Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[JarJo]

Also here is your "Statement of Salvation"
Baptism & Sacraments


Thats radically different from what a Baptist would testify to. Just so you know.

The link didn't work. Would you mind reposting it?

 

[Walter]

The link didn't work. Would you mind reposting it?

That isn't a link. It's from your profile statement regarding salvation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I cited several quotes from Trent dealing with justification, I simply refer you to those quotes.

Where did you site them? Also often times definition of words often get mixed up between Catholics and Protestants. But Note I responded specifically to your assertions. However, if you wish to discuss Trent this is what it says with regard to justification.

The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam,[3] having become unclean,[4] and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath,[5] as has been set forth in the decree on original sin,[6] they were so far the servants of sin[7] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent,[8] was by no means extinguished in them...Whence it came to pass that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort,[9] when the blessed fullness of time was come,[10] sent to men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had both before the law and during the time of the law been announced and promised to many of the holy fathers,[11] that he might redeem the Jews who were under the law,[12] and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice[13] might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons.

Him has God proposed as a propitiator through faith in his blood[14] for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.[15]...nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

I just thought to clear up the view in the context of the whole.

I would like for you to address the specific references to the Council of Trent. If they must believe in both Vatican II and Trent, then Trent is authoritative.

Yes as are all eccuminical councils.

I tried to be specific quoting from primary sources in order to clearly represent both sides. Part of the modern problem is that many Evangelicals assume what the Catholic Church teaches. I think when you go to Trent, designed to combat the reformation, we clearly see the issues in dispute.

I have no problem with Trent as long as its taken into context. Even Vatican II had to clarify some things mentioned in Trent. However, Trent isn't by itself in the Catholic Faith it is but one of many councils all having authority. So the whole council of the Church must be reviewed. But if you have questions I will answer to the best of my ability.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Amy,



Purgatory is basically a theological extrapolation. It goes like this:

People in heaven don't sin.
We (Christians) are going to be in heaven some day.
Most Christians have some failings or faults.
Therefore, something has change us from what we are now
We see this process going on in our lives, and we call it sanctification.
Some of us become really sanctified before we die, others less so.
We know from experience that sanctification is often painful (e.g. learning to be more patient, or less proud).
Therefore, theologians reason, there must be some process after death that finishes this work off before we actually go into heaven to be with God.
We gave it the name "purgatory"

Hebrews 9
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,



There is nothing in the bible about an intermittent period of sanctification between death and heaven. Nor anything about a place called Purgatory. There is heaven and hell.

Do Catholics use any scripture at all to try to justify this belief or is it church tradition only?

 

[JarJo]

Hi Ruiz,

Thanks for posting the canons from Trent. I think we have to be careful when reading these canons, because their intent is often to focus in on a very specific idea that is objectionable, but I think you might have interpreted them to condemn a wider range of ideas than they do. Please let me explain:

Sanctification:

We believe in Sanctification; however, we make a stronger distinction between sanctification and justification as you. Let me compare two historic documents. The Council of Trent says:

1.CANON 9: "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."

This canon is condemning a very specific idea. It doesn't condemn every possible version of "faith alone", but just specific meanings of that phrase, which I don't think a baptist means by it. The condemned idea is that a person can be saved if he simply has "faith" but is not in any way prepared or disposed to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in his sanctification.

If you had a member of your church who said "I believe that Jesus died for my sins, but I absolutely refuse to change my life. I will fight God to the bitter end if He tries to change me and make me holy in any way shape or form. I will not cooperate with sanctification". Would you say this person is saved? I don't think you would. I've heard of some Christians who would say yes, that person is saved, but I thought baptists required true repentance, and that faith meant accepting Jesus as Lord?

I'll have to get back to the other points in another message.

 

[JarJo]

Hebrews 9
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,



There is nothing in the bible about an intermittent period of sanctification between death and heaven. Nor anything about a place called Purgatory. There is heaven and hell.

Do Catholics use any scripture at all to try to justify this belief or is it church tradition only?

I've seen a few scriptures but they're highly debatable. I guess I don't feel like I need to know right now if there's some boot-camp (purgatory (or not)) to prepare the saved for going into the presence of God in heaven.

How do baptists think this happens? What happens to someone with a sinful habit between when he dies and arrives in heaven? Does God change them instantly? Or do they arrive in heaven still sinning? Or is it just not possible to sin in heaven, even though they want to sin?

 

[Amy.G]

How do baptists think this happens? What happens to someone with a sinful habit between when he dies and arrives in heaven? Does God change them instantly? Or do they arrive in heaven still sinning? Or is it just not possible to sin in heaven, even though they want to sin?

Good question! First of all, we are justified completely through the blood of Christ. This means that when God looks at us, He sees the righteousness of Christ, not my sin. We are sanctified while we are still in our earthly bodies. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is constantly at work to show us when and how we sin and to convict us of sin. He also empowers us to conquer sin in our daily walk and conforms us to the image of Christ. This is a life long process.

It's not until we shed our earthly, sin corrupted bodies that we will be totally free of sin. But spiritually, we have already been freed from the penalty of sin (which is eternal death) and have already passed from death to life in Christ Jesus.
When we die, we go immediately in the presence of the Lord. No stops in between, because our sin has already been judged on the cross.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

Thanks for posting the canons from Trent. I think we have to be careful when reading these canons, because their intent is often to focus in on a very specific idea that is objectionable, but I think you might have interpreted them to condemn a wider range of ideas than they do. Please let me explain:





This canon is condemning a very specific idea. It doesn't condemn every possible version of "faith alone", but just specific meanings of that phrase, which I don't think a baptist means by it. The condemned idea is that a person can be saved if he simply has "faith" but is not in any way prepared or disposed to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in his sanctification.

If you had a member of your church who said "I believe that Jesus died for my sins, but I absolutely refuse to change my life. I will fight God to the bitter end if He tries to change me and make me holy in any way shape or form. I will not cooperate with sanctification". Would you say this person is saved? I don't think you would. I've heard of some Christians who would say yes, that person is saved, but I thought baptists required true repentance, and that faith meant accepting Jesus as Lord?

I'll have to get back to the other points in another message.

I agree they must be interpreted carefully; however, the context of Trent is to directly dispute the Reformers. They were arguing against Luther and Calvin's view of justification and the Bible. The reason I quote them, and do so in more than one place, is because I believe Trent's opposition to the Reformation cannot be denied and it offers some clear contrasts between the two views.

Your objection to my view of sanctification really is not an objection to sanctification, but an objection to Luther's, and the Bible's, understanding of Bondage of the Will. Only through justification is the will made to become free (See Edwards', "Freedom of the Will). We do not cooperate thus becoming synergists, but the work of sanctification is completely of God, a monergistic viewpoint. We want to become Holy, not because of anything in us but because we were regenerated by God. You are conjuring up the old Erasmus/Luther debate. Erasmus believed this to be the fountainhead of the Reformation discussion, both Luther and I agree.

How does this play in Sanctification? Trent clearly explains that Sanctification is a part of Justification, I cited clear examples of this in Trent. My view is that sanctification does not add one iota to justification. Trent says that just because we have faith does not mean we will be justified. I disagreed, we are justified because God has declared us just. My works have nothing to do with justification.

How do these differ? The Catholic church views moralism as a key component of your salvation. If you keep the sacraments, you fulfill certain obligations, or rely on certain forms of religion. Protestantism sees moralism as deadly, in fact contrary to the Gospel. We are not sanctified because we are moral, we are sanctified because we are regenerated.

Thus, the idea that we come to God saying we will not change is a radical misinterpretation of protestant theology. You ignore our view on regeneration to set up a straw man to argue against.

With all this said, I do go back to the Council of Trent. Trent clearly stated that my belief is an anathema. I think Trent is much more honest with our disagreements than most today. These are extensive and important distinctions... and either your view is an anathema or mine.

 

[Ruiz]

Where did you site them? Also often times definition of words often get mixed up between Catholics and Protestants. But Note I responded specifically to your assertions. However, if you wish to discuss Trent this is what it says with regard to justification. I just thought to clear up the view in the context of the whole.


Yes as are all eccuminical councils.

I have no problem with Trent as long as its taken into context. Even Vatican II had to clarify some things mentioned in Trent. However, Trent isn't by itself in the Catholic Faith it is but one of many councils all having authority. So the whole council of the Church must be reviewed. But if you have questions I will answer to the best of my ability.

Read my post, post #17. Here I outline Trent's view. In context, Trent was written against the Reformers.

 

[JarJo]

I agree they must be interpreted carefully; however, the context of Trent is to directly dispute the Reformers. They were arguing against Luther and Calvin's view of justification and the Bible. The reason I quote them, and do so in more than one place, is because I believe Trent's opposition to the Reformation cannot be denied and it offers some clear contrasts between the two views.

Your objection to my view of sanctification really is not an objection to sanctification, but an objection to Luther's, and the Bible's, understanding of Bondage of the Will. Only through justification is the will made to become free (See Edwards', "Freedom of the Will). We do not cooperate thus becoming synergists, but the work of sanctification is completely of God, a monergistic viewpoint. We want to become Holy, not because of anything in us but because we were regenerated by God. You are conjuring up the old Erasmus/Luther debate. Erasmus believed this to be the fountainhead of the Reformation discussion, both Luther and I agree.

How does this play in Sanctification? Trent clearly explains that Sanctification is a part of Justification, I cited clear examples of this in Trent. My view is that sanctification does not add one iota to justification. Trent says that just because we have faith does not mean we will be justified. I disagreed, we are justified because God has declared us just. My works have nothing to do with justification.

How do these differ? The Catholic church views moralism as a key component of your salvation. If you keep the sacraments, you fulfill certain obligations, or rely on certain forms of religion. Protestantism sees moralism as deadly, in fact contrary to the Gospel. We are not sanctified because we are moral, we are sanctified because we are regenerated.

Thus, the idea that we come to God saying we will not change is a radical misinterpretation of protestant theology. You ignore our view on regeneration to set up a straw man to argue against.

With all this said, I do go back to the Council of Trent. Trent clearly stated that my belief is an anathema. I think Trent is much more honest with our disagreements than most today. These are extensive and important distinctions... and either your view is an anathema or mine.

Hi Ruiz,

I didn't think I *was* arguing against your view of sanctification. Anyway I seem to be in way over my head here. I can't really follow all of this.

My "straw man" of the person who said he had faith but refused to change was not meant to represent you or other baptists. It's just my (possibly wrong) understanding of what the canon was condemning.

My own belief and experience is that from the moment that I was given the gift of faith and asked for forgiveness, God forgave and overlooked my sins and was therefore able to live in me. Then all I had to do was step aside and let God finish his work in me, knowing that at any point along the way I'm prepared to die and meet my maker and go to heaven. I suppose it isn't worded very well theologically, and there must be some theological distinction between what I said and what you believe. I suspect that if we need a degree in theology to understand the difference, then maybe the difference is really just splitting hairs.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

I didn't think I *was* arguing against your view of sanctification. Anyway I seem to be in way over my head here. I can't really follow all of this.

My "straw man" of the person who said he had faith but refused to change was not meant to represent you or other baptists. It's just my (possibly wrong) understanding of what the canon was condemning.

My own belief and experience is that from the moment that I was given the gift of faith and asked for forgiveness, God forgave and overlooked my sins and was therefore able to live in me. Then all I had to do was step aside and let God finish his work in me, knowing that at any point along the way I'm prepared to die and meet my maker and go to heaven. I suppose it isn't worded very well theologically, and there must be some theological distinction between what I said and what you believe. I suspect that if we need a degree in theology to understand the difference, then maybe the difference is really just splitting hairs.

If you believe the difference is splitting hairs then you need to read your own Council of Trent and Erasmus' work against Luther. Then read Luther's work against Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will. No one on either side believes these to be "splitting hairs." That is why I quoted the Councile of Trent. The Council itself said these are serious issues, extremely serious. You can disagree with me because I am not a Catholic, but at least believe in Trent.

I asked my beginning question because whether you hold to Vatican II or Trent (which I do believe they contradict each other in places), you cannot deny these are serious issues.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ruiz said ....."I do believe they contradict each other in places), you cannot deny these are serious issues"

I will add.....Involving your salvation. Don't treat this lightly!

 

[Zenas]

Do Catholics use any scripture at all to try to justify this belief or is it church tradition only?

Your question wasn't meant for me but I will give it a shot.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is the most commonly cited scriptual source.

Matthew 5:26 is interpreted by Catholics to have an allegorical reference to purgatory--paying the last cent.

Matthew 12:32 is a pretty clear statement that at least some sins committed on earth may be forgiven in the age to come.

 

[DHK]

Matthew 12:32 is a pretty clear statement that at least some sins committed on earth may be forgiven in the age to come.

A clear statement???

(Mat 12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

It is an emphatic statement that this sin will never be forgiven.
The more important question is, what is this sin that will never be forgiven>
IMO, it is a sin impossible for one to commit in this generation.

 

[Zenas]

A clear statement???

(Mat 12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

It is an emphatic statement that this sin will never be forgiven.

Yes it certainly is, but Jesus would not have made reference to sins being forgiven (or not as in this case) unless there were some sins that could be forgiven in the age to come. Otherwise He would not have brought it up at all and would have simply said, "It shall not be forgiven him."

The more important question is, what is this sin that will never be forgiven>
IMO, it is a sin impossible for one to commit in this generation.

All right, so what do you think it is and what do you mean by generation?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your question wasn't meant for me but I will give it a shot.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is the most commonly cited scriptual source.

Matthew 5:26 is interpreted by Catholics to have an allegorical reference to purgatory--paying the last cent.

Matthew 12:32 is a pretty clear statement that at least some sins committed on earth may be forgiven in the age to come.

Im sorry Z, but your attempting to prove that through 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 ? Here it is....please take some time & exegete this for me.... Im having trouble seeing your point.

New International Version (NIV)

12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

 

[DHK]

Yes it certainly is, but Jesus would not have made reference to sins being forgiven (or not as in this case) unless there were some sins that could be forgiven in the age to come. Otherwise He would not have brought it up at all and would have simply said, "It shall not be forgiven him."

Now you are telling Jesus the way he should have phrased his sentences?
That is pretty arrogant, especially since you are not God.
He could have said: "can never, never, never, never be forgiven." But he didn't. He had his own emphatic way of saying things. "not now or in the age to come." It was said that way to be emphatic. In the future please don't try to correct the way the Lord speaks.

All right, so what do you think it is and what do you mean by generation?

CONTEXT:

(Mat 12:22) Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
--Go back ten verses. The story starts with this miracle, a miracle which amazed all that saw it (vs. 23)

(Mat 12:24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
--Instead of attributing this and other such miracles to God, especially the Holy Spirit, the Pharisees attributed this miracle to Beelzebub, a name of Satan, literally "prince of evil spirits."

(Mat 12:27) And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
--A good answer from Jesus that made them look foolish.

(Mat 12:30) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
--It is evident that the Pharisees were not with Jesus. Now they had seen his miracles, heard his words, were there in person to see and hear God come in the flesh--a privilege relatively few people have ever had (throughout the ages). They were privileged. And yet they attributed his miracles (which demonstrated his deity) to Satan.

(Mat 12:31) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(Mat 12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This sin could only have been committed during the first century by those who had seen and heard the miracles of Jesus and then had attributed them to Satan. It is impossible to commit that sin today. Jesus is not among us today in the flesh. He is not working those miracles right in front of us today. No one is attributing those very miracles to Satan. This was a particular event in history not replicable today.

 

[steaver]

Hi Ruiz,

Thanks for posting the canons from Trent. I think we have to be careful when reading these canons, because their intent is often to focus in on a very specific idea that is objectionable, but I think you might have interpreted them to condemn a wider range of ideas than they do. Please let me explain:





This canon is condemning a very specific idea. It doesn't condemn every possible version of "faith alone", but just specific meanings of that phrase, which I don't think a baptist means by it. The condemned idea is that a person can be saved if he simply has "faith" but is not in any way prepared or disposed to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in his sanctification.

If you had a member of your church who said "I believe that Jesus died for my sins, but I absolutely refuse to change my life. I will fight God to the bitter end if He tries to change me and make me holy in any way shape or form. I will not cooperate with sanctification". Would you say this person is saved? I don't think you would. I've heard of some Christians who would say yes, that person is saved, but I thought baptists required true repentance, and that faith meant accepting Jesus as Lord?

I'll have to get back to the other points in another message.

With all due respect, for I have just met you. You have embraced the "doctrination of explanations"(baloney) , my own coined phrase for what Catholics do or have been taught to do with some otherwise perfectly clearly stated declarations.

The Catholic church leaders condemned "faith alone" period. Luthur and many others were not preaching anything less than what protestants and baptist preach and believe today about "faith alone". And the Catholic church had them and many like minded believers killed for it!

You see, they cannot defend it because it is scripture. They cannot retract it because they believe they are infalable. So what is left? Well, let's teach that the doctrine is being misinterpreted.

Problem is, we have the "faith alone" preacher's own writings which prove that they preached "faith alone" just as baptist preach it today and the RCC hunted them down for it. So do not believe the lie that It only applies to certain kinds of "faith alone", that is simply trying to lie one's way out of the plain truth of the matter. On this point "alone" is why I cannot trust or be part of the RCC.

 

[Ruiz]

With all due respect, for I have just met you. You have embraced the "doctrination of explanations"(baloney) , my own coined phrase for what Catholics do or have been taught to do with some otherwise perfectly clearly stated declarations.

The Catholic church leaders condemned "faith alone" period. Luthur and many others were not preaching anything less than what protestants and baptist preach and believe today about "faith alone". And the Catholic church had them and many like minded believers killed for it!

You see, they cannot defend it because it is scripture. They cannot retract it because they believe they are infalable. So what is left? Well, let's teach that the doctrine is being misinterpreted.

Problem is, we have the "faith alone" preacher's own writings which prove that they preached "faith alone" just as baptist preach it today and the RCC hunted them down for it. So do not believe the lie that It only applies to certain kinds of "faith alone", that is simply trying to lie one's way out of the plain truth of the matter. On this point "alone" is why I cannot trust or be part of the RCC.

This is the reason I quoted Trent. Many Catholics I know, including most of my family, either try to downplay their own stated doctrine or are ignorant of their own doctrine. Trent as very clear, they clearly reject Justification by grace through faith alone. I do not see how people try to ignore this in the discussions.

Using primary sources is the best way to show Catholics what they teach and why we are different.

 

[Walter]

With all due respect, for I have just met you. You have embraced the "doctrination of explanations"(baloney) , my own coined phrase for what Catholics do or have been taught to do with some otherwise perfectly clearly stated declarations.

The Catholic church leaders condemned "faith alone" period. Luthur and many others were not preaching anything less than what protestants and baptist preach and believe today about "faith alone". And the Catholic church had them and many like minded believers killed for it!

You see, they cannot defend it because it is scripture. They cannot retract it because they believe they are infalable. So what is left? Well, let's teach that the doctrine is being misinterpreted.

Problem is, we have the "faith alone" preacher's own writings which prove that they preached "faith alone" just as baptist preach it today and the RCC hunted them down for it. So do not believe the lie that It only applies to certain kinds of "faith alone", that is simply trying to lie one's way out of the plain truth of the matter. On this point "alone" is why I cannot trust or be part of the RCC.

And yet, Luther 'preached faith alone' but he also preached that the sacrament of baptism was also necessary for salvation as was receiving holy communion.

Luther also said:
I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That
the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted.

St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs,
have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world;
so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor.

Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state,
it is no ground for separating from the Church.
On the contrary, the worse things are going,
the more should we hold close to her,
or it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil,
nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still
abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly.

There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to
dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body.
For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”