What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

[Trotter]

I've also done some that have brought me to my knees seeking forgiveness because without it I am sure I would go to Hell. So don't try to tell me people don't think about it.

Actually, that's called conviction. It's when the Holy Spirit slaps you up side the ehad and let's you know you just messed up. Falling to your knees and confessing it is the proper response. while it is possible to ignore conviction, it will not send you to hell if you are a born-again child of God.

As I said above, "If it takes one's own power to stay saved then that person was never saved to begin with." Salvation is God's work, and His work alone. He offers it, He seals it, and He keeps it. If we are able to remove ourselves from His hand then He is not God as that would a) make His word a lie, and b) make our sin stronger than Him.

I don't see a single instance of Paul praying to be re-saved when he cries out about being a wretched man in Romans, commiting the very sin he so despises. Maybe he left that part out? Considering that one's eternal destination is somewhat important I sort of doubt that it would have been over looked.

I live in the full assurance that, no matter how bad I mess up, God still loves me and that Christ's life, death, and resurrection is more than enough to keep my salvation intact. That does not give me a license to go out and live any way I want to live. Actually, I want to live a life of service to my Lord and that is pleasing in His sight as that is all I can give Him... and even that is a gift from Him. There is no fear for those who are His, other than the reverential fear (awe) of just who God is.

 

[Matt Black]

DT seems to have a Catholic understanding of justification, because he said that regeneration and justification are different. However, justification, which is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, takes place when one believes and is regenerated/indwelt by the Holy Spirit/born again. The Catholic view of justification is that it is a process, whereas non-Catholics call that sanctification.

Justification upon faith: saved from the penalty of sin (immediate upon faith)
Sanctification: saved from the power of sin (ongoing process until one dies)
Glorification (after death and resurrected body): saved from the presence of sin

So salvation in its broader meaning - that of deliverance - is a process, but justification is instantaneous and immediate upon faith. I think that the word "saved" is overused by many evangelicals and this confuses the issue. In fact, in my ministry, I usually do not use it at all. I speak of justification and regeneration and/or being born again and/or righteousness imputed by Christ upon faith.

I've asked for Scripture to refute what I've posted. So far all I've seen is opinion.

 

[DHK]

I've asked for Scripture to refute what I've posted. So far all I've seen is opinion.

Your own definition of justification refutes what you have said.
I go again to Romans 5.
Therefore being justified by faith (past tense), we have peace (present tense) with God. The past act of justification forever gives us peace with God.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Marcia,

About the passage in James 2, I had written this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubting Thomas
Marcia, look at verse 14 again:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone has faith but does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?"
According to James, salvation is certainly in view. He is demonstrating if a person who has faith (doesn't say "has false faith" or "has pretend faith"; just "has faith") but doesn't have works, then his faith cannot profit for salvation. James is using faith in somewhat limited sense, in the sense of "intellectual assent", which is necessary but not sufficient for salvation--it must have works to complete it. Which of course is similar to Paul saying that what avails is faith working through love (Gal 5:6)


No Marcia, works certainly do complete faith (v22) but faith without works is dead (v17, 26) and cannot profit for salvation (v14).


To which you replied:

This is a letter to believers, so they are already saved.

Right off the bat, you seem to be using 'saved' exclusively in the sense a past event (rather than considering salvation in an ongoing and/or final sense) as well as assuming 'once-saved-always-saved'. However, neither is warranted in this passage.

I heard an intense exegetical lecture on James by my NT prof who went over all these problematic passages. A "dead faith" does not mean one is not saved; it means that your faith is useless without works.

With all due respect to your NT prof, his exegesis apparently failed to appropriately take into account (at least) one very important verse, which was verse 14 which opens up James' discussion on faith and works (and you seemed to have ignored it again yourself):
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone has faith but does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?"
James is rhetorically asking "the brethren" if faith without works can "profit" one for salvation. He then demonstrates, through the use of analogies and examples, in the next 12 verses that the answer is "no, it cannot". And though James is addressing his "brethren" he is speaking of salvation in the ongoing sense ("save" is present tense), teaching them that those who have faith without works have faith which is not profitting them for salvation.

James gives an example later of someone telling a hungry person, "be warm and filled," but then you do nothing for that person. The point here is not that the person is not saved, but that they are making faith worthless when they don't walk the talk, so to speak.

No, James is using this illustration to make an analogy. Just as a person's expressed sentiment regarding another's bodily need is worthless/profitless in relieving that need if is without any accompanying action (v.16), so "also" (v17) is a person's faith "dead" (v.17,26) and profitless for salvation (v14) without accompanying works.

You, like the Mormons and so many, miss the whole point of James, which is that faith shows itself in works and having saving faith is not the be-all end-all of Christianity.

Your ad hominem association of me with Mormons aside, you are among those who miss the point of James 2:14-26 by ignoring the plain meaning of verse 14 in which SALVATION is clearly in view, and not merely the ability to prove one's faith before men.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Your own definition of justification refutes what you have said.
I go again to Romans 5.
Therefore being justified by faith (past tense), we have peace (present tense) with God. The past act of justification forever gives us peace with God.

That verse does not prove what you think it does DHK. It doesn't say:
"Therefore, having been justified by faith (once in the past) we forever have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
"Forever" is word you assume is implied there but is not. In fact you yourself wrote: "...we have peace (PRESENT TENSE) with God" (which of course is not necessarily FUTURE tense), and that part is true as long as one considers the NEXT verse:
"through whom (Jesus) we have (present tense) access by faith into this grace in which we stand (present tense)" (v2).

You see, having present tense "peace with God" is contingent on one's present tense standing in God's grace through the access of present tense faith. And, Paul is clear in the same epistle that it is possible that those who currently "stand (present tense) by faith" (ie the Gentile believers in Romans 11:20) can be "cut off" if they do not continue in the goodness of God (11:22).

Paul is also clear to the Corinthian believers who are (present tense) standing in the gospel, that they will have "believed in vain" if they don't hold fast that same gospel by which they are saved (1 Cor 15:1-2). Also, in his second epistle to the same church he warns them not to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1) implying it is possible to do such a thing.

So if one doesn't continue to have faith, he no longer continues to have access into God's grace, and thus no longer has peace with God through Christ, and thus as no ongoing justification before God. Try as you might, you can't make Paul teach a once-for-all, irrevocable justification irrespective of the presence or absence of actual ongoing faith.

 

[DHK]

That verse does not prove what you think it does DHK. It doesn't say:
"Therefore, having been justified by faith (once in the past) we forever have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

But we do forever stand before Christ, having been justified and having access before God. I will always have peace with God, but there are times that I may not have the "peace of God", and that is when sin may cause my fellowship with him, my walk with him to be strained. But I will always have peace with God. I will never again be his enemy.

"Forever" is word you assume is implied there but is not. In fact you yourself wrote: "...we have peace (PRESENT TENSE) with God" (which of course is not necessarily FUTURE tense), and that part is true as long as one considers the NEXT verse:
"through whom (Jesus) we have (present tense) access by faith into this grace in which we stand (present tense)" (v2).

It is absolutely true, just as it is written. I have access by faith into this grace in which we stand. My standing before God is possible because of my justification. I am counted as holy before Him, justified, regenerated, born again, converted. My sins (past, present and future) have been atoned for and completely forgiven. And herein do I stand.

Hebrews 4:15-16 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
--My standing before God is as a priest. I now can come before God directly, right before his throne of grace. No other person except the high priest in the OT could do that. I stand in the righteousness of Christ and am able to stand before Christ, before his throne and offer my petitions before him. I am made righteous by the blood of Christ.

You see, having present tense "peace with God" is contingent on one's present tense standing in God's grace through the access of present tense faith.

The faith I put in Christ (concerning salvation) was a one time act.
The resultant peace I have now and have had ever since I have been saved. That you cannot contradict because it is true. The Holy Spirit came and by the power of Christ dwelt in me, changed me, gave me peace and joy, and that has remained ever since I have been saved. He is still changing me every day to continue to be more conformed to His image, less conformed to the world (Romans 12:2).
My present standing with Christ will never change. I am justified with Christ by faith. It is and always be that way.

And, Paul is clear in the same epistle that it is possible that those who currently "stand (present tense) by faith" (ie the Gentile believers in Romans 11:20) can be "cut off" if they do not continue in the goodness of God (11:22).

Why go there? You clearly take Scripture out of context. Romans 9-11 are speaking of the nation of Israel and speak nothing of our salvation. We have hashed this out over and over again. You cannot take Scripture that speaks of the nation of Israel and force it to a different context such as Romans 5. It doesn't work.

Paul is also clear to the Corinthian believers who are (present tense) standing in the gospel, that they will have "believed in vain" if they don't hold fast that same gospel by which they are saved (1 Cor 15:1-2).

Again CONTEXT!!! What is Paul saying here and what is the context? The context is the resurrection. Look up the chapter. He is saying if there is no resurrection then our faith is in vain. The chapter is introduced by giving a summary of the gospel. And he tells them that they did not receive the gospel in vain.
What if they did?
1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
--But they did not.
Perhaps there were some false teachers among them that were denying the resurrection and thus this chapter was written. It is the greatest apologetic for the resurrection ever written.

Also, in his second epistle to the same church he warns them not to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1) implying it is possible to do such a thing.

Read the chapter. There were false teachers among them. He was warning them not to listen them, not to be persuaded by them. Look farther down the chapter:

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
--Come out from among them (the false teachers).
Don't be persuaded from them.
This had nothing to do with losing their salvation.

So if one doesn't continue to have faith, he no longer continues to have access into God's grace, and thus no longer has peace with God through Christ, and thus as no ongoing justification before God. Try as you might, you can't make Paul teach a once-for-all, irrevocable justification irrespective of the presence or absence of actual ongoing faith.

Nowhere does it indicate that one must continue in "saving faith."
Nowhere does it indicate that a person cannot have a standing before God, unless he is unsaved.
Nowhere does it indicate that a person once justified can lose that status.
If one is justified, it is a one time act never to be undone.

 

[lori4dogs]

The continual and constant teaching of the Catholic Church on these Scriptures was clearly restated on January 13, 1547.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, "without which it is impossible to please God" and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, "if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise," as the Apostle says, "grace is no more grace."

The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: "Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name"; and "Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward." Hence, to those who work well "unto the end" and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

From the beginning the Church has always taught this interpretation of the scriptures you have been discussing.

 

[DHK]

The continual and constant teaching of the Catholic Church on these Scriptures was clearly restated on January 13, 1547.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, "without which it is impossible to please God" and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, "if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise," as the Apostle says, "grace is no more grace."

The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: "Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name"; and "Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward." Hence, to those who work well "unto the end" and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.

From the beginning the Church has always taught this interpretation of the scriptures you have been discussing.

Does it make a difference. From the beginning the RCC has always taught a false gospel, heresy, and killed those who disagreed from them. It never recanted the anathemas put forth against the Protestants in the Council of Trent. The 95 Theses of Martin Luther were soundly condemned, who did teach justification by faith. There is no good reason to believe the RCC's position on justification for any reason. It's position can by traced back by lines of heresy and paganism.

 

[lori4dogs]

Does it make a difference. From the beginning the RCC has always taught a false gospel, heresy, and killed those who disagreed from them. It never recanted the anathemas put forth against the Protestants in the Council of Trent. The 95 Theses of Martin Luther were soundly condemned, who did teach justification by faith. There is no good reason to believe the RCC's position on justification for any reason. It's position can by traced back by lines of heresy and paganism.

Don't call it heresy.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Your position was an invention. The Universal Church never believed other than what was restated by the Council of Trent.

Lutherans don't agree with your position either.

 

[lori4dogs]

"The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations. "

 

[DHK]

Don't call it heresy.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Your position was an invention. The Universal Church never believed other than what was restated by the Council of Trent.

Lutherans don't agree with your position either.

1. I don't believe in such a thing as a universal church, but that is a topic for another thread, another discussion.
2. It is a false gospel to believe that works (obedience) will get you to heaven. True believers, (those that are born again) never believed that.
Jesus never preached it.
The apostles never preached it.
The early church never preached it.

Those who preach it will send people to hell.

For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works.

Paul states that those who preach any other gospel than that of faith in Christ are accursed (Gal.1:7,8).
That is the truth. It is the Word of God.
Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works or obedience.

 

[Marcia]

Sorry, Marcia, I can't agree. You get saved because of Christ's righteousness and by grace through faith. But we stay saved through our own righteousness. The apostle Paul told us, "Work out your own salvation." He also said, "I discipline my body and make it my slave so that . . . I myself will not be disqualified."

"Work out your own salvation" does not mean you keep yourself saved; it means you take your salvation seriously. Paul's statement has to do with rewards - Paul wrote quite a bit about rewards.

Your statement that we "stay saved through our own righteousness" astounds me. We don't have "our own righteousness!" This contradicts Gal 3:3:

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Please study the above passage and book. You cannot perfect yourself.

 

[Zenas]

"Work out your own salvation" does not mean you keep yourself saved;

It means exactly that. I realize you don't like this verse, just like you don't like a lot of other verses, and you put your own spin on all of them. That's not a bad thing, it's just human nature (maybe it is bad). About two pastors ago in our church, the pastor did a sermon on this verse at prayer meeting and began by saying it was one of the hardest passages he had ever tried to understand. Then he went about putting his spin on it because he could not wrap his mind around working to maintain our own salvation. But there is nothing hard about this. We work out our problems; we work out our educational experience; we work out our marriage; and we work out our salvation.

it means you take your salvation seriously

You'll get no argument from me on this.

Paul's statement has to do with rewards - Paul wrote quite a bit about rewards.

Yes he did, and nowhere did he say it more eloquently than in the 3rd chapter of Philippians where he makes it clear his goal was Heaven. That is the reward he was seeking, nothing more and nothing less. Same thing as in the 2nd chapter.

Your statement that we "stay saved through our own righteousness" astounds me. We don't have "our own righteousness!" This contradicts Gal 3:3

If so, then either Galatians 3:3 is wrong or a whole lot of the rest of the N.T. is wrong. Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness surpasses the scribes and the pharisees you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." James said, "The fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Furthermore, at least eight men other than Jesus are referred to in the N.T. as being righteous: Abel, Abraham, Cornelius, John the Baptist, Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea, Lot and Simeon.

Please study the above passage and book. You cannot perfect yourself.

Galatians 3:3 and most of what follows is a rebuke of the new Christians for listening to the Judaizers. Paul wasn't denouncing good works of righteousness here. He was condemning their attempts at righteousness through the Law in general and circumcision in particular. Make no mistake, Paul was all about good works and he thought they were important in working out our salvation. Why else would he have added, "with fear and trembling?" You don't try to improve relationships with fear and trembling, and you don't try to stack up rewards with fear and trembling, unless of course the reward you are seeking is Heaven. Then it becomes a deadly serious matter.

 

[DHK]

Make no mistake, Paul was all about good works and he thought they were important in working out our salvation. Why else would he have added, "with fear and trembling?"

If you believe that works are required either for salvation or to maintain salvation then:
1. you believe that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to cover your sins.
2. you must help Christ in some way to atone for your sins.
3. Christ is not the only way to heaven; there must be some other way.
4. That "other way" is partly through you.
5. You have set yourself as "a way" through heaven, for it is your works that you are counting on to get you to heaven.
6. All of the above is blasphemy because it denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ as well as the atonement of Christ and makes the act of God imputing His righteousness to you impossible.

 

[Matt Black]

Your own definition of justification refutes what you have said.
I go again to Romans 5.
Therefore being justified by faith (past tense), we have peace (present tense) with God. The past act of justification forever gives us peace with God.

More bald opinion restated; all you have done here is roll out your spin on what that verse means. Yet again you are interpolating - in this case the word 'forever' - how many more extra words do you want to add to Scripture?

 

[Matt Black]

Does it make a difference.

Er...yes, not half! If Christians have always believed this - and they have - then that places a hugely different take on things.

From the beginning the RCC

The RCC or the Church? You seem to be suggesting that this is the same. If it isn't, when do you say that the RCC and the Church diverged?

 

[DHK]

More bald opinion restated; all you have done here is roll out your spin on what that verse means. Yet again you are interpolating - in this case the word 'forever' - how many more extra words do you want to add to Scripture?

I never added to Scripture I quoted the verse, only showing the tenses of the verbs. If you don't believe the Scripture now you have a problem.
The statement containing "forever" is my comment on the verse. I never added it to the verse. What you stated there is simply a false accusation. Can't you do better that that?

 

[Matt Black]

I believe the Scripture fine; I just have a problem with your particular spin on its alleged meaning. DT has already adequately refuted your 'take' on the meaning of the tenses used, so you're still interpolating the word 'forever'.

 

[DHK]

Er...yes, not half! If Christians have always believed this - and they have - then that places a hugely different take on things.

Christians not Catholics. To me there is a difference. I follow the Bible, not a cult, not a world religion.

The RCC or the Church? You seem to be suggesting that this is the same. If it isn't, when do you say that the RCC and the Church diverged?

The RCC started with a pagan ruler called Constantine who paganized what was called Christianity. He introduced many pagan customs at that time. And what was "Christian" about that religion was now simply paganized Christianity, not Biblical Christianity at all.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: The RCC started with a pagan ruler called Constantine who paganized what was called Christianity. He introduced many pagan customs at that time. And what was "Christian" about that religion was now simply paganized Christianity, not Biblical Christianity at all.

And yet here is what the 'biblical Christians' believed before Constantine and the 'paganization' you are claiming. No where do you find the Church teaching differently in the Early Church with the exception of Tertullian who wavered somewhat on baptism.


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).



Origen


"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"

Of course DHK will say that all the ECF's were apostates. Can't buy it.