterioloyg of works is by PITTING James against Paul. Romans 3:24-5:2 condemns justification through works of any kind (personal good works, sacramentalism, law keeping, joint participation with God). Hence, their last refuges is to build a straw man by PITTING James 2 against Romans 3:24-5:2.

However, Paul deals with justification in connection with imputed righteousness in Romans 3:24-5:2 while James deals with justification in connection with regenerative LIFE in James 2:14-25.

Paul deals with justification by personal FAITH "IN" Christ in Romans 3:24-5:2 while James deals with justification by personal PRACTICE in Christ in James 2:14-25.

While Paul condemns justification by faith plus works of any kind BEFORE GOD in Romans 3:24-5:2, James condemns justification without works BEFORE men in James 2:14-25. Contradiction? No! James is dealing with justification in PRATICAL relationship between the believer and men while Paul is dealing with justification in its DOCTRINAL relationship between the believer and God.

Rome and all followers of the "wide gate" and "broad way" soteriology fail to distinguish between things that differ.

Apples versus oranges.

RCC cannot accept the biblical truth that sinners are declared in right standing with God as a saint, SOLELY due to God applying in full towards us the required grace from the Cross of Christ!
we have no merit in us, totally His merits applied to our behalf!
Done immedialtly at salvation!
"jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain, he washed it white as snow!"

 

[JarJo]

RCC cannot accept the biblical truth that sinners are declared in right standing with God as a saint, SOLELY due to God applying in full towards us the required grace from the Cross of Christ!
we have no merit in us, totally His merits applied to our behalf!
Done immedialtly at salvation!
"jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain, he washed it white as snow!"

Well, I'm RCC and I can accept what you just said! I guess our disagreement is that I think we have the freedom to undo what you just said by changing our mind. .. oh, and I almost forgot, once we have been declared in right standing with God, good works done after that actually do have value in the eyes of God, although those extra good works don't add to our salvation. Maybe we disagree on that too.

 

[The Biblicist]

You make too much of that line. Because what I meant by this statement is that I always believed what scriptures say about faith and that you must have it to be saved. It wasn't till I got older that I understood faith to be more than intellectual assent. My understanding what scriptures grew.

No, you make my point precisely! You use the term "Biblical" to mean the same thing as "Catholic dogma" about justification. Hence, you NEVER changed. You confuse the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith with some kind of "Baptist" misinformation about "mental assent"!

Plus it shows your lack of understanding what the word "alone" means. You are either saved by Grace alone or (not and) saved by Faith alone. You are siting an oxymoron.

No my friend (and I say "friend" in a charitable sense), it is you that do not understand the relationship of "alone" to justification. You see faith is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) and thus inclusive. So to say "by grace alone through faith alone" is not an oxymoron nor a contradiction.

Moreover, your greatest misunderstanding is your failure to recognize and distinguish between the prepositions being used in our statement. "BY grace THROUGH faith IN Christ." These are of ultimate significance if you really understand the Baptist (Bible) position (and you do not).

1. BY grace alone = No other basis = alone
2. THROUGH faith = No other means - alone
3. IN Christ = No other object = alone

I do understand it. I just disagree with it because you keep arguing against what faith means. If you and I agree to what faith means then that would be one thing. But you will not acknowledge that faith must be evident in the things the believer does. Therefore you belief all faith is; is an intellectual assent or maybe even a heart felt assent. But never a transformative event that changes behaviors and actions.

It is self-evident you neither understand our position or understand the Biblcial doctrine of faith.

For example, faith must be IN something before faith can respond by DOING something or otherwise what is done is sin.

"Whatosever is not of faith is sin" - Rom. 14

Justification before God is by faith "IN" Jesus Christ and consequentially that provides the sole basis for faith motivation to DO something. However, the DOING is connected to the power of the indwelling regenerative Spirit of God. Thus, you do not distinguish between justification and regeneration in regard to faith "IN" Christ versus works "by" faith.

I understand your view of Justification because in reality all it is; is a declaritive statement of being justified. Rather than being justified in deed. Thats the secret you don't want to be put out because in your mind when God made you alive (regeneration) that accounts for new nature. Justification is just a legal term. Ie your sinful self is covered not really gone. But God turns a blind eye to your imperfections and doesn't want to make you better until you die because he gave you a new nature at his regeneration. Though baptist differ on when they believe regeneration occurs.

Again, you confuse regeneration (which MAKES you PERSONALLY holy) with justification (which MAKES you LEGALLY holy). Both make you holy. The first deals with your actual personal condition and begins the progressive holiness concluded only by glorification while the latter deals with your actual legal condition ("condemned") and must be immediate and final or else you continue legally under condemnation (Rom. 5:1). Hence, by the very nature of justification it must be immediate and complete or else the only alternative is continuance under legal condemnation.

The Roman Catholic solution is SACRAMENTAL whereby you combine both regeneration and justification in a progressive manner. However, that is explicitly and clearly condemned by Paul in Romans 4:5-12.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, you make my point precisely! You use the term "Biblical" to mean the same thing as "Catholic dogma" about justification. Hence, you NEVER changed. You confuse the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith with some kind of "Baptist" misinformation about "mental assent"!

I haven't. Because you don't understand time lines and personall growth. I said I believed what the bible said about faith as I was taught in my Protestant School. I grew beyond that. You seem to fail in that understanding. Again poor method on your part. Because though its not stated that way in any baptist confession, it basically is exactly that because if you say works must follow faith to be faith then a baptist would be incensed. So the only logical conclusion is that its intellectual assent.

No my friend (and I say "friend" in a charitable sense), it is you that do not understand the relationship of "alone" to justification. You see faith is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) and thus inclusive. So to say "by grace alone through faith alone" is not an oxymoron nor a contradiction.

That is because you fail to see what is obvious. Let me use your own argument to prove my point.

1. BY grace alone = No other basis = alone
2. THROUGH faith = No other means - alone
3. IN Christ = No other object = alone

All saying the same thing. IF there is no other basis then a requisit means is not required nor is an object because both of these are basis. Thus Oxymoron. Plus your requirement for salvation has just grown by one. Until you see the simple truth of this more indepth theological debate is worthless.