The Highway

Roman Catholicism and salvation

Posted By: Anonymous

Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:21 AM

Hi Everyone. I've enjoyed reading many of the posts here, and I have a question about Roman Catholicism. First, let me say that I understand there are many things about the Roman Catholic Church that are problematic, but the one we probably hear the most about is the issue of salvation, and more specifically, justification. Most Protestants believe that we are justified by grace through faith alone and that this is a very big deal. I have tended to agree with that. I believe that salvation in a broad sense of the term includes the elements of election, regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. I do not believe that anyone is regenerated without having been elected, nor do I believe that anyone is converted without having been elected and regenerated, nor do I believe that anyone is justified without having been elected, regenerated, and converted, and so on. Since at least sanctification involves us doing "works," and since we will not reach heaven (glorification) without having been sanctified (which involves our works), why do we make such a huge deal over the justification issue? Since sanctification--growing in holiness and having a right conduct of life--is an essential part of our salvation just as much as justification is an essential part of it, could we not say that works do have a part in our salvation? I'm not saying they are loosely related in an indirect way. I'm asking: since sanctification is an essential part of salvation, and since sanctification involves our works, why is it not accurate to say that works play a role in our being saved? Yes, I know what Ephesians 2:8-9 says, and I'm trying to reconcile all of this. To be sure, I know we do not have anything to boast about in our salvation, but I know many Roman Catholics who believe that as well. I appreciate any thoughts you all may have on this. RefBap
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:12 AM

RefBap,
Greetings. I believe the Romans Catholic has (sort of speak) the cart in front of the horse. It is imperative that the born again believer trusts in Christ alone. The RC church teaches that one is saved by Christ and their *good works*. This is an error. The correct theory is that we cannot be saved, except for Gods grace and mercy, but then once we are saved, outflow the works of the Holy Spirit who now resides in us through our good works. The good works James speaks about are a result of regeneration. The RC believes that this work is not a result, but the cause (to some extent). The book of Romans and the book of James must be seen in the light of Ephesians 2:8,9. Paul and James standing back to back with their epistles, not contradicting, but agreeing.

IN HIM,
Scott Bushey
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:18 PM

First, IMHO, a great deal of emphasis is placed on Sanctfication in the writtings of the Reformers and others of the reformed faith. I can think of several works, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (4 vols), Godliness Through Discipline (Adams), Renewing Your Mind in a Mindless Age (Boice), The Religious Affections (Edwards), Practical Religion (Ryle), Aspects of Holiness (Ryle), Holiness (Ryle), The Mark of a Christian (Schaffer), True Spirituality (Schaffer), Sanctification (Spurgeon) and several others that deal in some part with the topic. (Though I may not agree with everything that is written in everyone of the books above I do see some value in each)

Next, The reason why so much emphasis is placed on justification is that several denominations attempt to get the cart before the proverbial horse and attempt to get the works before the justification.

Man is NOT saved by works! No Exceptions! Man is saved UNTO good works (Eph 2:8-10), and again, No Exceptions. Where people get mixed up is they think they are justified, saved....or otherwise by their works--they are not! True godly works are a natural outflow from a regenerated person who is walking in the spirit and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

In part, Sanctification is growth that takes place by grace that enables one to more fully do the works that God has ALREADY saved them to do.

Charles Hodge said:

Sanctification in the Westminster Catechism is said to be "the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness."

Agreeably to this definition, justification differs from sanctification, (1.) In that the former is a transient act, the latter a progressive work. (2.) Justification is a forensic act, God acting as judge, declaring justice satisfied so far as the believing sinner is concerned, whereas sanctification is an effect due to the divine efficiency. (3.) Justification changes, or declares to be changed, the relation of the sinner to the justice of God; sanctification involves a change of character. (4.) The former, therefore, is objective, the latter subjective. (5.) The former is founded on what Christ has done for us; the latter is the effect of what He does in us. (6.) Justification is complete and the same in all, while sanctification is progressive, and is more complete in some than in others.

Sanctification is declared to be a work of God’s free grace. Two things are included in this. First, that the power or influence by which it is carried on is supernatural. Secondly, that granting this influence to any sinner, to one sinner rather than another, and to one more than to another, is a matter of favour. No one has personally, or in himself, on the ground of anything he has done, the right to claim this divine influence as a just recompense, or as a matter of justice.

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
Posted By: bishop3

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:39 PM

helloI believe this is an excellent response to RefBap's questionconcerning the issue. Keep up the good work !! RC's definitelyput the cart before the horse. The Book of James needs to be read in the context of the NT. Romans emphatically states that we are justified apart from any works of the law.bish
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 3:44 PM

RefBap,
Welcome to the forum. Here is something I posted recently. Please bear with me others who have already read this before. These are my notes from a study I did from J. C. Ryle's book Holiness from the chapter on Sanctification that may be of some help to you.
Susan

[color:red]Justification is a finished work and rests entirely on Christ's work done for me.
"The only righteousness in which we can appear before God is the righteousness of another--even the perfect righteousness of our Substitute and Representative, Jesus Christ the Lord."



"Sanctification is the inward spiritual work which the Lord Jesus Christ works in a man by the Holy Spirit when he calls him to be a true believer." (J.C. Ryle)[color:red] We can never be more justified, but we can be more sanctified.
Sanctification is God's will for us. I Thess 4:3
It is a result of abiding in Christ. Jn 15:5
Without sanctification there is no real spiritual life. James 2:17-20
It is evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence. Romans 8:9,14
It is a mark of God's election. 2 Thess 2:13
It is our own fault if we are not holy.
We can grow in sanctification. 2 Peter 3:18; 1 Thess 4:1
We must expect inward spiritual conflict. Our hearts are occupied by two rival camps.
We must be diligent in using the means God has given us such as Bible reading, private prayer, worship, hearing faithful preaching, communion, etc.
All our works are imperfect, but our efforts can be pleasing to God when done with the right heart much as a small child's efforts can please their parent.
[color:red]Sanctification cannot justify us, yet it pleases God.
Our works will be examined for evidence of grace. Jn 5:29. We must be made fit for heaven. God wants to make us holy. We must not become discouraged that so many flaws remain in us. The more light we have, the more we will see our own imperfections and we will be ashamed. We are debtors to mercy and grace every hour.
"The Lord Jesus Christ has undertaken everything that His people's souls require; not only to deliver them from the guilt of their sins, but from the dominion of their sins, by placing in their hearts the Holy Spirit; not only to justify them, but also to sanctify them. He is, thus, not only their righteousness, but their sanctification." 1 Cor 1:30

Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 02, 2002 6:54 PM

RefBap
I really don't have anything more to add to what has already been stated.
But to put it all in a nutshell, I would say that RCs believe that it is both the work of God & the work of man that saves. Where as the Bible says that only God saves by grace through faith and as a natural out flow of that salvation, comes works. If no works flow, then obviously we should question if salvation has occurred.
As James 2:18 says "...:shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Tom
Posted By: Wes

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 12:25 AM

RefBap,

First of all I want to welcome you to the forum. I hope you find your time spent here meaningful and rewarding. You raise a good question and I think that others who have replied on this thread have provided excellent answers.

I just want to add one thing. The work of salvation is a two fold work. Both justification and sanctification. The favorite old hymn Rock of Ages expresses this well in verse one.

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure:
Save from guilt and make me pure.


I like that clear recognition of both making us (1)"not guilty" and (2)"clean." Justification makes us not guilty and sanctification makes us holy. My limited understanding of what the Roman Catholics believe is that they tend to add more works to the finished work of Christ to complete their salvation.

Wes [Linked Image]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 1:01 AM

Scott Bushey said: >> I believe the Romans Catholic has (sort of speak) the cart in front of the horse. It is imperative that the born again believer trusts in Christ alone. The RC church teaches that one is saved by Christ and their *good works*. This is an error. <<

Yes, that is an error - the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. Salvation is through Christ alone and His finished work on the Cross. Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify.

Scott<<<

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 1:04 AM

bishop3 wrote: >> we are justified apart from any works of the law. <<<br> <br>Exactly, and James is not referring to "works of the law" like Paul is. If you're the same "bishop3" that I'm acquainted with on IRC, we've had this discussion before. I'm surprized you'd post this.<br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 1:12 AM

In the most technical sense there is nothing wrong with saying works is a part of salvation- as you rightly pointed out, sanctification is a part of salvation. The term "salvation" is a large umbrella covering a number of doctrines. I would recommend "Redemption Accomplished and Applied" by Murray for a good treatment on this topic.<br><br>The problem here is two-fold: 1) Roman Catholic theology adds works to JUSTIFICATION, thereby confusing the order of salvation and also perverting the concept of being freely justified by Christ apart from works. 2) The problem with everyday Protestant vernacular in confusing terms. When a Protestant says that works are not a part of salvation he most likely means that they are not a part of election, calling, justification and regeneration.. certainly he doesn't mean they aren't a part of sanctification which is a part of the salvific process which results in glorification.<br><br>In summary, I don't have a problem if you say works are a part of salvation as long as we define our terms. If you attribute works to your justification- then we've got a problem. This was the very point of the Protestant Reformation. They didn't leave Rome because they were antinomians and thought they didn't need to do good deeds. Rather they left Rome because they understood that they could offer no good deeds to Christ's finished work that would be meritorious in their justification.
Posted By: lazarus

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 2:14 AM

CathApol - then explain purgatory...which keeps us (albeit temporarily) from Christ in the first place....AND...allows for the situation where others can improve our lot by their effectual prayers. So, I see the individual and ALSO his friends ADDING to the finished work of Christ. <br><br>
Posted By: bishop3

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 4:52 AM

Hello ScottYeah its me...I should have just posted my beliefs w/o naming a certain group; I apologize in this regard. I got carried away with the discussion and used labels. I usually dont do that..even though we have disagreements as a result of me being reformed.:-)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 9:40 AM

Hi Scott and thanks for your reply.

In regards to my post. You write that the "Catholics's do not believe in works unto salvation". I agree, Catholic's do not! But "Roman Catholics" do, or are at least taught this concept. I may be mistaken, and if so, please help me unwind the idea, as I have gleaned this from the catechism of the (R) Catholic church. I was raised a RC. I attended parochial school and was involved in CYO. With all due respect, I am not new to the idea.

How does pennance, indulgences, baptism (for the forgiveness of sins, see 1239 in C.C.C) and the mass (both for those who have already passed and for those who still live? see 1364, 1371 C.C.C) not support a *work*?

More to come..........
IN HIM,
Scott Bushey
Posted By: Five_Sola

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:54 AM

refbap,

A few comments...

I think we need to be careful when we mention the works being added to our salvation at the point of santification. (I'm not saying that you do not believe these or that you are trying to be unclear) First we must make sure we clarify our terms and positions especially among modern "evangelicals" not to mention the Romanist "church". Our works are included in the work of santification because God has chosen to do so. We must understand that it does not change our status with God one bit. God could accomplish the work of santification without the use of works and in a sense does. I cannot remember the reference (if the monitors think of it please add it in here), I think in Ephesians. That God has prepared the good works we will walk in. So in a sense (not to the extreme hyper-cals take it) the good works we contribute have already been ordained by God.

I think the clarification should be stated that our works are not essential to salvation (even sanctification) but are a required proof (fruit) of sanctification.

That's where we need to be precise because saying works are necessary to sanctification is antithetical to Salvation by Grace Alone.

I think I've rambled enough. [Linked Image]

Posted By: Five_Sola

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 12:00 PM

CathApol,

you state:
"Salvation is through Christ alone and His finished work on the Cross"

If the roman state "church" believed in Salvation through Christ ALONE, and the FINISHED work of the Cross, then there is no need to add any work to the salvation of a soul for the work is finished (on the cross).

Could you help me understand this apparent contradiction?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 4:17 PM

Hello again. I wasn't sure where to post this, so it may not be in the right place. Anyway, I really appreciate all the responses to my question, and they have given me much to think about.

I think I understand what has been said, and I don't disagree, but as you probably all know it becomes more complicated when we talk to someone who is part of the RCC. Sometimes we use the same word but mean something very different, and it can become frustrating. I can't tell you how many times I've thought I finally understood their meaning, only to later find out I didn't have the right concept at all. Unity just for the sake of unity is meaningless, and yet I don't want to divide over something that's really just the result of not being able to scale the language barrier. Sometimes it appears that our differences are vast, and other times I look at the big things we have in common and realize what a shame it would be to just throw all those away.

This is a great message board, and it's a real pleasure to read all the different discussions going on!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 4:25 PM

Scott, you sound SO protestant in this post!
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 03, 2002 7:29 PM

RefBap,

Yes, it's easy for Scott to sound protestant when he (knowingly) uses terms that resonate with the Protestant but mean different things for Roman Catholics.

Scott writes: Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify.

Jason: I give Scott full credit for coming as close as he can to the biblical doctrine without disowning his own denomination. But what you need to consider, RefBap, is that Roman Catholic Justification is more of a disposition than a position. In addition to that, it is important to unpack Scott's sentence to expose the Roman doctrine for what it is.

First of all, Scott guards himself from the idea that works outside of a state of grace lead to salvation and positively writes that they lead to sanctification, which is flirting with deception (his sanctification = "increase of Justification" in Roman Catholic theology), but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. What he does not say in the clearer, Tridentine manner of explaining justification is that these works done in a state of grace are meritorious and are what merit a person eternal life:

For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life. (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 16)

That is, through Baptism the guilt of eternal death is washed away, and the righteousness of Christ is infused into the recipient such that the righteousness of Christ infused into him results in good works (in accordance with a semi-pelgian view of co-operation) and these good works are what merit eternal life. It is not the perfect righteousness of Christ accounted to the individual that becomes the basis for acceptance, but the satisfaction of the divine law that exists in the individual.

That is the fatal flaw of Roman Catholic justification. On the one hand they say that the formal cause of Justification comes by the actual presence of Christ's righteousness, and yet they claim that an imperfect and incomplete mixture of righteousness and sin is sufficient to merit eternal life.

In addition, keep in mind that when Catholics say justification is by faith, this does not even necessarily mean the faith of the one justified. It is the "Church's faith" that justifies the infant as the Church believes that God will perform the work that He supposedly promises in baptism. This is why it is necessary for the intentions of the priest to be genuine in order for a legitimate baptism to take place and therefore the infusion of justification to take place.

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1253)

1124 The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1124)

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1127)

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 7th Session, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Canon 11)



So to answer your initial question, RefBap, this following canon is precisely the reason why the letter of Roman Catholic Justification kills:

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

When they say, "to the exclusion of the grace and charity..." they are not simply giving to us a description of a genuine faith that receives justification, but they mean that the good works themselves are what formally cause the justification to take place. If Justification is dependent upon fully satisfying the divine law, as Trent declares and Catholicism teaches, then no person whether they are in a supposed state of grace or not can get past the fact that they fall short of the glory of God.

Hope that helps,

Jason.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 6:54 AM

Jason: >> I give Scott full credit for coming as close as he can to the biblical doctrine without disowning his own denomination. But what you need to consider, RefBap, is that Roman Catholic Justification is more of a disposition than a position. In addition to that, it is important to unpack Scott's sentence to expose the Roman doctrine for what it is.

First of all, Scott guards himself from the idea that works outside of a state of grace lead to salvation and positively writes that they lead to sanctification, which is flirting with deception (his sanctification = "increase of Justification" in Roman Catholic theology), but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. What he does not say in the clearer, Tridentine manner of explaining justification is that these works done in a state of grace are meritorious and are what merit a person eternal life <<

Jason - you misrepresent Catholic Teaching, and I was attempting to clarify it. There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation. Those justified ARE saved, period. Good works done in the state of grace (grace preceeding) are meritorious and lead to an increase in sanctification. Sanctification can lead to more rewards in heaven - but if one is not sanctified, he will not be justified and if not justified, will not be "saved."

Your out-of-context quotes from Catholic teaching are very misleading. You cannot take snippets from our Faith and then present your argumentation. Catholicism includes what I have said, thus an out-of-context quote that ignores a more complete treatment of the subject doesn't tell the whole story here. I don't accuse you of deliberately being deceptive, for I believe you're only repeating propaganda that you've been taught regarding the Catholic Faith. Nonetheless, you're not presenting the truth regarding the Catholic Faith if you don't present the whole truth. Might I suggest, if you (or anyone else) has a challenge regarding Catholicism - let a Catholic represent his/her Faith. My purpose in answering this thread was not to challenge RefBap - but to clarify Catholic teaching on this matter. I am not attempting to deceive anyone here regarding the Church's teaching on sanctification or justification - I hope you're open to hearing the full story, and not just what those who have an agenda against the Catholic Church have to say.

We had a very similar discussion in the #CathApol Chatroom earlier this evening (I guess that's really "yesterday" now). I presented this "hierarchy" in regard to works/sanctification/justification:

Catholicism is not a "works = salvation" system at all.
for without GRACE - works are nothing.
without WORKS there is no sanctification.
without SANCTIFICATION there is no justification.
without JUSTIFICATION there is no SALVATION.

It all begins with Grace.

Paul teaches, quite consistently, that we must persevere in our faith to be saved. James, likewise says that a faith that has no works is not a "saving faith." Throughout the NT we're told of all the things we must "do" (works) or we do not have that "saving faith."

Quite often challengers to Catholicism will point out Paul contrasting Faith and Works - but invariably, Paul is speaking about "works of the law" and NOT "works done in/by/through Grace." As I mentioned earlier, Paul also, quite often, speaks of "persevering" and "running to win..." (etc.) so Paul too sees the importance of "works" in a "saving faith." James and Paul are quite consistent when read in the proper perspective and context.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<
CathApol Chatroom: http://www.a2z.org/acts/cathapol

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 7:01 AM

Five_Sola posits:
>> CathApol,
you state:
"Salvation is through Christ alone and His finished work on the Cross"

If the roman state "church" believed in Salvation through Christ ALONE, and the FINISHED work of the Cross, then there is no need to add any work to the salvation of a soul for the work is finished (on the cross).

Could you help me understand this apparent contradiction? <<

Scott replies:
I think you missed the point. Salvation is only dependent on works so far as works are important to a "saving faith." Works don't "add to" salvation, but they can add to the "merits" and "rewards" of those "saved." Some works, however, can actually "detract" from one's "rewards" for when our works are tested, as by fire, some may be "burned up" and the person (who is deemed "justified/saved" already) would then "suffer loss" though he himself would still be "saved."

I hope this helps...

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 7:20 AM

Scott B: >> In regards to my post. You write that the "Catholics's do not believe in works unto salvation". I agree, Catholic's do not! But "Roman Catholics" do, or are at least taught this concept. I may be mistaken, and if so, please help me unwind the idea, as I have gleaned this from the catechism of the (R) Catholic church. I was raised a RC. I attended parochial school and was involved in CYO. With all due respect, I am not new to the idea. <<

Scott W: With all due respect, (and I mean that), I believe catechesis has been inconsistent and even lacking in many places, I've heard of some/many Catholics (or more accurately "proclaimed Catholics") that outright deny certain Articles of Faith. Catholic education needs some help, though there are many out there that are educated well in the True Teachings - and I hope they use their education to help the misinformed - Protestant and Catholic alike. I'm not saying that you're not well educated in this, I don't know enough about you to say one way or the other. I'm only saying that mere association with SOME Catholic parishes (sadly) doesn't always amount to a good Catholic education.

Scott B. continues: >> How does pennance, indulgences, baptism (for the forgiveness of sins, see 1239 in C.C.C) and the mass (both for those who have already passed and for those who still live? see 1364, 1371 C.C.C) not support a *work*? <<

Scott W: Well, you're asking the same question about two different categories, 1) those already passed; and 2) those still alive. So I'll give you two answers:

1) For those already passed, they are already judged in regard to their salvation/justification. If they have been damned - no amount of prayer, penance or indulgence will do. There is no "Baptism" for the dead. If they are judged to be justified/saved - then they can receive merits from the living that may reduce their Purgatory (yet another subject).

2) For those alive, prayer, penance and indulgences done in the state of grace add to sanctification (the process toward justification). Baptism is part of Initial Grace. These things, for the living, are part of what makes up the "works" in a "saving faith."

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 7:35 AM

"Laz" said: >> CathApol - then explain purgatory...which keeps us (albeit temporarily) from Christ in the first place....AND...allows for the situation where others can improve our lot by their effectual prayers. So, I see the individual and ALSO his friends ADDING to the finished work of Christ. <<

[color:green]Scott replies: The "finished work of Christ on the Cross" provides for all who believe in Him and accept Him (which necessarily means they must "do" what He has asked of them) brings us to salvation. Every single soul in Purgatory IS ALREADY SAVED! They have attained that "finished work of Christ." Nothing can "add to" salvation once judged - nor take that salvation away; it is finished. Purgatory is where any unconfessed venial sins and/or sins not fully contrite for - are "purged" or "cleansed" as Scripture states, "nothing unclean can enter heaven." The "effectual prayers" of "friends" may reduce the time spent in Purgatory - but doesn't add one iota to their salvation - that's already a "done deal."

Purgatory is not for anyone who has the stain of "sins that kill" (mortal sins) remaining after they pass on. Anyone in such a state have already been judged and damned to hell - there is no Purgatory, and no amount of prayers from friends can help them.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<


Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 8:53 AM

Scott W,
Does not the following imply a work:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - English Translation

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

It looks as if the implication is: "If we do this, God will do that." Baptism washes away sin? The new birth (John 3:3) is worked out (actuated) by water baptism? Scott W. has also stated that the works which have been described are those which flow from the faith we have, ala James. How does a infant exercise faith in his water baptism....unless of course it is *faith by proxy*, through the parents, and then we are encroaching on the Mormons claim to fame..

Scott W. has previously stated that by centrally focusing on any one application or mandate is to take the RCC out of context. I believe this is the old bait and switch. Lets call a spade a spade. Does not the mass intend to "wash away sin ?" The Catechism states that the eucharist is a sacrifice. This is a work; there is no way around it. Is the eucharist a sacrifice?

So much more...........

In HIM,
Scott
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 12:32 PM

Scott writes: Jason - you misrepresent Catholic Teaching, and I was attempting to clarify it...Your out-of-context quotes from Catholic teaching are very misleading... I don't accuse you of deliberately being deceptive, for I believe you're only repeating propaganda that you've been taught regarding the Catholic Faith. Nonetheless, you're not presenting the truth regarding the Catholic Faith if you don't present the whole truth

Jason: Then show me where I misrepresented it, Scott. This typical decry from Catholic apologists as victims of misrepresentation is tired and worn out with me. I have hundreds of hours of personal time put into studying the Catholic position from their own sources and as many pages of notes from my research to back up my points. If I am repeating "propaganda", then it is coming from your own church because that is where I go to study Catholic doctrine. So perhaps you could save time and disk space in refraining from making such ignorant accusations such as I merely repeat propaganda, and deal with the Tridentine decrees on Justification.


Scott writes: There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation. Those justified ARE saved, period.

Jason: First of all, the notion that one can increase in justification does not militate against someone being saved ("period") in Roman Catholic theology, and I never said it did.

Second, to deny increase in Justification is simply to deny the teaching of Trent in plain terms:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified (Council of Trent, Decrees on Justification, Chapter 10)

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.


In that last clause, "the cause and increase thereof" has "Justification obtained" clearly as its antecedent. So like I said, Justification is more of a disposition (being in a state of grace) that may be increased or decreased as Trent teaches throughout its decrees. At the same time, they say nothing is wanting in the justified by virtue of Christ's righteousness inherent in them. Hey, I never said their theology was consistent.


Scott: Good works done in the state of grace (grace preceeding) are meritorious and lead to an increase in sanctification. Sanctification can lead to more rewards in heaven - but if one is not sanctified, he will not be justified and if not justified, will not be "saved."

Jason: I never said that good works outside of a state of grace merit anything, I specifically said, "these works done in a state of grace are meritorious". That was very clear throughout my post. You have attempted to correct non-errors in my post.


Scott: You cannot take snippets from our Faith and then present your argumentation. Catholicism includes what I have said, thus an out-of-context quote that ignores a more complete treatment of the subject doesn't tell the whole story here.

Jason: You have not shown how my quote is out of context, you have merely made assertions as to what your definition of Justification entails, without any reference to what I might have taken out of context or how it is that your position is the Tridentine one.


Scott: Might I suggest, if you (or anyone else) has a challenge regarding Catholicism - let a Catholic represent his/her Faith.

Jason: Might I suggest that if someone has a question regarding Catholicism that they reference the Vatican sources themselves and not Catholic apologists, who have no authority to speak for the church and speak smooth words pleasant to Protestant ears.


Scott writes:
Catholicism is not a "works = salvation" system at all.
for without GRACE - works are nothing.
without WORKS there is no sanctification.
without SANCTIFICATION there is no justification.
without JUSTIFICATION there is no SALVATION.

It all begins with Grace.

Jason: That's not good enough Scott, which is why I pinpointed the nut of the problem in my first post. I did not say anything that contradicts what you wrote above. What I emphasized is that whether works are done in a state of grace or not, if it is those grace-induced works which become the basis upon which we are accepted by God (that is, if they are the formal cause of Justification) then they are insufficient to justify. It is the justice of Christ inherent in a person that forms the basis upon which the person is formally just in Roman Catholicism, you cannot deny that this is the Tridentine teaching.


Scott writes: James and Paul are quite consistent when read in the proper perspective and context.

Jason: Amen. And in vain will we look for their teaching that baptism justifies initially and then works done in a state of grace preserve and increase justification unless one falls into mortal sin, upon which the person must receive absolution by a human priest in the Sacrament of Penance.


Regards,

Jason.
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 12:52 PM

Scott writes: Purgatory is where any unconfessed venial sins and/or sins not fully contrite for - are "purged" or "cleansed" as Scripture states, "nothing unclean can enter heaven."

Jason: Just for the sake of Protestants who might not know, it is significant that these purgatorial punishments by which sins are cleansed, are for the express purpose of making satisfaction for sin, inflicted by God's holiness and justice on an albeit justified person, which is necessary for the full remission of sin and to placate the divine justice due to their sin. That is, these purgatorial punishments are inflicted by God's sanctity and justice for the purpose of expiation because the justified person is only forgiven the "eternal punishment" of sin and not the "temporal punishment" of sin, which can only be satisfied through sufferings.

Regards,

Jason
Posted By: lazarus

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 2:19 PM

Thanks Jason.<br><br>So, the dead believer in purgatory is in some way being subjected to God's judgements and wrath? <br><br>How does this square up with:<br><br>Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus....<br><br>Also, should we take Paul at his word when he penned that to be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" Or did he really mean to say..."...is to be present with the Lord, but only after a period of temporal suffering"? <br><br>In one sense, isn't Rome guilty of 'adding' to the Scriptures? <br><br><br> <br><br>
Posted By: Five_Sola

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 2:43 PM

interesting. If I am understanding you right you are espousing the protestant view of works. I've never heard a catholic phrase it in this way. So in your thinking works are absolutely unessential to attain or maintain salvation (justification or sanctification). Works are merely the fruit we produce as we are brought closer and closer to the righteousness of Christ (never perfectly attained until glorification). Then what is the need for the sacraments of baptism, penance, etc if they do not continue or maintain salvation? Purgatory for that matter is unnecessary also since the works we do are in the reward category and thus no need to purge the venial sins from our souls/body. <br><br>I am asking these questions because you don't sound like any Romanist I've met, and I've met very educated ones. The lucky ones who became christians and left the Roman "church".<br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 3:57 PM

Not in "one sense" Laz, but every sense.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Misrepresentaions of RC Justification - Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:12 PM

I noticed that some are saying RC's views of Justification are being mis-represented??? or are they?? Here are some links to debate!!!

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ155.HTM

http://www.christiantruth.com/RCJustification.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 5:03 PM

Lazarus: So, the dead believer in purgatory is in some way being subjected to God's judgements and wrath?

Jason: Yes that is the case. Roman Catholics today will often emphasize the purgation of purgatory and the cleansing of purgatory, which is true in itself, while not hanging out the dirty laundry as to why and how that purging is accomplished. The purging is punishment, and it is necessary for making a complete satisfaction for sin.

For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 2, Article 5, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,[3] or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)

It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church (Council of Florence (1439), De novissimis)

That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 3, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)


So yes, the justified are still subject to the necessary wrath of God by which they make satisfactions which placate divine justice (unless they are a martyr, or somehow make enough satisfactions prior to death). This is because Roman Catholicism makes a distinction between the guilt of eternal death, which is remitted in baptism (or penance if one falls after baptism), but not the punishment for venial sins committed after baptism. They believe that one still needs to be punished even if the guilt of eternal death is taken away. They would, of course, agree there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus because they would claim condemnation pertains to eternal death (a death sentence).

(But then again, I am just sowing Protestant propaganda and don't understand Roman Catholicism, so you'll have to confirm with a Roman Catholic.) [Linked Image]


Regards,

Jason
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 5:41 PM

In reply to:

Nothing can "add to" salvation once judged - nor take that salvation away; it is finished. Purgatory is where any unconfessed venial sins and/or sins not fully contrite for - are "purged" or "cleansed" as Scripture states, "nothing unclean can enter heaven."


It would appear that you have failed to include some very pertinent information re: purgatory, which Jason has been astute enough to include below. The official RC doctrine of purgatory clearly states that it is a place of expiation and of judgment. It further states that Christ's atonement was efficacious ONLY to remove the penalty of eternal death and not for the penalty for sins committed after baptism. I find this in direct contradiction to what I read in myriad places throughout the Scriptures, i.e.,

Hebrews 10:12-18 (ASV) "but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; [then saith he,] And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
It seems clear enough to me that the atonement was efficacious to remit "sins" and "iniquities" (plural), which contradicts this notion that ONLY "original sin" was expiated at the cross. Those, who by faith, are ingrafted into Christ and declared righteous.

Because believers have had all their sins atoned for, they are declared righteous and Christ's righteousness is at the moment the sinner believes, imputed to him. Philip Eveson makes this point when he writes:
Paul expounds justification in chapters four and five of Romans where righteousness is spoken of as God’s gift (5:17) and is reckoned to the believer (4:3-11). Imputation or ‘interchange’, what Luther called ‘the wonderful exchange’, is at the heart of God’s justifying grace. Sin is not reckoned to believers but to Christ and he bears it; the obedience or righteousness of Christ is reckoned to believers so that they are constituted righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21). In 1 Corinthians 1:30 Christ is described as our righteousness from God. Again Philippians 3:9, ‘not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but...the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith’, parallels Paul’s statement in Romans 10:3 ‘not knowing the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God’ (a literal translation). The Philippians passage clearly shows that righteousness is a gift from God (‘the righteousness from God’) and that must be taken into account in any discussion of the term ‘the righteousness of God’. Philippians 3:9 also associates this righteousness with faith in Christ. Incidentally, faith is stressed in Romans 1:17 and that adds weight to the view that the gift element cannot be ignored when interpreting ‘the righteousness of God’ there. (The Great Exchange Day One Publications: GB, p. 17)
Paul also declares:
1 Corinthians 1:30 (ASV) "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:"
Thus even our sanctification was secured for believers in Christ's substitutionary atonement.

Further, "Original Sin" is not to be understood as an "act"; the singular transgression of Adam, but rather the penalty which was the result of Adam's transgression, i.e., the guilt imputed and the corruption of nature inherited. (Rom 5:12-18).


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 04, 2002 11:11 PM

Jason: Then show me where I misrepresented it, Scott. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott: I did.</font color=purple><br><br>Jason:This typical decry from Catholic apologists as victims of misrepresentation is tired and worn out with me.<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott: Then perhaps you should stop misrepresenting us? <br> <br>Jason, I am a Catholic. I know what I believe and I know what my Church teaches. What is quite wearing is when non-Catholics and anti-Catholics who attempt to tell others what Catholics believe, then when a Catholic says "we don't believe it the way you're presenting it," you cry "foul." You can claim to have studied all you want, the fact remains, you're not "one of us." <br> <br>Now, when I want to find about about someone or something, I don't go to the detractors of that person or position, I go to one who adheres to the point in question. I may hear out one who detracts, but I place much more credence on the statements of one who takes the positive than one who takes the negative. <br> <br>I've pointed out that you've misrepresented us, I did show where you misrepresented. If you wish to continue believing that Catholics adhere to the belief system you've presented - in the face of testimony from Catholics that say we don't - well, I can't stop such folly.<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple> <br>
Posted By: Wes

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:10 AM

Scott,<br><br>As an apologist you should be able to provide a defense for what you believe. You haven't proved anything. It appears that Jason knows more are your church doctines than you do.<br><br>You haven't showed anybody anything except your opinion. You will need to provide Scripture and church doctrine which disproves what Jason has written. He has quoted from your church doctrine and you have only stated your opinion. I'm wondering if you're even faithful to what a Catholic believes. Your statement that Jason is misrepresenting Catholicism is simply your opinion and has no validity in fact. [Linked Image]<br><br>You're gonna have to come up with proof. [Linked Image]<br><br>Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:14 AM

Five_Sola: interesting. If I am understanding you right you are espousing the protestant view of works. I've never heard a catholic phrase it in this way. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott:We phrased it that way long before there was anything called "Protestantism."</font color=purple><br><br>Five_Sola: So in your thinking works are absolutely unessential to attain or maintain salvation (justification or sanctification). Works are merely the fruit we produce as we are brought closer and closer to the righteousness of Christ (never perfectly attained until glorification). <br><br>[color:purple]Scott: Well, it depends on how you're using your terminology here. Yes, works are absolutely unessential to maintaining salvation. Salvation is not something we possess here and now, it's "the prize at the end of the race." Those who persevere will attain the prize. Now the discussion would be "what is perseverence?" Does that not imply "doing something?" Initial Grace is a free gift to us, we do nothing to "earn" or "attain" that - but we can increase in holiness through good works done in the state of grace. Such works are absolutely necessary too, for without such - we'd have that "dead faith" that James refers to. <br></font color=purple><br><br>Five_Sola: Then what is the need for the sacraments of baptism, penance, etc if they do not continue or maintain salvation?<br><br>[color:purple]Scott: Again, salvation is not something that is "maintained" it is something given at the end of the race. All who "finish" will get that prize, but to one who "wins" their reward will be greater. Baptism is essential because Our Lord commands it. No one who truly believes Our Lord would not receive baptism, or "confirm" those baptismal vows through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Penance is necessary to show our sincerity when we ask for forgiveness. Penance is not always part of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation either, we can do penance at anytime - and that's part of the "works" that James refers to that show a "saving faith."<br></font color=purple><br><br>Five_Sola: Purgatory for that matter is unnecessary also since the works we do are in the reward category and thus no need to purge the venial sins from our souls/body. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott: When we're in Purgatory, it's too late for works. We are there because of a lacking somewhere. Now, those still living can dedicate their good works to the "poor souls in Purgatory" if they choose. If they do so, they receive none of the merit, for they have "given" it to others who can no longer merit for themselves. There's no precise math for Purgatory, we have no idea how long it will last - we only know that nothing impure can enter heaven - and if we have one iota of "stain" against us - that must be cleansed. Also, our "works" are tested by fire (quite Scriptural) and those who are "tested" and have "works made of wood and straw" those people will "suffer loss," right? This is talking about something after this life, so unless you believe there will be suffering in heaven, then there's "another place" that's not quite hell, but where those who are saved must endure suffering - and the Bible says we ALL will be tested in this manner.<br></font color=purple><br><br>Five_Sola: I am asking these questions because you don't sound like any Romanist I've met, and I've met very educated ones. The lucky ones who became christians and left the Roman "church".<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott: Hmmm, that sounds like a thinly veiled ad hominem. If I don't leave the Catholic Church, I am "uneducated." If you didn't mean it that way, then an apology is in order. Actually, one is in order either way you may have meant it.<br><br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott</font><<<<br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:27 AM

Wes, Jason and I have gone around the block more than once in other forums. I can, and have provided him with Church documents and Scripture. I even provided such in my previous message - I just didn't cite chapter and verse throughout. I am quite capable of providing more detail and citation, and since you ask - I will.<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font>
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:59 AM

Scott writes: I've pointed out that you've misrepresented us, I did show where you misrepresented.<br><br>Jason: All I've seen is your attempt to correct things I did not say, with the exception of "increase in Justification" which is plain Tridentine language. If you want to explain that one away, we're all ears.<br><br><br>Scott writes: You can claim to have studied all you want, the fact remains, you're not "one of us."<br><br>Jason: Well Scott, does one need to hold to a position in order to accurately understand it? Does one need to be a practicing Catholic in order to study Catholicism and apprehend its dogmas? If this is not necessary, then your entire post is pointless to our discussion and nothing more than smokescreen.<br><br>If you would like to press this idea that one must personally own a position in order to really understand it, then you have undermined your entire apologetics enterprise, my friend. I expect you to remove any and all criticisms of Protestant positions such as Sola Scriptura from your web site, since being a Catholic, there is no way you could truly understand our doctrine since you're not "one of us" and therefore you can't interact with it intelligently.<br><br>So Scott, could you understand Roman Catholic doctrine when you were a Lutheran? How did you ever convert to Roman Catholicism as a Protestant if Protestants can't comprehend Roman Catholic theology without first becoming Roman Catholic? Perhaps you have finally, unwittingly, admitted what converts to Roman Catholicism must do in order to convert - surrender all rational powers to the Magisterium in an act of blind faith.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Jason.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:26 AM

Jason, this is truly helpful and very thorough. Your point about RC justification being more disposition than position was good. I love protestants and Catholics, but reading through that just makes me thankful for the simplicity of the true gospel. <br><br>RefBap
Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:01 AM

Jason<br><br>I dare say that you understand Roman Catholism better than most RCs understand their own doctrine.<br>I am curious about the adding to justification part. How else could that be interpreted?<br><br>It sounds like Scott is in disagreement with the Trent.<br><br>Tom
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 11:19 AM

Thanks RefBap,<br><br>Though after thinking about it, a clearer statement would be that it is a position based upon disposition rather than a position by imputation. The emphasis is on disposition, though they would not deny it is positional, it's just that the declaration comes from actually being just rather than being reckoned as just.<br><br>God bless my friend,<br><br>Jason
Posted By: Five_Sola

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:37 PM

[color:purple]Scott:</font color=purple> Well, it depends on how you're using your terminology here. Yes, works are absolutely unessential to maintaining salvation. Salvation is not something we possess here and now, it's "the prize at the end of the race." Those who persevere will attain the prize. Now the discussion would be "what is perseverence?" Does that not imply "doing something?" Initial Grace is a free gift to us, we do nothing to "earn" or "attain" that - but we can increase in holiness through good works done in the state of grace. Such works are absolutely necessary too, for without such - we'd have that "dead faith" that James refers to. <br><br>Five Sola: Well, now the clarifications are out I can say that you are not espousing a protestant/biblical teaching. Age is always an enemy with me (and I am a relatively young man) because I can't ever remember the text I am wanting to qoute [Linked Image]. (so anyone out there who can provide the text I am trying to qoute please do so, thanks). Salvation is always in Scripture a "already/not yet" scheme. We do not have perfected salvation but we do have salvation. Christ mentions that those the Father have given him [elect] He [Christ] will raise up in the last day. Not IF they continue, not hopefully if they finish he will, no he WILL raise them up to glory. The Romans 8 passage gives the famous 'chain of salvation' as it has been called and it is a if/then series that is the previous happens the latter will of course follow. By the time we arrive at the end it states that those God Justifies he will glorify. Also notice the use of past tense...it is not something open to a maybe. There are numerous passages establishing the perserveration of the Saints as a journey but one that WILL be finished by the Grace of God. I suggest if that is the path you want to discuss then lets open a new thread and focus on that.<br><br>On the topic of purgatory, I think your missing the point (as most RCC's do) If Christ sacrifice was complete as you claim (and it was) then there are no more sins held to our account. We are blameless before our God. I know some of that has to do with how RCCers misapply justification to the whole topic. But when God looks to my 'account' He sees Christ righteousness. Christ has advocated for me and had me legally declared pure. I'm not yet, not until glorification, that gets back to the already/not yet aspect of salvation.<br><br>I do agree that salvation is not something maintained, rather given at the point of justification and is something we have for certain until we reach Glory. This certainity is not from our works or actions through life (though if no fruit/works are seen then that certainty should be re-evaluated) but only by the Grace of God and the promise of Christ to hold us within his hands till eternity.<br><br>[color:purple]Scott: Hmmm, that sounds like a thinly veiled ad hominem. If I don't leave the Catholic Church, I am "uneducated." If you didn't mean it that way, then an apology is in order. Actually, one is in order either way you may have meant it.</font color=purple><br><br>well my use of the word educated was not intended to imply anything concerning you, it was to show the person I am refering was not some person ignorant of RCC teachings, he was raised in it. I should have been more clear on that. My emphasis, if any, was on his aspect of 'christian' since being a Roman Catholic he was not a christian. (I do believe their can be christian catholics but only if they are ignorant of their "churches" teachings since RCC teaching is anti-christian)<br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 1:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Salvation is through Christ alone and His finished work on the Cross. Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Hi Scott,<br><br>I trust that when you say that "Catholics DO believe" such and so, what you mean is that the "Roman Catholic church teaches..." those doctrines that you embrace. In other words, in these discussions what is relevant is not the beliefs of individuals who call themselves Catholics, but rather what the church officially teaches. <br><br>Assuming, therefore, that in your estimation your beliefs are consistent with and reflect Roman Catholicism maybe you might consider addressing the following points for clarification.<br><br>(1) Is justification a process that encompasses sanctification?<br><br>(2) Are one's post-baptismal works meritorious in any way? <br><br>Ron<br><br>
Posted By: Wes

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Wed Jun 05, 2002 5:34 PM

Five_Sola,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Five Sola: Well, now the clarifications are out I can say that you are not espousing a protestant/biblical teaching. Age is always an enemy with me (and I am a relatively young man) because I can't ever remember the text I am wanting to qoute . (so anyone out there who can provide the text I am trying to qoute please do so, thanks). Salvation is always in Scripture a "already/not yet" scheme. We do not have perfected salvation but we do have salvation. Christ mentions that those the Father have given him [elect] He [Christ] will raise up in the last day. Not IF they continue, not hopefully if they finish he will, no he WILL raise them up to glory.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Could these be the texts you're referring to?<br><br>John 10:27-30<br>"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one." <br><br>John 6:44<br>"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." <br><br>Philippians 1:6<br>"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" <br><br>Ephesians 2:8-10<br>"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." <br><br>Wes<br><br><br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:52 AM

Recently I was accused of only posting my "opinions" in a response to Jason. Below I have taken a couple messages (which were the ones accused of only presenting my opinions), leaving all the text that was in the originals - and inserting Church teaching and Scriptural references to show my initial statements certainly were NOT mere opinions, but well grounded in the teachings of the Church and Scripture. This is also now posted on my website. What I am adding today is [color:purple]in purple</font color=purple>, and quotes from Church teaching and Scripture is indented and [color:red]in red</font color=red>.<br><br>Scott writes: Purgatory is where any unconfessed venial sins and/or sins not fully contrite for - are "purged" or "cleansed" as Scripture states, "nothing unclean can enter heaven."<br><br>Jason replies: Just for the sake of Protestants who might not know, it is significant that these purgatorial punishments by which sins are cleansed, are for the express purpose of making satisfaction for sin, inflicted by God's holiness and justice on an albeit justified person, which is necessary for the full remission of sin and to placate the divine justice due to their sin. That is, these purgatorial punishments are inflicted by God's sanctity and justice for the purpose of expiation because the justified person is only forgiven the "eternal punishment" of sin and not the "temporal punishment" of sin, which can only be satisfied through sufferings.<br><br>[color:purple]And Scott responds: Again, Jason overstates the case a bit, attempting to prove a point. Rather than just listen to the "opinions" Jason stated above, let's look at some real Catholic teaching on the matter:</font color=purple><br> <br>[color:red]<blockquote>CCC 1031. "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[Cf. 1 Cor 3:15 ; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31 .] "<br><br>CCC 1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. [color:blue]These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.</font color=blue> A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"</blockquote></font color=red><br> <br>[color:purple]Hence we see, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Purgatory is not an absolute necessity for all Christians to endure, for it is possible that one could reach complete purification on this earth. We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott</font><br> <br>PS - Wes commented on one of my messages that I presented only my opinions (which wasn't true, I referenced the Scriptures in the message Wes responded to, I just didn't cite chapter and verse) and in this message from Jason, we have no reference to Church teaching or to Scripture - all we have is "Jason's opinions." Will Wes talk to Jason about this? :-)<br><br><br>Wes' message:</font color=purple><br> <br><blockquote>Scott,<br><br>As an apologist you should be able to provide a defense for what you believe. You haven't proved (sic) anything. It appears that Jason knows more are your church doctines than you do.<br><br>You haven't showed anybody anything except your opinion. You will need to provide Scripture and church doctrine which disproves what Jason has written. He has quoted from your church doctrine and you have only stated your opinion. I'm wondering if you're even faithful to what a Catholic believes. Your statement that Jason is misrepresenting Catholicism is simply your opinion and has no validity in fact. <br><br>You're gonna have to come up with proof. <br><br>Wes </blockquote><br><br>[color:purple]Below is the message that Wes commented on, this time with Scriptural and Church citations added in (words I add today will be in [color:purple]purple</font color=purple>, quotes will be in [color:red]red</font color=red>):</font color=purple><br> <br>Scott wrote: Jason - you misrepresent Catholic Teaching, and I was attempting to clarify it. There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation. Those justified ARE saved, period. Good works done in the state of grace (grace preceeding) are meritorious and lead to an increase in sanctification. Sanctification can lead to more rewards in heaven - but if one is not sanctified, he will not be justified and if not justified, will not be "saved." <br><br>[color:purple]I must add here, the Church often uses the terms of sanctified and justified synonymously:</font color=purple><br>[color:red]<blockquote>CCC 2813. "In the waters of Baptism, we have been 'washed . . . SANCTIFIED . . . JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'[2 Cor 6:11 .] Our Father calls us to holiness in the whole of our life, and since 'he is the source of (our) life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and . . .sanctification,'[1 Cor 1:30 ; cf. 1 Thess 4:7.] both his glory and our life depend on the hallowing of his name in us and by us. Such is the urgency of our first petition. By whom is God hallowed, since he is the one who hallows? But since he said, 'You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy,' we seek and ask that we who were SANCTIFIED in Baptism may persevere in what we have begun to be. And we ask this daily, for we need sanctification daily, so that we who fail daily may cleanse away our sins by being SANCTIFIED continually.... We pray that this sanctification may remain in us.[St. Cyprian De Dom. orat. 12: PL 4,527A; Lev 20:26.]"</blockquote></font color=red><br>[color:purple]So I can understand how Jason, who takes a bit of a different view/definition of justification, has misunderstood and misapplied Catholic teaching on this matter.</font color=purple><br><br>Your out-of-context quotes from Catholic teaching are very misleading. You cannot take snippets from our Faith and then present your argumentation. Catholicism includes what I have said, thus an out-of-context quote that ignores a more complete treatment of the subject doesn't tell the whole story here. I don't accuse you of deliberately being deceptive, for I believe you're only repeating propaganda that you've been taught regarding the Catholic Faith. Nonetheless, you're not presenting the truth regarding the Catholic Faith if you don't present the whole truth. Might I suggest, if you (or anyone else) has a challenge regarding Catholicism - let a Catholic represent his/her Faith. My purpose in answering this thread was not to challenge RefBap - but to clarify Catholic teaching on this matter. I am not attempting to deceive anyone here regarding the Church's teaching on sanctification or justification - I hope you're open to hearing the full story, and not just what those who have an agenda against the Catholic Church have to say.<br><br>We had a very similar discussion in the #CathApol Chatroom earlier this evening (I guess that's really "yesterday" now). I presented this "hierarchy" in regard to [color:purple]grace/</font color=purple>works/sanctification/justification [color:purple]and I used the terms of sanctification and justification in the way I believe Jason (and much of Protestantism) uses them</font color=purple>:<br><br>Catholicism is not a "works = salvation" system at all.<br>for without GRACE - works are nothing.<br>without WORKS there is no sanctification.<br>without SANCTIFICATION there is no justification.<br>without JUSTIFICATION there is no SALVATION.<br><br>It all begins with Grace.<br><br>[color:red]<blockquote>CCC 1996. "Our JUSTIFICATION comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.[Cf. Jn 1:12-18 ; Jn 17:3 ; Rom 8:14-17 ; 2Pet 1:3-4.]"<br><br>CCC 1692. "The Symbol of the faith confesses the greatness of God's gifts to man in his work of creation, and even more in redemption and SANCTIFICATION. What faith confesses, the sacraments communicate: by the sacraments of rebirth, Christians have become 'children of God,'[Jn 1:12 ; 1Jn 3:1 .] 'partakers of the divine nature.'[2Pet 1:4.] Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life 'worthy of the gospel of Christ.'[Phil 1:27 .] They are made capable of doing so by the grace of Christ and the gifts of his Spirit, which they receive through the sacraments and through prayer."<br></blockquote></font color=red><br><br>Paul teaches, quite consistently, that we must persevere in our faith to be saved. James, likewise says that a faith that has no works is not a "saving faith." Throughout the NT we're told of all the things we must "do" (works) or we do not have that "saving faith."<br><br>[color:red]<blockquote><br>1Tim4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. (NAS)<br><br>Rom2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; (NAS)<br><br>Rom5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (NAS)<br><br>2Th1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. 5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. (NAS)<br><br>1Tim6:11 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and 12 fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (NAS)<br><br>2Tim3:10-17 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! 12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NAS)<br><br>2Pet1:4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For IF these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NAS)<br><br>CCC 162. "Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: 'Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.'[1 Tim 1:18-19 .] To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;[Cf. Mk 9:24 ; Lk 17:5 ; Lk 22:32 .] it must be 'working through charity,' abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.[Gal 5:6 ; Rom 15:13 ; cf. Jam 2:14-26 .]"<br></blockquote></font color=red><br><br>Quite often challengers to Catholicism will point out Paul contrasting Faith and Works - but invariably, Paul is speaking about "works of the law" and NOT "works done in/by/through Grace." As I mentioned earlier, Paul also, quite often, speaks of "persevering" and "running to win..." (etc.) so Paul too sees the importance of "works" in a "saving faith." James and Paul are quite consistent when read in the proper perspective and context.<br><br>[color:red]<blockquote><br>Rom3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (NAS)<br><br>Rom3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (NAS)<br><br>Gal2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (NAS)<br><br>Gal3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (NAS)<br><br>Gal3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." (NAS)<br><br>John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent." <br><br>Eph2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (NAS)<br><br>1Tim2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. (NAS)<br><br>1Tim6:17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed. (NAS)<br></blockquote></font color=red><br><br>[color:purple]That last one says it all quite nicely. We are to be rich in good works, storing them up for a treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that we may take hold of that which is life indeed (eternal life).</font color=purple><br><br>[color:red]<blockquote><br>John 7:18 He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.<br></blockquote></font color=red><br><br>[color:purple]John tells us that one who works for the honor of the one sent is a man of truth.</font color=purple><br><br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">In JMJ,<br><br>Scott<<<</font><br>CathApol Chatroom<br><br>PS - So, I submit to both Wes and Jason that what I initially said was not merely my own opinions, but quite reflective of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite Scriptural, and Scriptures themselves. I would hope that both Wes and Jason will have the integrity to apologize for falsely accusing me of posting only my opinions and not representing Church teaching.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 10:04 AM

Laz,<br> <br>Any person in Purgatory IS SAVED and ALREADY JUDGED. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Purgatory WILL "make it" to Heaven - not even ONE will be lost, for the "judgment" is complete, though the purification may not be. Jason picks and chooses which parts of Catholic teaching he wishes to represent, and leaves out key parts that negate his conclusions. Please see the other message I posted earlier today that includes many Church and Scriptural references to this topic.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:29 AM

Scott,

Since you have not seen or seen fit to reply to my response, I thought I might try once again. grin

There is no doubt that much of the Catholic teaching is couched in language and stated in such a way that the average person is easily confused and can make wrong conclusions about what is actually being taught. So, I thought it would help if I listed a few of the clearest statements concerning "Justification", since, by your own admission, Rome sometimes uses "justification" and "sanctification" interchangeably. The following is a quote from an article written by Michael Horton wherein he simply quotes directly from the Council of Trent as to Rome's official teaching concerning the doctrine of "Justification".


Justification is defined as "not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just."

The Protestants never denied the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, but this was identified in Scripture as sanctification, not as justification. Rome simply combined the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God's Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. This, however, rejects Paul's whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!

The most relevant canons are the following:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone (supra, chapters 7-8), meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works (ibid., chapter 10), but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God's grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ's finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. There are indeed two fundamentally different answers to that recurring biblical question, "How can I be saved?" and, therefore, two fundamentally different gospels.



One last comment which I believe is most salient to the discussion. You keep insisting that Rome doesn't teach any form of "works" salvation, or should I say "justification"? And, that Paul is always speaking of "works of the law" and not what Rome deems to be "works of grace". May I strongly suggest that this dichotomy is fallacious and has no semblance to truth whatsoever. The first 3 chapters of Galatians are perspicuous enough for most to apprehend what Paul is dealing with. The Judaisers brought "another gospel"; a "gospel" that was an admixture of [color:red]faith + works:
Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: . . . 3:1-3 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? [color:red]having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
While Paul is adamant that no man is justified by works of the law, it INCLUDES "works" at any time; as you might phrase it, "before or after grace".


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:42 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Scott, <br><br>Are you suggesting that through time in purgatory man does not satisfy the just requirements of God? <br><br>If Jason is correct that purgatory is the place where God's wrath against sin is propitiated then it would seem to follow that Jason's choice of words (e.g. God "inflicts" punishment) is most appropriate. <br><br>You seem to suggest that purgatory is a place of loving chastisement; however if satisfaction for sin is the result of such punishment then the wrath of God must be unmixed and void of love. After all did not God inflict pure wrath upon is Son? Don't get me wrong God loved his Son as He hung upon the tree becoming "sin for us" (his elect), however, the Son was forsaken while enduring the wrath of the Almighty. In the like manner if purgatory accomplishes what it is alleged to then those who enter into this state of purging will too experience the "infliction" of God's anger will they not? <br><br>Ron <br><br>
Posted By: Five_Sola

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 11:43 AM

cathApol,<br><br>I am only making a response to one portion of your post. I will leave the qoutes from the RCC catechism to those most familiar with them. The only comment I could make is "So What" church teaching is not authoritative.<br><br>My comment is on something you mentioned about the middle of the PS<br>you say:<br><br>[color:purple]"Catholicism is not a "works = salvation" system at all.<br>for without GRACE - works are nothing.<br>without WORKS there is no sanctification.<br>without SANCTIFICATION there is no justification.<br>without JUSTIFICATION there is no SALVATION."</font color=purple><br><br>I don't know about the others but I have never thought that RCC was a "works = salvation" system. The Romanist is always quick to add grace and attempt to show grace as a necessity, and that is not the contention protestants (those that are aware of the real issues) have problems with. I would think more accurately, and even shown by what you have posted in your time here, that Catholicism is a "grace + works = salvation". Sadly this is why catholicism is outside of the circle of christianity because when another gospel is preached it is no longer a gospel, and "grace + anything = nothing". I do find your 'logical' if/then scheme (I forgot the technical name for it) interesting. You are able to accomplish this unbiblical solution due to working with some false assumptions and working backwards (from sanctification back). I almost didn't catch it for it is a nicely setup strawman (one of the betters ones I've seen). If we were to set it up properly it would come out something like the following:<br><br>without Grace no salvation,<br>Grace is without works,<br>salvation is without works<br>without Faith-no salvation<br>Faith is a Gift of God,<br>Salvation is a Gift of God <br>(eph 2:8-10)<br><br>Of course all the previous clarifications included (ie christian life will have works as a fruit, this is for salvation itself, etc.). Also a note here, since gift by nature are unearnable then we see here that salvation is unearnable (even with the Grace of God). We add absolutely 0% to our become saved.<br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 12:22 PM

Five_sola: We add absolutely 0% to our become saved.<br><br>I agree, 100%, and so does Catholic teaching - THAT is the point you (not just you) seem to be missing.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 12:34 PM

Ron askes:<br>(1) Is justification a process that encompasses sanctification?<br><br>(2) Are one's post-baptismal works meritorious in any way? <br><br>Scott answers:<br>(1) In Catholic teaching, you can find the terms justification and sanctification mixed.<br> <br>(2) Yes, if done in the state of grace, they can add to rewards in heaven. They don't "add to salvation" (as some are attempting to make the teaching say) for you either are saved or you're not - it's pretty black and white when it comes to salvation. Works contribute to that upon which we are judged. Our works will be tested by fire, and if any are burned up, we will suffer loss.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br>
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:21 PM

Jason wrote: Purgatorial punishments by which sins are cleansed, are for the express purpose of making satisfaction for sin, inflicted by God's holiness and justice on an albeit justified person, which is necessary for the full remission of sin and to placate the divine justice due to their sin. That is, these purgatorial punishments are inflicted by God's sanctity and justice for the purpose of expiation...<br><br>Scott responds: Again, Jason overstates the case a bit, attempting to prove a point. Rather than just listen to the "opinions" Jason stated above, let's look at some real Catholic teaching on the matter...Hence we see, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Purgatory is not an absolute necessity for all Christians to endure, for it is possible that one could reach complete purification on this earth. We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<br><br>Jason writes: First of all, I myself wrote Purgatory is not an absolute necessity, " So yes, the justified are still subject to the necessary wrath of God by which they make satisfactions which placate divine justice (unless they are a martyr, or somehow make enough satisfactions prior to death)"<br><br>Secondly, your criticisms against my overstating the case and as implying a kind of vengeance using "carefully selected words" is, to your chagrin, most laughable since I merely used the language of your own pope! Surely if I had put things in my own words you would have accused me of misrepresenting Catholic dogma, so I choose to use the very language of your own pope and you say I am using carefully crafted words to imply something that I never did or intended to do. Reminds me of Christ's criticism's to the Pharisees, "But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, "and saying: 'We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.' (Matthew 11:16-17). See, no matter how I represent the Catholic doctrine, you will be hasty to decry misrepresentation. But just to demonstrate again that my words are precisely the words of your own pope, check out my paragraph above highlighting my own words with the language of your own Chruch:<br><br><br>For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 2, Article 5, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It is therefore necessary for the full remission and -- as it is called -- reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against His wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church (Council of Florence (1439), De novissimis)<br><br>That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 3, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>Once again, you have wasted much time correcting non-errors by your hasty analysis and conclusions. <br><br><br>Scott writes: I must add here, the Church often uses the terms of sanctified and justified synonymously<br><br>Jason: Precisely! Which is why I wrote what I did to RefBap in the first place. You are the one who wrote, "Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify.<br><br>You are the one who attempted to make a sharp distinction between Roman Catholic Justification and Sanctification (almost making it sound Protestant, as even RefBap commented herself), and now you turn around and say they are used synonymously! Which is it Scott? Is Sanctification something that good works lead to after Justification or is it used synonymously? You made a statement about Catholicism that was couched in Protestant language, which was not clarifying as you suggest, but rather confusing, as is witnessed by RefBap's response to you. It is very interesting to compare your comments with the very words of the Catechism you quote:<br><br>Scott: Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification.<br><br>Yet neither the Council of Trent nor the catechism use such language as good works lead to sanctification, as though it were not a present reality already or as though it were something different than increasing ones justification:<br><br>CCC 2813. "In the waters of Baptism, we have been 'washed . . . SANCTIFIED . . .JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'[2 Cor 6:11] Our Father calls us to holiness in the whole of our life, and since 'he is the source of (our) life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and . . .sanctification,' [I Cor 1:30 ; cf. 1 Thess 4:7.] both his glory and our life depend on the hallowing of his name in us and by us. Such is the urgency of our first petition. By whom is God hallowed, since he is the one who hallows? But since he said, 'You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy,' we seek and ask that we who were SANCTIFIED in Baptism may persevere in what we have begun to be. And we ask this daily, for we need sanctification daily, so that we who fail daily may cleanse away our sins by being SANCTIFIED continually.... We pray that this sanctification may remain in us.[St. Cyprian De Dom. orat. 12: PL 4,527A; Lev 20:26.]"<br><br><br>Good works do not lead to sanctification in Catholic theology, they increase and preserve that sanctification, which is akin to justification, and according to which, because of the righteousness that is inherit in them, they merit eternal life. That is the teaching of Trent, which you still have not dealt with:<br><br>Scott wrote: There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation.<br><br>The "infallible" Council of Trent wrote: Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified (Council of Trent, Decrees on Justification, Chapter 10)<br><br>CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.<br><br>So I guess you are under the anathema of Trent if you claim that good works do not increase Justification obtained. That is, of course, a good thing, but don't try and make the Catholic church more appealing to us by shrouding its dogma in language pleasant to our hearing.<br><br><br>Scott: So, I submit to both Wes and Jason that what I initially said was not merely my own opinions, but quite reflective of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite Scriptural, and Scriptures themselves. I would hope that both Wes and Jason will have the integrity to apologize for falsely accusing me of posting only my opinions and not representing Church teaching.<br><br>Jason: This is one of the most ridiculous demands for an apology that I have ever seen. You accused me of misrepresenting Catholic doctrine by saying there is no increase in Justification (which you still have not dealt with according to Trent's own words teaching this) and you did so without citing any Catholic sources. I repeatedly asked you to show me my error and to provide the proof that your representation of Justification was the true one. Why in the world should I apologize for asking proof from you to backup your own claims? Up until your last post, you had only posted your own assertions without any reference to authoritative Catholic documents, and until you did, they were merely assertions! So now you go and post some and then ask for an apology because we said that you had not done so yet in our previous posts? Really Scott, if you can't comprehend earthly things, how will we discuss heavenly things? This is the silliest attempt to be the victim that I have seen in a long time.<br><br>Now if you go back and read the thread you will find that there was not an accusation of you not representing Church teaching in the first place (until you said Justification cannot be increased), rather couching it in a way that was more Protestant sounding than Catholic, as was evidenced by RefBap's own response. The remainder of the time was spent asking you to justify your accusation that I had misrepresented Catholic Justification. You have merely corrected things that I have not said or tried to correct me as leaving out things that I never intended to say because they were not relevant to the point I was discussing. The only two issues I have seen wherein we are in disagreement regarding RC Justification is whether it can be increased and perhaps whether or not works done in a justified state are meritorious.<br><br>So perhaps you can prune your posts from these unfounded lamentations of victimization and deal with whatever I have supposedly misrepresented one point at a time, then we can look at the Church's testimony on that issue and allow the viewer to decide whether there has been misrepresentation. I have no pre-commitment or interest in making the Catholic Church say something it does not say. Sufficient are the problems in Rome that I don't need to make them look any worse than they are.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Jason<br><br> Proverbs 29:20 Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:04 PM

Scott,<br><br>Concerning works and merit you stated: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yes, if done in the state of grace, [works] can add to rewards in heaven. They don't "add to salvation" (as some are attempting to make the teaching say) for you either are saved or you're not - it's pretty black and white when it comes to salvation. Works contribute to that upon which we are judged. Our works will be tested by fire, and if any are burned up, we will suffer loss.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I'm not all together crazy about using the word "saved" when trying to discuss the nuances of merit with respect to justification but I think I grasp what you are saying. Let's see whether I do or not.<br><br>You stated that works done while in a state of grace are meritorious but that they don't "add to salvation." The reason you give is that one is either "saved or not saved". I trust therefore that you would say that the grounds of our justification (i.e. our being declared righteous and pardoned, presumably by virtue of the infused righteousness of Christ as opposed to the imputation of His righteousness) is always apart from our works that are wrought in Christ. In other words, your position seems to be that although works will indeed be present in the life of the redeemed such works that are wrought in Christ by grace are never the grounds by which one is justified.<br><br>Assuming I understand you correctly, How do you square your doctrine with Canon 23 On Justification taken from Trent? <br><br>Trent states: "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema." <br><br>Trent seems to be clearly agreeing with you that meritorious works done in grace may add to an increase of glory. Nonetheless, canon 23 On Justification also seems to teach that the merit of good works is "the good merits of him that is justified" and consequently those works may then "merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life..." <br><br>I'm sure I am missing something so please tell me how your doctrine comports with Trent. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ron<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted By: Wes

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 6:18 PM

CathApol,<br><br>You have not been falsely accused of anything. You come here to a Protestant Bible believing message board with your Catholic heresy and dress it up in such a way as to make it sound almost like what we believe. You have been presenting yourself in a way that confusses the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Jason, RefBap, Five_Sola, and Pilgrim have all pointed that out to you. <br><br>Now you write a lenthy message full of statements and verses that purport to be "Church teaching" or the final word. Well has anybody been confused by what you're saying now? NO... not one! They all conclude the same thing. You're message is understood to be "faith & works" and that lines you up with traditional Roman Catholicism. Which is a religion that denys the clear teachings of Scripture.<br><br>Many questions have been raised for you to answer by others. It seems as if you avoid them. I hope you'll take to heart that the questions are designed for you to come to know the Truth and that hopefully the Truth will set you free from false doctrine. <br><br>I read through your lengthy message. No matter how you phrase it and how many words you use you still keep saying the same thing. You're teaching that the "one sacrifice" of Christ Jesus on the cross at mount Calvary wasn't enough. Oh I know that you have said that it is enough but then you come back and say that venial sins still need some temporary punishment in purgatory. If Christ's death were sufficient you wouldn't need to teach about a purgatory. You wouldn't need to teach about anything needed to be added to His completed work. Especially after death how can someone in any way go through punishment that will purify them or have any further cleansing effect than what Christ has provided on the Cross once for all? The Bible tells us that after death comes the judgement. <br> <br>Heb.9:27-28<br>"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."<br><br>Hebrews 10:14 tell us... <br>"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."<br><br>According to your "final purification" doctrine called "purgatory" which is supposedly drawn from the following Scripture texts a careful examination of these text reveals that you are in serious error.<br><br>I Corinthians 3:15 <br>"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."<br><br>Commenting on this verse Matthew Henry writes:<br><br>"It will be difficult for those that corrupt and deprave Christianity to be saved. God will have no mercy on their works, though he may pluck them as brands out of the burning. [color:red]On this passage of scripture the papists found their doctrine of purgatory, which is certainly hay and stubble: a doctrine never originally fetched from Scripture, but invented in barbarous ages, to feed the avarice and ambition of the clergy, at the cost of those who would rather part with their money than their lusts, for the salvation of their souls.</font color=red> It can have no countenance from this text, <br><br>(1.) Because this is plainly meant of a figurative fire, not of a real one: for what real fire can consume religious rites or doctrines? <br><br>(2.) Because this fire is to try men’s works, of what sort they are; but purgatory-fire is not for trial, not to bring men’s actions to the test, but to punish for them. They are supposed to be venial sins, not satisfied for in this life, for which satisfaction must be made by suffering the fire of purgatory. <br><br>(3.) Because this fire is to try every man’s works, those of Paul and Apollos, as well as those of others. Now, no papists will have the front to say apostles must have passed through purgatory fires." <br><br>Another verse you sighted in support of purgatory is:<br><br>I Peter 1:7<br>"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:" <br><br>This trying of your faith is in this life while you're still alive and kicking. Dead men don't go through a trial by fire to prove their faith by testing nor suffer punishment to sancify them from venial sins. The end of good people’s afflictions is the trial of their faith in this life not after they're deceased. As to the nature of this trial, it is much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire. The effect of the trial is this, that your faith will be found unto praise, honour, and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. <br><br>Our Christianity depends upon our faith; if this be wanting, there is nothing else that is spiritually good in us. Christ prays for this apostle, that his faith might not fail; if that be supported, all the rest will stand firm; the faith of good people is tried, that they themselves may have the comfort of it, God the glory of it, and others the benefit of it. <br><br>The trial of faith is much more precious than the trial of gold; in both there is a purification, a separation of the dross, and a discovery of the soundness and goodness of the things. Gold does not increase and multiply by trial in the fire, it rather grows less; but faith is established, improved, and multiplied, by the oppositions and afflictions that it meets with. Gold must perish at last—gold that perisheth; but faith never will. <br><br>This verse doesn't say anything about a purgatory experience after this life to deal with venial sins but is talking about the trying of the believer's faith. It must prove to be a living and active faith. This is the kind of faith that caused Paul to say, "I don't consider this present suffering to be compared with the glory which is to come." <br><br>Wes
Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:38 PM

Jason<br><br>Wasn't this one of the areas that Martin Luther protested against?<br>If that is true, surely since he was a RC monk he would know what their teaching is on the subject.<br>I can't see Martin Luther protesting so loud, if RC teaching was what Scott would have us believe it is. He may have railed loudly on other issues but not this issue.<br><br>If you know anything about Martin Luther as pertaining to this subject, I would be interested in seeing some of this information.<br><br>Thanks<br>Tom<br>
Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:46 PM

Not to mention that according to Jason, they were not his words, but the popes very own words.<br><br>Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Jun 07, 2002 12:29 AM

Wes said: You have not been falsely accused of anything. <br><br>Scott: Yes I have, and especially by you. You claimed my message was nothing but my opinion, I proved that what I said was well rooted in Catholic teaching, including the Scriptures.<br><br>Wes: You come here to a Protestant Bible believing message board with your Catholic heresy and dress it up in such a way as to make it sound almost like what we believe. <br><br>Scott: Wes, I have presented the Catholic teaching on these matters, at teaching that hasn't changed since long before Protestantism was even heard of - if it sounds similar, it's because you got it from us (sometime after you split from us).<br><br>Wes: You have been presenting yourself in a way that confusses the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Jason, RefBap, Five_Sola, and Pilgrim have all pointed that out to you. <br><br>Scott: I have presented the Catholic teachings. I am not attempting to "confuse" anyone - I am just trying to show you the truth. <br><br>Wes: Now you write a lenthy message full of statements and verses that purport to be "Church teaching" or the final word. <br><br>Scott: No Wes, I never claimed to be presenting the "final word." Yes, I presented a rather lengthy post - at your request! Do you forget that it was you who claimed I was not representing Catholic teaching? Well, I provided you with Catholic teaching, and now you complain about the length of it. <br><br>Wes: Well has anybody been confused by what you're saying now? NO... not one! <br><br>Scott: I presented facts. I am not here to confuse. Why is it that when confronted with facts, I am answered with character assissination? I must have hit a nerve.<br><br>Wes: They all conclude the same thing. You're message is understood to be "faith & works" and that lines you up with traditional Roman Catholicism. Which is a religion that denys the clear teachings of Scripture.<br><br>Scott: They all conclude wrongly then. Traditional Roman Catholicism is NOT about a faith + works = salvation system. Jason's attempt to present only part of the truth has been twarted by a Catholic, loyal to "traditional Catholicsim," presenting the fact that there's more to it than Jason is telling. No one comments on James' statement about "faith without works is dead," which is quite telling. <br><br>Wes: Many questions have been raised for you to answer by others. It seems as if you avoid them. I hope you'll take to heart that the questions are designed for you to come to know the Truth and that hopefully the Truth will set you free from false doctrine. <br><br>Scott: I am "avoiding" no one. I don't live at the keyboard, thus my time spent on message boards, such as this one, is limited. I don't work from "boiler-plate" files (premade responses), rather I take the time to respond, personally, to each message I write. As for "many questions... by others..." I am aware of Pilgrim's messages, which I do plan to get to - does that constitute "many?" I understand your zeal and the feelings you express regarding The Church - I was at one time quite anti-Catholic myself.<br><br>Wes: I read through your lengthy message. No matter how you phrase it and how many words you use you still keep saying the same thing. You're teaching that the "one sacrifice" of Christ Jesus on the cross at mount Calvary wasn't enough. Oh I know that you have said that it is enough but then you come back and say that venial sins still need some temporary punishment in purgatory. If Christ's death were sufficient you wouldn't need to teach about a purgatory. You wouldn't need to teach about anything needed to be added to His completed work. Especially after death how can someone in any way go through punishment that will purify them or have any further cleansing effect than what Christ has provided on the Cross once for all? The Bible tells us that after death comes the judgement. <br> <br>Scott: Yes, after death comes the judgment. Those in Purgatory are already judged there is no further judgment here - so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient to redeem us, ALL of us not just a limited few that Calvinism claims. Which teaching teaches more sufficiency? Catholicism teaches that all are redeemed (though not all will accept the free gift that Christ has given them); Calvinism teaches that Christ's redemptive act was only for a few (the elect). Who's teaching is restricting Christ?<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font> [Linked Image]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Jun 07, 2002 12:43 AM

Jason retorted: (Y)our criticisms against my overstating the case and as implying a kind of vengeance using "carefully selected words" is, to your chagrin, most laughable since I merely used the language of your own pope!<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott reiterates: I still say you're "carefully selecting words." Does it matter that you're carefully selecting them from one of the Catholic popes? No, you're still "carefully selecting them" and avoiding many other places (some of which I have presented) that contradict your restricted viewpoint. You present a half-truth, I present more of the story, showing the truth is not about your half-researched conclusions (if you've fully researched these things, then your omission of the rest of the story would have to be deliberate and deceitful - I am not accusing you of deceit. I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't fully looked at this, or haven't looked with an open mind).<br> <br>So, regardless of your source, you've still only "carefully selected" which words you "choose" to include in your messages.<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br>
Posted By: lazarus

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:17 PM

Scott - if you say Christ has "done it all"...and salvation is all of grace through faith and NONE of works....and "Christ has redeemed all"....then why do some still go to hell? Is there something these individuals have failed to do? A work of some sort? What have they failed to bring to the table that would justify them? <br><br>Also, the number which will be saved...and your assertion that Calvinists believe only a FEW will be saved, is a matter of perspective. We believe the Bible when it says that the redeemed will outnumber stars, sand, ....from every nation, tribe and tongue. How is THAT only a 'few'? We believe ONLY the Elect will be saved..that's a clear teaching of scripture...but at the end of the day...it will NOT be 'few'.<br><br>...few Roman Catholics, perhaps.... [Linked Image]<br><br>In Him, <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 2:20 AM

Laz wrote: Scott - if you say Christ has "done it all"...and salvation is all of grace through faith and NONE of works....and "Christ has redeemed all"....then why do some still go to hell? Is there something these individuals have failed to do? A work of some sort? What have they failed to bring to the table that would justify them? <br><br>[color:purple]Faith is the gift that justifies them, and with that faith comes works - or the faith is dead (gone over this many times now). Man does nothing to merit this gift, for Jesus did it all for him, on the Cross. St. John tells us, "who so ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Some still go to Hell because some do not accept this gift and refuse to believe in Him.</font color=purple><br><br>Laz continues: Also, the number which will be saved...and your assertion that Calvinists believe only a FEW will be saved, is a matter of perspective. We believe the Bible when it says that the redeemed will outnumber stars, sand, ....from every nation, tribe and tongue. How is THAT only a 'few'? We believe ONLY the Elect will be saved..that's a clear teaching of Scripture...but at the end of the day...it will NOT be 'few'.<br> <br>[color:purple]Yes, the use of "few" is a matter of perspective. Considering how "few" Calvinists there are in the world, and considering how many non-Christian sects there are compared to Calvinist sects - "few" happens to "fit" in the bigger picture. I'm actually a bit surprized you'd be defensive about this, "for many are called, but few are chosen!"<br><br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:02 AM

Jason wrote: So Scott, could you understand Roman Catholic doctrine when you were a Lutheran? How did you ever convert to Roman Catholicism as a Protestant if Protestants can't comprehend Roman Catholic theology without first becoming Roman Catholic? Perhaps you have finally, unwittingly, admitted what converts to Roman Catholicism must do in order to convert - surrender all rational powers to the Magisterium in an act of blind faith.<br> <br>[color:purple]Jason, please, don't put words in my mouth. <br> <br>I am a convert, and I did not "surrender all rational powers to the Magisterium in an act of blind faith." In fact, I had some reservations when I converted, but when I finally came to that point of converting, I was willing to give the Church a chance to prove itself "right" to me. Prior to that, I was just plain convinced the Church was wrong and only looked at half-truths that were told to me by "fellow Christians" about how "bad" Catholicism was. When I got to the point of converting, I allowed Catholics to tell me more about what Catholics believe and teach. Now, I mentioned I still had reservations - and about the time I converted I was also becoming involved in the BBS scene in Phoenix, Arizona. I had already been a part of the Bible Foundation BBS. There was someone there, whom both of us know, that was unremittingly anti-Catholic - and I figured if anyone could get me out of the Church and/or convince me that I had made an error - then this person would be able to do that. Well, he and I debated for MANY years (he even admitted that a couple of his earlier books were based on, in part at least, discussions between he and I). Well, for literally EVERY question this other person raised, I found an answer - or was shown it by friends - and well, here I am today, still a Catholic - almost 14 years later (it will be 14 years at the first of July). <br> <br>As for "faith," don't knock it if you haven't tried it! [Linked Image]<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br></font color=purple>
Posted By: lazarus

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:14 AM

Scott - I took no offense....but I may now with your suggestion that we Calvinist believe that WE alone are those chosen 'few'. [Linked Image] Well, some Calvinists think that way....<br><br>The 'calling' has gone out to hundreds of millions. In the USA, there are Churches on every street corner...yet I would say that 'few' possess real live believers. Many professors....few possessors. <br><br>As for people rejecting this free gift of eternal life...is not the act of rejecting Christ the absence of a necessary positive action or 'work' (i.e., exercising belief)? Similarly, would not receiving this free gift also be a work of the will? <br><br>Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. <br><br>Besides, <br><br>1) if sin kills (especially the sin of disbelief), <br>2) and Christ died for the sins of the world,<br>3) and ALL sins are forgiveable, except the 'unpardonable sin' and NOW the sin of unbelief, with Christ's blood being all sufficient,<br><br>....then doesn't that require US to atone for the sin of disbelief...since Christ's blood can't? <br><br>And if we can atone for sin (even just one) ... why do we theoretically need a Savior? <br><br>If we can atone for the sin of disbelief by turning from and repenting of unbelief ... doesn't that make salvation ULTIMATELY a matter for US to work out? Isn't salvation then in OUR hands as a work to accomplish in conjunction with Christ's? <br><br>What ever happened to that GRACE you speak so foundly of? <br><br>Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: <br><br>This 'grace' of yours is not much grace since it's really up to us to find it within ourselves to lay hold of this 'conditional grace' . I smell semi-pelagianism. <br><br>What kind of god needs our help?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:18 AM

Pilgrim,<br> <br>I'm not sure what your point is... the canons you cited are pretty much referring to those who would like to claim a "cheap grace." Of course, Trent is also "in answer to" the heresies that were popping up all over Europe at the time too - and the text that the "reformers" were using could be taken quite heretically and easily lead to "cheap grace." <br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 4:18 AM

Hi Les,<br> <br>No offense was intended, and I had a feeling my message may have been taken that way (ie, that Calvinists believe they are the only one's saved). As you said, I think some Calvinists do feel that way, but that wasn't the point. The point is "many are called, few are chosen."<br> <br>God doesn't "need" our help. That's the common response I hear from Calvinists. God GAVE us the ability to "know, love and serve Him," and that's the point here. He wants us to love Him, not through coersion or some unjust election. If He wasn't leaving to us this ability, we'd have little strings on our arms and legs, or some pre-configured program from which we have no choice to stray from. The fact that we're not puppets and/or robots is evidence that God has indeed given us not only this Free Gift, but also the ability to accept that Gift. That is "true love" and "true devotion" to Him, and it doesn't take one iota away from His Sovereignty - for it was His Gift to us to begin with.<br> <br>So, we don't "earn" salvation - we "accept" it, for the "earning" part has already been done on the Cross.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 5:02 AM

I believe this article from the online CE says it better than I can:<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><blockquote>II. INDIVIDUAL SALVATION<br><br>The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi). <br><br>It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will. <br><br>Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins. <br><br>This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified. <br><br>Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold <br><br><ul>[*]that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural; </li><br>[*]that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace; </li><br>[*]that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin; </li><br>[*]that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so; </li><br>[*]that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities; </li><br>[*]that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat. </li>[/LIST]<br>Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance, <br><ul>[*]the precise nature of initial grace, </li><br>[*]the manner in which grace and free will work together, </li><br>[*]the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification, </li><br>[*]the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace. </li>[/LIST]<br><br>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm<br></blockquote><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 9:39 AM

Scott W.<br>With as much respect as can be mustered under that which I am going to say, it is many opinions here that that which you pose is an outright contradiction of sorts from that which the Catechism of the R. Catholic church teaches. You are "wrapping the wolf in sheeps clothing."<br> The catechism flatly rejects justification by faith alone. The *mass* itself examples a work that is continuous, which contradicts the tetelestai sacrifice that protestantism embraces. So much more...........I suggest you approach this platform you stand on in a different light and just admit that that which you embrace *is not* the typical RC stance. It would be much easier to discuss ideas with you.<br><br>In HIM,<br>Scott Bushey
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 12:58 PM

cathapol,

Thanks for the non-answer. To be honest, I didn't expect much more.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Jun 08, 2002 7:41 PM

Scott,<br><br>Your previous post does not in any way reconcile your view of merit with that of Trent's. I think if you could reconcile the two views you would have done so yourself without quoting other sources. It would seem that you are still after all this time "halt between two opinions." <br><br>I remain hopeful for you, Scott.<br><br>Ron
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 5:36 PM

"To be honest." I expected that when I said "I'm not sure what you're after..." that I was indicating you need to be more specific. It was a request for a more direct question. If you wish to call that a "non-answer" then fine, I understand, you can bow out that way if you wish.<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 6:01 PM

cathapol,

I'm not sure how much more specific I could have been? The "point" was that Rome's confusing intermixing of "justification" and "sanctification" often clouds the OFFICIAL teaching of what is exactly meant by "justification". However, the Tridentine articles which were included in the quote by Horton in my last reply showed clearly that "justification" is NOT by faith alone, NOT an imputed righteousness, NOT a forensic declaration, NOT the possession of an alien righteousness, but DOES include works in the matter of justification, etc.

The further "point" was that the phraseology used by you is even more confusing that Rome's OFFICIAL teaching, which nearly everyone here has noticed and consequently pointed out to you. You are maintaining that what you have written is 100% consistent with the OFFICIAL teaching of Rome, yet, one would be hard pressed to discern this from the way you present your view.

Lastly, IF in fact you are holding fast to the OFFICIAL teaching of Rome, then what I stated in my first point is all the more valid and your presentation of it all the more obscure. For, it seems you are trying to present a case where the historic Reformational view of "justification" is not antithetical to Rome's OFFICIAL view. Of course, this novelty has already been tried with "ECT" and "The Gift of Salvation" and failed miserably because the antithesis is perspicuous, even to the average Christian. Unlike some "schmoozy" individual's today who are reluctant to call "a spade a spade", in such matters I am much more inclined to be like Martin Luther and call "a spade a damn shovel"! grin The issue at stake is one of eternal life or eternal damnation and flushing out misconceptions, disguised presentations, vague terminology, deceptive language, etc., is unfortunately necessary.


And perhaps to your chagrin, I am not "bowing out". evilgrin

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 6:48 PM

[color:purple]Further clarifying what Ron wrote and my response to him:</font color=purple><br><br><blockquote>Ron originally wrote:I'm not all together crazy about using the word "saved" when trying to discuss the nuances of merit with respect to justification but I think I grasp what you are saying. Let's see whether I do or not.<br><br>You stated that works done while in a state of grace are meritorious but that they don't "add to salvation." The reason you give is that one is either "saved or not saved". I trust therefore that you would say that the grounds of our justification (i.e. our being declared righteous and pardoned, presumably by virtue of the infused righteousness of Christ as opposed to the imputation of His righteousness) is always apart from our works that are wrought in Christ. In other words, your position seems to be that although works will indeed be present in the life of the redeemed such works that are wrought in Christ by grace are never the grounds by which one is justified.<br><br>Assuming I understand you correctly, How do you square your doctrine with Canon 23 On Justification taken from Trent? <br><br>Trent states: [color:red]"If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema."</font color=red> <br><br>Trent seems to be clearly agreeing with you that meritorious works done in grace may add to an increase of glory. Nonetheless, canon 23 On Justification also seems to teach that the merit of good works is "the good merits [color:red]of him that is justified"</font color=red> and consequently those works may then [color:red]"merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life..."</font color=red> <br><br>I'm sure I am missing something so please tell me how your doctrine comports with Trent. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ron</blockquote><br>[color:purple]To the post I'm responding to now, Ron writes:</font color=purple><br><blockquote>Scott,<br><br>Your previous post does not in any way reconcile your view of merit with that of Trent's. I think if you could reconcile the two views you would have done so yourself without quoting other sources. It would seem that you are still after all this time "halt between two opinions." <br><br>I remain hopeful for you, Scott.<br><br>Ron </blockquote><br>----------------------------------------------------------<br><br>[color:purple]First off, thanks for remaining hopeful Ron. Second, as I highlighted in what you quoted above, "the good merits [color:red]of him that is justified"</font color=red>, Trent is still referring to "him that is justified." I must assume your problem is the wording of "an increase (of)... the attainment of that eternal life," and that seems to be the problem of Jason and others too. In the context that Trent is speaking here, we're still talking about one in the state of grace. If one passes on in such a state, they will have attained eternal life - but not of themselves, rather of grace. Works cannot increase whether one is saved or not, for again, one is either saved or he isn't - and that initial grace is still unmerited. If one merits an increase in grace through works, that doesn't increase one's salvation - again, that's an either/or situation - but one can attain greater rewards due to works, hence an increase, perhaps, in one's position (level of heaven or amount of rewards) but not an increase in the attainment of salvation. <br> <br>Does that better answer your question and/or reconcile the difficulty you seem to be having with Trent?<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>PS- I thank you again for your patience.<br></font color=purple><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:01 PM

Pilgrim writes: I'm not sure how much more specific I could have been? The "point" was that Rome's confusing intermixing of "justification" and "sanctification" often clouds the OFFICIAL teaching of what is exactly meant by "justification". However, the Tridentine articles which were included in the quote by Horton in my last reply showed clearly that "justification" is NOT by faith alone, NOT an imputed righteousness, NOT a forensic declaration, NOT the possession of an alien righteousness, but DOES include works in the matter of justification, etc.<br> <br>Scott replies:[color:purple] I believe I answered that point in my response (a few minutes ago) to Ron. If you need further clarification then let's pursue that thread.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font></font color=purple><br>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:31 PM

In reply to:

I believe I answered that point in my response (a few minutes ago) to Ron. If you need further clarification then let's pursue that thread.


Yes, you replied to RonD but I found no clarification at all in it; sorry. So, I think it would be beneficial to start a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of "justification" so that it may be seen that there are in fact irreconcilable differences between what Rome teaches and what Reformational Protestantism teaches. And most importantly what Scripture teaches concerning "justification". smile

In His Grace,

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:50 PM

Scott B. writes: The catechism flatly rejects justification by faith alone. The *mass* itself examples a work that is continuous, which contradicts the tetelestai sacrifice that protestantism embraces. <br><br>Scott W. responds: [color:purple]Again, it depends on how one is using "justification." If you're talking justification means a process of sanctification, then all I've said works and is completely consistent with Trent. If you insist that justification means salvation - then I can see how you've interpretted what I've said as being inconsistent - but it's not me being inconsistent, rather it's you (and others) forcing your interpretation upon the teachings of Trent and the Catechism.</font color=purple><br><br>Scott B. continues: So much more...........I suggest you approach this platform you stand on in a different light and just admit that that which you embrace *is not* the typical RC stance. It would be much easier to discuss ideas with you.<br> <br>Scott W. responds: [color:purple]Yes, it would make it much easier if I just agree with you and your misapplication of Catholic teachings - but I won't do that.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br>Scott<<<</font color=purple><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 8:03 PM

Pilgrim wrote: Yes, you replied to RonD but I found no clarification at all in it; sorry. So, I think it would be beneficial to start a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of "justification" so that it may be seen that there are in fact irreconcilable differences between what Rome teaches and what Reformational Protestantism teaches. And most importantly what Scripture teaches concerning "justification".<br> <br>Scott replies: [color:purple] Ah! You've changed the subject here now! I was not attempting to reconcile Catholic theology to Protestantism! I was responding to Jason's (and others, yourself included) that I was not reconciling my views to Trent. There is no reconcilliation to the errors of Protestantism. The only reconcilliation here would be for Protestants to return to the Church they left - THAT is reconcilliation! I stress again, it was not my intention to wave the errors of Protestantism in your faces - a Protestant (RefBap) asked a question involving Catholicism, and another Protestant answered, but only presented a half-truth, and then attempted to present his half-truth as "the whole story" involving justification, sanctification and salvation. My intent was only to present a fuller treatment of the Catholic teaching on this matter - NOT to reconcile Catholicism to Protestantism.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 8:05 PM

I see you've started a new thread. I have absolutely no interest in responding to a thread that starts right off the bat with "Romish" in it. Have a nice day.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 10:33 PM

cathapol,

Well, if you are wanting to bow out of a new discussion due to some offense to the word "Romish", you are certainly entitled to do so, although I personally consider it a unwarranted excuse. Perhaps the word has a totally different connotation to you than it does to me? But again, you are free to tuck your tail between your legs and run away from probably the most fundamental issue that divides Rome from Protestantism.
In reply to:

The only reconcilliation here would be for Protestants to return to the Church they left . . .


Of course from my perspective, I don't see that the Reformers left the true Church at all, but merely returned to the teachings of the Church which Rome apostatized from over the centuries. To some extent it's a matter of perspective, but in reality it is an entirely different matter which can and has been documented to show that Rome took upon itself a path that departed from the Church Fathers but especially the teaching of the inspired biblical writers. grin

In reply to:

My intent was only to present a fuller treatment of the Catholic teaching on this matter - NOT to reconcile Catholicism to Protestantism.


I can appreciate your "intent" to clarify and to reconcile your personal beliefs with the OFFICIAL teachings of Rome, which it seems is far more difficult a thing for you to do than perhaps you realize due to the obscurity of language used by both you and Rome. Although, I must admit that Trent is far better in stating its position than you are, IMHO. But be that as it may, that's an "in house" problem and not one that I personally have to concern myself with. For regardless of whether you are in total agreement with Rome's position or not, I disagree with both. wink

Lastly, it would indeed be an exercise in futility to try and reconcile Catholicism with historic Protestantism as they are antithetical to each other. The salient issue is which one is that which is the truth. And once that is determined will the errant party recant, repent and be reconciled to God?



In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:05 PM

Pilgrim wrote: Well, if you are wanting to bow out of a new discussion due to some offense to the word "Romish", you are certainly entitled to do so, although I personally consider it a unwarranted excuse. Perhaps the word has a totally different connotation to you than it does to me? But again, you are free to tuck your tail between your legs and run away from probably the most fundamental issue that divides Rome from Protestantism.<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: I'll not get into a testosterone battle with you Pilgrim. Any semi-unbiased reader here can tell that I have not "tucked my tail between my legs and ran." If you insist upon using a slur to open a thread, well, that speaks volumes and certainly does not merit my time and effort to respond to - and again, the semi-unbiased reader can surely tell that as well. I note that you (carefully) say "perhaps the word has a totally different connotation..." oh yes, "perhaps" it does, but "perhaps" it doesn't? <br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 10, 2002 11:13 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Trent States: "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema." <p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Hi Scott,<br><br>Let's see if we can bring to light the point(s) of contention.<br><br>Trent states that "the good works of one that is justified....are also the good merits of him that is justified..." <br><br>I believe that Trent is saying that our works wrought in Christ are our merits by which we are justified; whereas you would say that our works are not the meritorious basis by which we are justified. Agreed?<br><br>Next, I would say that trent also teaches that the "justified" by good works merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life (if the justified remains in grace) and increase of glory. <br><br>In other words, those who are initially justified by grace through baptism may attain eternal IF by grace they perform good works, which in turn may merit increase of grace and eventually the attainment of that eternal life. <br><br>To this you respond with: "If one merits an increase in grace through works, that doesn't increase one's salvation - again, that's an either/or situation - but one can attain greater rewards due to works, hence an increase, perhaps, in one's position (level of heaven or amount of rewards) but not an increase in the attainment of salvation."<br><br>You say, Scott, that one's meritorious works "doesn't increase one's salvation". I must differ with your view of Trent because Trent states that good works does not only merit increase of grace but eternal life. You keep insisting that one through works does not add to his salvation because that's a done deal. Is it? I would argue that salvation is not a done deal in Roman Catholic theology because justification is not a one time act; it is a legal fiction as it were. This is precisely the reason why one must merit increase of grace and eternal life, just as Trent states. <br><br>Do you deny that one by grace must merit eternal life?<br><br>Thoughts?<br><br>Ron <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:12 PM

Ron writes: You say, Scott, that one's meritorious works "doesn't increase one's salvation". I must differ with your view of Trent because Trent states that good works does not only merit increase of grace but eternal life. You keep insisting that one through works does not add to his salvation because that's a done deal. Is it? I would argue that salvation is not a done deal in Roman Catholic theology because justification is not a one time act; it is a legal fiction as it were. This is precisely the reason why one must merit increase of grace and eternal life, just as Trent states.


[color:"purple"]Scott replies:[/b] Ron, you're still insisting upon the Protestant definition of justification. With regard to "eternal life" how can one possibly gain "more" of something that is "eternal?" Again I assert, what one can gain "more" of is "rewards" based upon works done in the state of grace. In that respect, one can see where the "increase" is in the benefits/rewards one might receive in "eternal life." My view is not inconsistent with Trent.


In JMJ,

Scott<<<


PS- More later, but I need to run now...

Posted By: Anonymous

Just wondering... - Mon Jun 10, 2002 11:45 PM

CathApol,<br>Let's just say for the sake of argument that I was in a terrible car accident. You found me and it was obvious that I only had minutes to live. Could you offer me Christ's salvation if I repented of my sins and believed in Jesus as my Saviour and Lord? Would I need your priest or your church's baptism to be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven? OR would Christ's finished work plus nothing be sufficient alone to bring me into His presence for ever? <br>Just wondering. [Linked Image]<br>Susan
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just wondering... - Tue Jun 11, 2002 3:28 AM

Susan said: CathApol, Let's just say for the sake of argument that I was in a terrible car accident. You found me and it was obvious that I only had minutes to live. Could you offer me Christ's salvation if I repented of my sins and believed in Jesus as my Saviour and Lord? Would I need your priest or your church's baptism to be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven? OR would Christ's finished work plus nothing be sufficient alone to bring me into His presence for ever? <br>Just wondering. Susan <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: First off, there is nothing I can do for you, for Christ has already done it. If you sincerely repented of your sins and believed in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, then that may indeed suffice for your salvation. I say "may" because I am not The Judge that will make that final decision in your life.<br> <br>As for Baptism, though that is a requirement - Trent also teaches of "the laver of regeneration (baptism) or the desire thereof." So, if you're sincere in your repentence and desire to follow Christ in all that He commanded - so much as is possible in your final moments of life, it is Church teaching that this desire can suffice for the actual Sacrament.<br> <br>Let me answer your questions the way you presented them now:</font color=purple><br> <br>Let's just say for the sake of argument that I was in a terrible car accident. You found me and it was obvious that I only had minutes to live. Could you offer me Christ's salvation if I repented of my sins and believed in Jesus as my Saviour and Lord? <br><br>[color:purple]Yes, as clarified above, Christ has already offered you this.</font color=purple><br><br>Would I need your priest or your church's baptism to be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven? <br><br>[color:purple]Not necessarily, and if you desired Baptism, I could perform it for you - as could anyone. If you were to die before Baptism, then Baptism of Desire may suffice.</font color=purple><br><br>OR would Christ's finished work plus nothing be sufficient alone to bring me into His presence for ever? <br> <br>[color:purple]You've already stated that you're sorry for your sins (repented) and have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, so you can't claim "nothing" here. If you had done "nothing" at all, (didn't repent and didn't believe) then though Christ's Finished Work would indeed be sufficient for you - you did not accept His Free Gift and you would likely be condemned to hell.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>PS- Thanks for the honest question.<br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 11, 2002 11:16 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Trent States: "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema." <p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Hi Scott,<br><br>I think we might be about done. When one seems as willing as you to deny the plain meaning of language there's not a whole lot more I can do. Proof is not persuasion.<br><br>Trent states that man must merit eternal life, and not just the rewards that are credited to those who obtain eternal life. For some reason, however, you have chosen to spin the plain meaning of Trent and reduce it to the notion that man only merits rewards. You stated that the "increase is in the benefits / rewards one might receive in 'eternal life.'" However, the portion of the canon to which I have referred is not speaking of the rewards that one might obtain in addition to eternal life, but rather it speaks to that which is attained -- eternal life itself! <br><br>Whereas you say that man may merit the "rewards one might receive in 'eternal life'" but not eternal life, Trent states that man must "truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life..."<br><br>Your whole argument falls back on the idea that man is initially justified apart from works. From this premise you then wish to conclude that man does not attain eternal life by works and merit since he is already in a state of grace. Accordingly, you reason that the works performed by those in a state of grace must therefore only be associated with the rewards reckoned to the justified in glory. Said works must never be considered the grounds by which one may enter into glory. <br><br>Scott, what I believe you have either failed to grasp or refused to admit is that Trent teaches that man's works (wrougth in Christ by grace) are the basis of his meritorious standing before God. In pristrine Roman Catholic dogma anyone who is initially justified through baptism (by the working of the works) must then by grace "truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life." <br><br>Scott, your issue would seem to be with Roman Catholicism not individual Protestants. You may have the last word on the matter.<br><br>Still hopeful,<br><br>Ron
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Just wondering... - Tue Jun 11, 2002 12:27 PM

SWW: Would I need your priest or your church's baptism to be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven? <br><br>Scott: Not necessarily, and if you desired Baptism, I could perform it for you - as could anyone. If you were to die before Baptism, then Baptism of Desire may suffice.<br><br><br>Jason: SWW, it gets even better. You could have never known, never even heard about baptism, Jesus Christ, the Bible, etc., and yet you could very well be saved in Roman Catholicism by the ever expaning Baptism of Desire clause!<br><br>Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Lumen Gentium, Article 16 from the Documents of Vatican II)<br><br>This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Holy Spirit Himself works through the customs and traditions of false religions in order to offer them the possibility of salvation. Pope John Paul II even goes so far as to suggest that it is the Holy Spirit who brings about these other religions in order to sow the seed of salvation through them:<br><br>Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity. Speaking of the paschal mystery, in which Christ even now associates the believer to himself in a living manner in the Spirit and gives him the hope of resurrection, the Council states: "All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery".<br><br>Hence, the connection is clear between the salvific mystery of the Incarnate Word and that of the Spirit, who actualizes the salvific efficacy of the Son made man in the lives of all people, called by God to a single goal, both those who historically preceded the Word made man, and those who live after his coming in history: the Spirit of the Father, bestowed abundantly by the Son, is the animator of all (cf. Jn 3:34). <br><br>Thus, the recent Magisterium of the Church has firmly and clearly recalled the truth of a single divine economy: "The Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions... The Risen Christ ...is now at work in human hearts through the strength of his Spirit'... Again, it is the Spirit who sows the 'seeds of the word' present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for full maturity in Christ"....Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel[/b] and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by the power of the Spirit 'so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things'"(Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, June 16, 2000)<br><br><br>So not only is the person in the car accident, found by a Catholic, in a position to be saved by a Baptism of Desire, but the Holy Spirit might work through the ritual of some pagan on an island to make known to him in a mysterious way the paschal mystery, and if this person strives with a clear conscience to please God according to the light he has, Roman Catholicism grants that had he ever heard of Christ or the Gospel and Baptism he would have desired it and is therefore saved.<br><br>A far cry from the Ecumenical Council of Florence:<br><br>"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, and almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, from Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714).<br><br>So, SWW, you're in luck, you live after Vatican II!<br><br>The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter...Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given [Jews] and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (Lumen Gentium, Articles 15 and 16 from the Documents of Vatican II)<br><br><br>If you thought it was fun watching Catholic apologists deal with Trent's statements on merit in Justification, wait until you see how they spin these statements to agree with one another. [Linked Image]<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Jason
Posted By: lazarus

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 11, 2002 3:38 PM

What is meant by ..." and also an increase of glory"? Is this referring to heavenly rewards? <br><br>Also, if Scott thinks Trent teaches justification apart from works, we we do,... who in the world is Trent's anathema being directed? What's the beef if Rome and protestants already share the same view? <br><br>
Posted By: lazarus

OUCH, that must hurt! - Tue Jun 11, 2002 3:45 PM

Thanks Jason....<br><br>...it just keeps getting scarier and scarier, eh?<br><br>blessings,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 11, 2002 5:05 PM

Hey Laz,<br><br>An "increase in glory" refers to heavenly rewards. What is noteworthy is that Trent says that we can merit "also an increase of glory." In other words, the "also" is something extra, which is to say that not only can we merit our eternal life but "also" an increase of glory. There's just no getting around it, Catholicism teaches another gospel.<br><br>Ron
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Jun 11, 2002 7:26 PM

Scott,<br><br>Your thesis has repeatedly been that Catholicism teaches that those that are justified are saved - period, and that good works done in a state of grace don't add to salvation or increase justification because justification is the final phase in the economy of salvation.<br><br>I think it would be interesting for you to reconcile your position with the teaching of James 2:20-26. Particularly I would like to see you reconcile:<br><br><br>Scott's thesis: Works do not contribute to Justification, for justification cannot be increased and one must already be in a state of grace (justified) in order to do good works.<br><br>with<br><br>James 2:24: You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.<br><br><br>If works do not contribute to one's justification, how is it that James says that a man is justified by works? If works done in a state of grace do not cause or increase salvation or justification, but only rewards, how is it that works justify? Might I assume you follow the Reformed exegesis of this passage?! [Linked Image]<br><br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Jason.<br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just wondering... - Wed Jun 12, 2002 10:42 PM

Jason,<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you thought it was fun watching Catholic apologists deal with Trent's statements on merit in Justification, wait until you see how they spin these statements to agree with one another. [Linked Image]<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>How sad when people put their faith in men who can lie! I hope that our Catholic friend is still here lurking and really starts to search the Scriptures to see what is really true. <br>It makes me think of Proverbs16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.<br>Yes, it is scarey.<br>Susan
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: OUCH, that must hurt! - Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:13 AM

Why is it that it seems you just believe whatever Jason presents? Jason has (again) only presented part of the story and then attempted to "spin" it into nonsense. The Church never says those outside absolutely WILL be saved. Church teaching on Invincible Ignorance and Baptism of Desire still leaves the judgment of culpability to God. <br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:32 AM

Jason writes:Scott,<br><br>Your thesis has repeatedly been that Catholicism teaches that those that are justified are saved - period, and that good works done in a state of grace don't add to salvation or increase justification because justification is the final phase in the economy of salvation.<br><br>I think it would be interesting for you to reconcile your position with the teaching of James 2:20-26. Particularly I would like to see you reconcile:<br><br>Scott's thesis: Works do not contribute to Justification, for justification cannot be increased and one must already be in a state of grace (justified) in order to do good works.<br><br>with<br><br>James 2:24: You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.<br><br>If works do not contribute to one's justification, how is it that James says that a man is justified by works? If works done in a state of grace do not cause or increase salvation or justification, but only rewards, how is it that works justify? Might I assume you follow the Reformed exegesis of this passage?! <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Jason, first off let's be truthful and tell the whole truth which is something that seems to be either a challenge for you to do, or a deliberate attempt to "spin" things in your favor. I have not only said "Works do not contribute to Justification, for justification cannot be increased and one must already be in a state of grace (justified) in order to do good works." In fact, I said that maybe once or twice. I then clarified that the Catholic Church does not always use the terminology of "justified" and "sanctified" in the manner in which I did - so your statement that I have "consistently" presented that position is false. Please retract.<br> <br>Second, I did say that there is no "increase in salvation" because "saved is saved." I added there may be differences in the rewards or "level of heaven" - but one cannot be "more saved" than another. Using an imperfect, but close, analogy: a light bulb is either on or off. If you put a dimmer on the light bulb, that doesn't change the fact that it is either on or off - only how bright it may be shining when "on."<br> <br>Third, I have nothing to reconcile to James 2:24 when one uses a less strict interpretation of "justified." In fact, if anyone has anything to reconcile it would be one who holds to a "sola fide" position, and denies that works have anything to do with justification.<br> <br>So, I ask again Jason, if you're going to represent me and/or my Church - could you please present a fuller representation of my/our position? In fact, it would be better to leave the explaining of Catholicism to Catholics. <br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Sun Jun 16, 2002 1:24 PM

Cathapol,

Let me play the "moron" here just for fun. IF what you are proposing and claiming is the "whole truth", i.e., that your clearer use of terms is in fact what Trent, Vatican II and the Catholic Encyclopedia actually teach:
Justification is a one time thing which cannot be increased nor decreased. That works will naturally flow from one who is justified and they only increase or decrease rewards for the justified. That once justified there is no possibility of hell.
then why was there so much disagreement by the Reformers with Rome? Why did Rome pronounce myriad "anathemas" upon what the Reformers taught on the matter of Justification (Sola Fide), when in fact they taught exactly the same things?

Either the Reformers and most Protestants since them have totally misunderstood the OFFICIAL Catholic documents in regard to the doctrine of Justification, and/or Rome has consistently been likewise guilty of totally misunderstanding what the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" teaches.

Would you like to provide an explanation as to how this most unfortunate misunderstanding came about and continues even to this day? I'm sure there are many besides myself who would be most grateful to get this "breach" repaired. grin


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:04 AM

Pilgrim wrote:Cathapol,<br><br>Let me play the "moron" here just for fun. IF what you are proposing and claiming is the "whole truth", i.e., that your clearer use of terms is in fact what Trent, Vatican II and the Catholic Encyclopedia actually teach:<br><br>Justification is a one time thing which cannot be increased nor decreased. That works will naturally flow from one who is justified and they only increase or decrease rewards for the justified. That once justified there is no possibility of hell.<br><br>then why was there so much disagreement by the Reformers with Rome? Why did Rome pronounce myriad "anathemas" upon what the Reformers taught on the matter of Justification (Sola Fide), when in fact they taught exactly the same things?<br><br>Either the Reformers and most Protestants since them have totally misunderstood the OFFICIAL Catholic documents in regard to the doctrine of Justification, and/or Rome has consistently been likewise guilty of totally misunderstanding what the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" teaches.<br><br>Would you like to provide an explanation as to how this most unfortunate misunderstanding came about and continues even to this day? I'm sure there are many besides myself who would be most grateful to get this "breach" repaired. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies:<br><br>Well, first off I believe there are some that believe that no works are meritorious in any way, shape or form - this would be absolutely wrong from the Catholic perspective. Trent's anathemas point to those who reject works in this fashion. For those that accept that works are necessary for justification/sanctification - then we are in agreement. <br><br>Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift." We generally hear a challenge to "God's Sovereignty" in this regard - but in reality, there is no usurption of God's Sovereignty in the Catholic belief system. In God's Sovereign Will, He has deemed to "give" man a will similar to His Own (in His Image). He desires that we get to know, love and serve Him in this world so that we might live happily in eternity with Him in the next. The "knowing, loving and serving" of Him is not possible if one is pre-programmed (or elected in the Calvinist sense). If you take away man's ability to choose to accept God's Gift, or reject it, then you've taken away his ability to truly love Him. God wants our love - and offers His Free Gift to all who will accept it. Those who reject His Gift will be condemned. If one is condemned, it is not because God has failed, but that person has failed to accept the Gift. John 3:16 sums up the Gospel message quite well, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." <br> <br>As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith. Well, why it took Protestantism so long to come to that conclusion is beyond me, it has always been part of Catholic teaching, and to use the title of sola fide is a bit misleading (and hence the anathemas from Trent follow for those who adhere to a strict interpretation of "faith alone").<br> <br>Does this clear up some of this "gross misunderstanding?"<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple><br> <br>
Posted By: Jason1646

Re: OUCH, that must hurt! - Mon Jun 17, 2002 1:12 PM

Jason wrote: You could have never known, never even heard about baptism, Jesus Christ, the Bible, etc., and yet you could very well be saved in Roman Catholicism.<br><br>Scott writes: Jason has (again) only presented part of the story and then attempted to "spin" it into nonsense. The Church never says those outside absolutely WILL be saved.<br><br>Jason writes: And neither did I say they teach that! Really Scott, is it any wonder that we can't have intelligent interchange on matters of theology when you can't even read a simple sentence and deal with the intended meaning of that sentence? Did I ever imply everyone was saved? Was it my intent to imply such a thing? No, I simply made the point that Roman Catholicism teaches that someone can be completely ignorant of the Christian faith and still be saved, without any reference or allusion to number. Do you take any time to read and comprehend what is posted? This is the second time you have accused me of hiding things or spinning Roman dogma just because I did not deal comprehensively with the subject when it was never my intention to do so, only to bring to light those areas where the biblical testimony and the Roman Catholic assertions part ways in a serious way. Unless you can show how by choosing not to address an unrelated teaching of your communion, I have contradicted or changed the meaning of the particular teaching that I am bringing to light, your posts decrying misrepresentation are nonsense and demonstrate an unwillingness to debate the issue at hand.<br><br>So tell me Scott, just because Roman Catholicism does not teach absolutely everyone outside the Roman communion will be saved, how is this relevant to my point that they leave open the possibility of salvation for those who have never even heard of Christ? Are you disputing that Roman Catholicism teaches that such people may be saved as they follow their consciences because had they known of Christ and baptism they would have received it? Tell us how just because not all are saved who are outside the communion of Rome is in any way relevant to my point that they provide the possibility of their salvation. Stop kicking up sand and deal with what has been posted.<br><br>Jason.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Mon Jun 17, 2002 2:33 PM

Cathapol,

As I expected you have only clouded over what you have maintained is clear; i.e., the OFFICIAL Roman Catholic doctrine of "Justification" and that held by you. Further even if you wish to maintain, in spite of the obvious differences, you have once again shot yourself in the foot by revealing the gross antithesis within the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Justification".
In reply to:

Well, first off I believe there are some that believe that no works are meritorious in any way, shape or form.


If you are referring to "Justification"; how one is accepted as just before God, then by your own testimony, both Rome and yourself would agree with that statement. For you have maintained quite vehemently, that one CANNOT ADD (INCREASE) TO NOR SUBTRACT (DECREASE) FROM JUSTIFICATION. IF you are referring to "Sanctification", then no true Protestant would find that statement acceptable, for biblically, anyone who has been regenerated and given faith will infallibly be justified and all who are justified will infallibly show forth good works as fruit of that regeneration, which out of God's infinite grace, are rewarded in the end.

In reply to:

Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift."


Could anything be more perspicuously contradictory and antithetical to all that you have posited in regard to "Justification"; both your view which is allegedly the same as Rome's OFFICIAL teaching? If Justification can NEVER be increased nor decreased, then how is it possible that anyone could be lost who has, in fact, been JUSTIFIED? It is YOU who has admitted that Rome sometimes intermixes the terms "justification" and "sanctification". And you have likewise maintained that justification is unalterable once established, but sanctification is alterable, being dynamic; subject to increase and decrease. Further, sanctification ONLY has to do with rewards.

I'll not respond your admission and embrace of the semi-Pelagian concept of "free-will" here, but I would be more than happy to engage you concerning that topic in another thread. grin

In reply to:

As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith.


I often wonder how it is that Roman Catholics, especially those who have come out of Protestantism and claim to have understood Protestant dogma can make such statements as yours!! shrug

Whether you choose to agree or disagree with the doctrine of Sola Fide, it is certainly logical and easily comprehended. What R.C. Sproul and all those who adhere to the biblical formulation of Sola Fide are saying is that JUSTIFICATION is a judicial declaration whereby a sinner is legally pronounced "not guilty" based upon SOLELY upon the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement effectively and completely satisfied the law of God for the elect in His death. And, likewise those same elect are given His perfect righteousness. Thus they stand LEGALLY righteous (alien righteousness) and therefore are not subject to judgment; that judgment having been executed on the cross. Because, the elect are also regenerated (a necessary means to salvation), in the application of Christ's meritorious vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them.

It is often the case that many modern Protestants in addition to most Catholics, err in making "faith" a work, i.e., the proximate CAUSE of justification, which is annexed to Christ's atonement, which ALONE is acceptable and meritorious. There is absolutely NO VALUE, NOR MERIT in faith. For even that faith is a gift of God which terminates infallibly in Christ and His work.

Thus, the Scriptures and the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" clearly teach that justification is the declaration of being not guilty and sanctification is the natural expression of one justified; having been given a new nature that naturally seeks to conform to God's perfect law and which are anterior to justification and having no effect upon it.



In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Mon Jun 17, 2002 11:48 PM

Pilgrim wrote: If you are referring to "Justification"; how one is accepted as just before God, then by your own testimony, both Rome and yourself would agree with that statement. For you have maintained quite vehemently, that one CANNOT ADD (INCREASE) TO NOR SUBTRACT (DECREASE) FROM JUSTIFICATION. IF you are referring to "Sanctification", then no true Protestant would find that statement acceptable, for biblically, anyone who has been regenerated and given faith will infallibly be justified and all who are justified will infallibly show forth good works as fruit of that regeneration, which out of God's infinite grace, are rewarded in the end.

[color:purple]Scott replies: Actually, the statement I made, I also amended (a MANY messages ago). Rome uses the language of "justification" a bit more liberally than you do, but IF we apply it as you do (and one can do that) then when we're referring to the final justification, there is no further justification possible - one either is or isn't justified at that point. The problem is you're attempting to put your definition of justification on the Catholic's use of it. When we're operating from two different definitions - there can be no consensus. I accept some of the responsibility for my use of the terms "justification" and "justified" in the sense of a "final" justification (as Protestantism defines it), but you're constant attempt try to put THAT use on ALL uses in Catholic teaching is what I object to. In ALL instances that Catholicism uses those terms, it doesn't mean what Protestantism insists upon.

Pilgrim continues:
In reply to:


[color:purple]Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift."



Could anything be more perspicuously contradictory and antithetical to all that you have posited in regard to "Justification"; both your view which is allegedly the same as Rome's OFFICIAL teaching? If Justification can NEVER be increased nor decreased, then how is it possible that anyone could be lost who has, in fact, been JUSTIFIED? It is YOU who has admitted that Rome sometimes intermixes the terms "justification" and "sanctification". And you have likewise maintained that justification is unalterable once established, but sanctification is alterable, being dynamic; subject to increase and decrease. Further, sanctification ONLY has to do with rewards.

[color:purple]Scott replies: Pilgrim, I've stated over and over again, the Catholic view on justification is not ALWAYS the way Protestants interpret it. If we view it as Protestants do, then it's a FINAL thing, and not part of the persevering. IF we are "judged" to be justified, (in the Protestant sense) then there is no more justification - for it HAS BEEN judged. The difference is that you believe you can be fully justified, here and now, and you believe (if I am following you correctly) that once you are justified, here and now, you can NEVER lose that justification. That position defeats the concept of "perseverence" that St. Paul repeatedly teaches and demands. So, you can pick and choose among my words and decide which ones you wish to use against me, but you're still not getting around St. Paul's demand that we persevere. If such is "guaranteed" then perseverence is nothing, meaningles, void.

I'll respond in another post to the rest...

In JMJ,
Scott<<<



Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 12:46 AM

Cathapol,

Well, I will admit most willingly that you do have the age-old Roman Catholic practice of "rope-a-dope". laugh Not that I expected anything other.

So, if I am understanding you right, at this point, when you and Rome, which you are adamant to maintain are espousing the same dogma, the "justification" you are speaking of is that which occurs at the very end of one's life and not during one's life. If that is true, then the charge that you and Rome teach a "faith+works" salvation are incontrovertibly true. For, all that a person does during his/her life contributes to that "final justification".

There is an incredible amount of biblical evidence to support the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" and the concept of a "forensic/alien righteousness". Some of which can be found on The Highway website here: Sola Fide

As to your consternation over "Sola Fide" and the many passages which mention "persevering to the end", it is easily understood when one realizes that all such texts are stressing the responsibility of man and not the eternal decree of salvation. That is why the formulation is most often referred to as the "Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints". Because of the inherent remnant of the old nature in man which wars against the new spirit (nature) created at regeneration, it is incumbent upon all those who profess to have faith in the Lord Christ that they endure to the end, fighting against those sinful tendencies. Those who fail to persevere to the end reveal that their "faith" was ingenuous. This is the emphasis which James speaks when he says, "faith without works is dead".


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 1:33 AM

Pilgrim writes:
In reply to:



[color:purple]As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith.


I often wonder how it is that Roman Catholics, especially those who have come out of Protestantism and claim to have understood Protestant dogma can make such statements as yours!!

[color:purple]Scott replies: "Protestant dogma?" Isn't that an oxymoron?

Whether you choose to agree or disagree with the doctrine of Sola Fide, it is certainly logical and easily comprehended. What R.C. Sproul and all those who adhere to the biblical formulation of Sola Fide are saying is that JUSTIFICATION is a judicial declaration whereby a sinner is legally pronounced "not guilty" based upon SOLELY upon the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement effectively and completely satisfied the law of God for the elect in His death. And, likewise those same elect are given His perfect righteousness. Thus they stand LEGALLY righteous (alien righteousness) and therefore are not subject to judgment; that judgment having been executed on the cross. Because, the elect are also regenerated (a necessary means to salvation), in the application of Christ's meritorious vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them.

[color:purple]Scott replies: So, is it sola fide or fides + opus? If "good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them" then faith is not alone, for it is "naturally accompanied" by works. You added a lot of text to say the exact same thing I quoted from RC Sproul - "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone." If your faith has no works, it is not a saving faith, so faith alone is NOT a saving faith. That is where sola fide fails.

It is often the case that many modern Protestants in addition to most Catholics, err in making "faith" a work, i.e., the proximate CAUSE of justification, which is annexed to Christ's atonement, which ALONE is acceptable and meritorious. There is absolutely NO VALUE, NOR MERIT in faith. For even that faith is a gift of God which terminates infallibly in Christ and His work.

[color:purple]Scott replies: I have never said "faith is a work." Is this a diversionary tactic to get me to argue for (or against) something I did not even say?

Thus, the Scriptures and the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" clearly teach that justification is the declaration of being not guilty and sanctification is the natural expression of one justified; having been given a new nature that naturally seeks to conform to God's perfect law and which are anterior to justification and having no effect upon it.

[color:purple]Scott replies: Well, again, IF we use Justification in the "final sense," Catholic have no disagreement with what you're saying.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Posted By: Tom

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:32 AM

Pilgrim

As I was following your debate with Cathapol, an article that you wrote (by the way it is excellent) called Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone? came to mind.
Do you think that article would be appropriate to post in this thread?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 12:13 PM

Why not just post a clickable link to it since it already occupies space on the server? tongue
Posted By: Wes

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 1:54 PM

CathApol,

[color:blue]
In reply to:

The problem is you're attempting to put your definition of justification on the Catholic's use of it.




How can any agreement possibly come between Catholics and Protestants when we can't agree on the meaning of a word? The difference between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation is over this kind of theological confusion. It has been pointed out that "works" follow saving faith but do not in any way make one just before God. Romans 4:5 tells us, [color:red]"To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." God designates as [color:red]"blessed" those [color:red]"to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:6).

Sadly Scott many evangelicals are confussed over this teaching as well. They agree with your understanding of "original sin" which denies the depravity of man and teaches that man is basically good. When you fail to see that man cannot in himself in any way contribute to his salvation you will ultimately arrive at a different understanding of what makes up justification.

Wes


Posted By: lazarus

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:14 PM

Wesley - you wrote:<br><br>"When you fail to see that man cannot in himself in any way contribute to his salvation you will ultimately arrive at a different understanding of what makes up justification. "<br><br>AMEN...and until they do...they will never understand the unfathomable character and nature of God's saving grace (free and sovereign). <br><br>blessings,
Posted By: Paul_S

A few short questions for Scott - Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:32 PM

Scott,<br><br>Would you mind answering several personal questions?<br><br>1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does [color:purple]your</font color=purple> righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?<br><br>2) Why, or why not?<br><br>3) Will [color:purple]your</font color=purple> righteousness in God's sight [color:red]continue</font color=red> to exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law until the consummation of all things?<br><br>4) Why, or why not?<br><br>5) What comfort, if any, does this knowledge give you?<br>
Posted By: Tom

Re: Gross Misunderstanding needs clarification - Wed Jun 19, 2002 4:39 AM

Actually I was wanting to know if you thought it was appropriate for this discussion.<br><br>Here it is though:<br>http://www.the-highway.com/grace_Pilgrim.html<br><br>Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Kicking up sand? - Sat Jul 13, 2002 2:50 AM

Jason wrote:So tell me Scott, just because Roman Catholicism does not teach absolutely everyone outside the Roman communion will be saved, how is this relevant to my point that they leave open the possibility of salvation for those who have never even heard of Christ? Are you disputing that Roman Catholicism teaches that such people may be saved as they follow their consciences because had they known of Christ and baptism they would have received it? Tell us how just because not all are saved who are outside the communion of Rome is in any way relevant to my point that they provide the possibility of their salvation. Stop kicking up sand and deal with what has been posted.

[color:purple]Scott replies: Jason, mea culpa if I overread what your intent was. Yes, the Church teaches some outside the visible Catholic Church may be saved, leaving such a personal judgment to God alone. This can only be applied to those in invincible ignorance, or in other words, through no fault of their own. Those who willfully remain outside the Church and are fully aware of the Church and the Church's teaching on this may be condemned for all eternity, and likely will be.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<


Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sat Jul 13, 2002 2:58 AM

Paul wrote:

Scott,

Would you mind answering several personal questions?

1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?

2) Why, or why not?

[color:purple]Scott replies: I do not have the sight of God so how can I answer that question?

3) Will your righteousness in God's sight continue to exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law until the consummation of all things?

4) Why, or why not?

[color:purple]Scott replies: Since I cannot answer your first two questions, I cannot answer these two either.

5) What comfort, if any, does this knowledge give you?

[color:purple]Scott replies: I do not seek "comfort," I only seek to know, love and serve my Lord in this world so that I may live happily with Him in eternity.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Posted By: Paul_S

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sat Jul 13, 2002 3:22 AM

In reply to:

1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?

2) Why, or why not?

Scott replies: I do not have the sight of God so how can I answer that question?


That seems to be a clever, safe answer, Scott, but by replying in that manner you are in danger of denying the Word of God which has been revealed from heaven to you, so that you, with all men, are without excuse.

If your faith IS NOT IN Christ, then you have no righteousness in God's sight: "There is no one righteous, not even one...no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law."

If your faith IS IN Christ, then you have been declared righteous in God's sight: "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness...since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...Who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption."

Which of these describes you, Scott?

Posted By: Paul_S

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sat Jul 13, 2002 3:46 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>5) What comfort, if any, does this knowledge give you?<br><br>Scott replies: I do not seek "comfort," I only seek to know, love and serve my Lord in this world so that I may live happily with Him in eternity. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Scott, this is passing strange! According to your seemingly humble statement, your only goal in life is to know, love and serve your Lord, yet you apparently don't <font class="big">know</font> what He has said about how He views your righteousness in His sight: either your utter lack of it apart from faith in Christ, or [color:blue]the righteousness of Christ Himself credited to you</font color=blue> through faith in Christ?<br><br>That word "comfort" should be appropriated in its Scriptural sense rather than its shallow modern sense; it is no trifle to be lightly dismissed, but absolutely essential for all who must stand before the Thrice-Holy Jehovah. In that day, Scott, is your comfort going to be in what your zeal has accomplished?<br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sun Jul 14, 2002 4:25 AM

Paul writes: That seems to be a clever, safe answer, Scott, but by replying in that manner you are in danger of denying the Word of God which has been revealed from heaven to you, so that you, with all men, are without excuse.<br><br>If your faith IS NOT IN Christ, then you have no righteousness in God's sight: "There is no one righteous, not even one...no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law."<br><br>If your faith IS IN Christ, then you have been declared righteous in God's sight: "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness...since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...Who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption."<br><br>Which of these describes you, Scott? <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: I'll not fall into your black and white fallacy - nice try. Make note Paul, your references are contrasting works of the law to attain righteousness or grace wherein righteousness is given us. Your initial question seemed to me to be a trap - and regardless of which way I answered it, you would have found fault with it. The fact is that if such righteousness is given me, then it is Christ's righteousness, not mine to be proud of. I am dirt, I am nothing, I deserve nothing from God - but God in His Mercy has provided for me a means of grace. So, if I were to speculate and pretend to have God's Eyes, then looking at me - I am dirt, I am nothing - but if I am given the righteousness of Christ - then when God looks at me, He will not see me - but Christ.<br> <br>Now, do I make the bold, prideful or presumptuous claim that I am Christ? No, by no means! If I make it to the Wedding Feast, then I will sit myself at the lowest place, and IF I am invited up to a higher place than someone else, THEN I will be thankful and honored by His Grace - but I do not presume I am "higher" than anyone else, here and now, I'll let my Lord decide that.<br> <br>As for your question about my righteousness being higher than the Pharisees: I assume you mean this verse: <blockquote>[color:red]Mat5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.</font color=red></blockquote> The context of that verse is not about us claiming righteousness greater than the Pharisees - it's about grace verses works of the law. In the context of this verse - we should not be claiming such righteousness at all! Rather, we should be reliant on His Grace - and that is the message of the context of Matthew 5:20.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br> <br>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sun Jul 14, 2002 4:48 AM

In reply to:

but God in His Mercy has provided for me a means of grace.


I marvel at this statement of yours for my local JW's, who are regular visitors to my house and who came to visit again today, make the same statement about their salvation. It's interesting how there are so many variations of semi-Pelagianism in the world, but that their views of salvation are so much alike.

But regardless, what is unquestionably true is that you believe that God in His mercy has provided a "means of grace", where I believe that the Scriptures emphatically teach that God actually and infallible "saves by grace"!! There are "means" used by God to call a sinner to Christ, but it is grace and grace alone, Sola Gratia that truly saves apart from any contribution that man could possibly do. Salvation is a monergistic work of God by its very nature; thus grace! You can use the word grace all you like, but we both know that your grace is ineffectual for as you have already stated, it is only a "means" which you must use to secure your alleged salvation. Baptizing works of any kind can never make them into grace. It's grace alone or it's not grace at all, as Paul clearly has written. (Rom 9:11; Eph 2:9)

Galatians 2:16-19 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."
In His GRACE,
Posted By: Paul_S

Presumption, pride and boldness - Sun Jul 14, 2002 8:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your initial question seemed to me to be a trap - and regardless of which way I answered it, you would have found fault with it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Scott, you presume much! You earlier claimed ignorance of God's view of your righteousness, even though, as you know, He has clearly revealed that in His word; but now you are claiming to know what I would have done in a situation before it occurred! <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The fact is that if such righteousness is given me, then it is Christ's righteousness, not mine to be proud of.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Who said anything about being proud of an alien righteousness, Scott? Not me! The question was: In God's sight, does your righteousness exceed that of.... The Scriptural view, which you seem to reject, is that [color:blue]the righteousness of Christ, which alone exceeds all others, IS RECKONED UNTO BELIEVERS AS THEIR OWN</font color=blue>. <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I am dirt, I am nothing, I deserve nothing from God<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, not totally true. What about: everlasting condemnation, wrath and anger, trouble and distress (Romans 2:8-9)? <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now, do I make the bold, prideful or presumptuous claim that I am Christ? No, by no means!<p><hr></blockquote><p>But you apparently have no problem with the bold, prideful and presumptuous, [color:purple]non-black and white fallacy</font color=purple> that God's eternal acceptance of you requires [color:purple]something more, less or other than</font color=purple> <font class="big">[color:white]the perfect righteousness of Christ reckoned to you and counted as yours in God's own sight</font color=white></font>.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Then I will sit myself at the lowest place, and IF I am invited up to a higher place than someone else, THEN I will be thankful and honored by His Grace<p><hr></blockquote><p>You seem to have it all planned out pretty well for someone who does not claim to believe what the Scripture clearly teaches about justification and imputed righteousness!<br><br>Scott, true humility cannot be found apart from embracing both the Bad News of the Law and the Good News of the Gospel. From what you have said, I fear you have too low a view of both. This humility, this meekness, would never dream of thinking it a boast to own the righteousness of Christ, for it knows that such a gift comes totally, undeservedly from God alone; rather it would boast in the giver of that gift, and boldly rejoice in His salvation.<br><br>[color:blue]God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; <br>God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong;<br>He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--<br>to nullify the things that are,<br>so that no one may boast before Him.<br>It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus,<br>who has become for us wisdom from God--<br>that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.<br>Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."</font color=blue> (1 Corinthians 1:27-31)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Presumption, pride and boldness - Sun Jul 14, 2002 7:28 PM

Paul writes::<br>In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Your initial question seemed to me to be a trap - and regardless of which way I answered it, you would have found fault with it.<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Scott, you presume much! You earlier claimed ignorance of God's view of your righteousness, even though, as you know, He has clearly revealed that in His word; but now you are claiming to know what I would have done in a situation before it occurred! <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: No Paul, I said it seemed to be a trap. And what God has clearly revealed in His Word is that Jesus has become our righteousness, He is righteousness for us. </font color=purple><br><br><br>In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>The fact is that if such righteousness is given me, then it is Christ's righteousness, not mine to be proud of.<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Who said anything about being proud of an alien righteousness, Scott? Not me! The question was: In God's sight, does your righteousness exceed that of.... <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: I answered that Paul. I said that in reference to the context of Matt 5:20 (where you obviously got your question) that I don't claim ANY such righteousness! Paul, before you respond again - read the context of Matt 5:20 and see what I'm talking about. The context here is not about us attempting to claim ANY righteousness, rather to be totally reliant on the Grace of Christ Jesus! <br></font color=purple><br><br>The Scriptural view, which you seem to reject, is that the righteousness of Christ, which alone exceeds all others, IS RECKONED UNTO BELIEVERS AS THEIR OWN. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Again Paul, I plead to God for His Mercy and ask His Son to wash me in His Blood that I may be saved. Outside of THAT, there is no hope for my salvation. </font color=purple><br><br>In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>I am dirt, I am nothing, I deserve nothing from God<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Well, not totally true. What about: everlasting condemnation, wrath and anger, trouble and distress (Romans 2:8-9)? <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Well, I am not sure of what you're asking so let's look at the context:<br><blockquote>[color:red]<br>Rom 2:1 Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest. <br>Rom 2:2 For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things. <br>Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? <br>Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and patience and longsuffering? Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? <br>Rom 2:5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God: <br>Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his works. <br>Rom 2:7 To them indeed who, according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: <br>Rom 2:8 But to them that are contentious and who obey not the truth but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. <br>Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. <br>Rom 2:10 But glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. <br>Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. <br>Rom 2:12 For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. </font color=red></blockquote><br><br>So Paul, more of what you're referring to refers to "works of the law." Sorry, but you're failing to make your point - or if you have made your point, it's not a very good one. If anything, this reference in Scripture supports what I am saying.</font color=purple><br><br>In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Now, do I make the bold, prideful or presumptuous claim that I am Christ? No, by no means!<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>But you apparently have no problem with the bold, prideful and presumptuous, non-black and white fallacy that God's eternal acceptance of you requires something more, less or other than the perfect righteousness of Christ reckoned to you and counted as yours in God's own sight.<br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Paul, how am I being bold, proud or presumptuous in relying solely on the Grace of Jesus Christ and His Righteousness for my salvation? <br> <br>Secondly, there is no such thing as the "non-black and white fallacy" so that statement was either a mistyped comment or an uneducated statement. Well, "technically" there IS such a thing - for ALL fallacies that are not the black and white fallacy would be non-black and white fallacies. So, you could have mistyped or you could have made an uneducated assertion - or - you could be making a statement about every fallacy that is not the black and white fallacy, the latter being a rather nonsensical statement.<br><br>Thirdly here, yes! "the righteousness of Christ that is reckoned TO me..." I have no problem with that statement. I DO have a problem with the statement, taken almost verbatim from Matt 5:20, asking ME how *I* think God views MY righteousness. Again, MY righteousness is nothing, it is even OFFENSIVE to God, outside the state of Grace in Christ Jesus. Again, I ask you to read or reread the context of Matt 5:20 before responding further. I think you'll see that you've extracted your question to me from a point in Scripture that speaks out AGAINST righteousness (of works of the law) and FOR Grace for Christ Jesus.<br><br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple> <br>
Posted By: Paul_S

Missing the point - Sun Jul 14, 2002 10:39 PM

Scott,<br>You are so completely and consistently missing the point of my earlier questions concerning your righteousness in God's sight that further discourse seems unprofitable. Any person who has despaired of believing that their own righteousness is an essential factor in satisfying the perfect justice of God, and has been granted saving faith in the perfect imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ to their own person, would be able to answer those questions without hesitation. Your refusal, or inability, to do so speaks volumes about where your own ultimate confidence lies.<br><br>For the record, your prescience that I would find fault with whatever answer you gave (among "yes" or "no"), is simply, flatly, wrong. If you had been truly able to say merely "no", I would have gladly pointed you to the righteousness of Christ; if you had been truly able to say merely "yes", I would have gladly encouraged you to keep clinging to the righteousness of Christ as your only "comfort" (oh, how I pray you learn the meaning of the word) and your sole boast. But since you apparently were unable to do either without equivocating and ignoring the Scriptures, and, infinitely more importantly, since you cling to a system which knowingly promotes a non-Gospel, there is really nothing left to say beyond the Lord Christ's own words, which remain a testimony against your doctrine of self-righteousness:<br><br>For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.<br>Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Missing the point - Mon Jul 15, 2002 1:57 AM

[color:purple]Paul,<br> <br>I precisely caught your point, you seem to have missed mine. I fully agree that IF you're pointing to Christ's righteousness - then it certainly surpasses that of the Pharisees. However, Matt 5:20 is not talking about Christ's righteousness, is it? That's the point you seem to be missing. The context of Matt 5:20 is talking about rejecting works of the law and submitting one's self to the Grace of Christ. You had to jump around to other points of Scripture to make your point, but the context of Matt 5:20 does not support the point you have been attempting to make - and in fact, supports the position I took.<br> <br>For the record: I submit that the context of Matt 5:20, from which you (Paul) took your initial question, does not support adherence to any righteousness - for the context is condemnatious of attempting to acquire righteousness in accordance with the law, like the Pharisees attempted to do. And unless one fulfills the law even more than the Pharisees, one would not enter the kingdom of heaven. THAT is the point of Matt 5:20 (and context). Do you admit that much yet? If not, I agree, further discourse seems unprofitable.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Mon Jul 15, 2002 2:00 AM

[color:purple]Pilgrim, your quotation from Gal 2:16-19 only furthers my point to Paul_S - again noting St. Paul is talking about "works of the law" again - which was my point of clarification for Paul_S. Matt 5:20 also mentions such "works" for righteousness - and thus is completely consistent with the answers I provided Paul_S.<br> <br>Thank you.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Mon Jul 15, 2002 2:24 AM

Cathapol,

In reply to:

Pilgrim, your quotation from Gal 2:16-19 only furthers my point to Paul_S - again noting St. Paul is talking about "works of the law" again . . .


Well, I have to second Paul)_S's remarks previously made that you didn't get the point at all. However, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't. grin Your RC theology demands that you reject any accusation of adhering to synergism (aka: works). I have heard this lament far too many times; i.e., "We don't believe in salvation by works, but by grace! The works we do are done while being in a state of grace, etc., blah, blah, blah."

It makes no difference where the works come from or in what state a person is in when they are done. They are still that which MUST be done and are complemental to grace. Thus a work by any other name is still a work. :rolleyes1: Even God's grace is of works; Christ's vicarious substitutionary work imputed to those who believe. It's either ALL OF GRACE; i.e., Christ's work! or it's synergism. That's what Paul_S was driving home and likewise myself. "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees . . .", which illustration was used by Christ to show the futility of man contributing anything to his salvation, with or without "grace". You are either declared righteous on the basis of Christ's substitutionary work (atonement) and thus inherit eternal life at the moment you believe, or you reject His work and add to it. It is grace that saves at the moment that faith reaches out to Christ.

Romans 8:1 "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (cf. Rom 4:7; 5:1; 7:14-25; Jh 3:18; 5:24; Gal 3:13; et al)
We, the sons of God and of the Reformation rejoice in our Saviour, Who has procured ALL that is necessary for our redemption. There is NOTHING we need do but rest in Him and His sufficient atonement.
1 Corinthians 1:23-31 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
"Salvation is of the LORD!" Jonah 2:9


In His GRACE,
Posted By: Paul_S

Varieties of Semi-Pelagianism - Mon Jul 15, 2002 3:07 AM

Dear Pilgrim,<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It's interesting how there are so many variations of semi-Pelagianism in the world, but that their views of salvation are so much alike.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Maybe I shouldn't say this--it may further my reputation for setting black-and-white fallacious traps[Linked Image]--but I have to keep a strangle-hold on the most basic of revealed truths: <br><br>There are really only two [color:green]"faiths"</font color=green> in the world, rooted in only two [color:purple]reckonings of righteousness</font color=purple>: <br>[color:red]that of religious, but nevertheless unrighteous Cain ,</font color=red> <br>[color:blue]and that of believing, and therefore reckoned righteous, Abel.</font color=blue>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Varieties of Semi-Pelagianism - Mon Jul 15, 2002 1:13 PM

Paul,

Couldn't agree more.... !! BigThumbUp

And that's what I was saying, only in a round about way also concerning the myriad varieties of semi-Pelagianism that exist yet their doctrine of salvation is basically the same. Here's an excellent article that expounds on the truth you mentioned: There are Only Two Religions in the World!.

In His Marvelous Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Fri Jul 26, 2002 12:54 AM

Pilgrim said: It makes no difference where the works come from or in what state a person is in when they are done. They are still that which MUST be done and are complemental to grace. Thus a work by any other name is still a work. Even God's grace is of works; Christ's vicarious substitutionary work imputed to those who believe. It's either ALL OF GRACE; i.e., Christ's work! or it's synergism. That's what Paul_S was driving home and likewise myself. "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees . . .", which illustration was used by Christ to show the futility of man contributing anything to his salvation, with or without "grace". You are either declared righteous on the basis of Christ's substitutionary work (atonement) and thus inherit eternal life at the moment you believe, or you reject His work and add to it. It is grace that saves at the moment that faith reaches out to Christ.<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Pilgrim, it appears that you too have not followed the point I raised with Paul_S. I realize you've been taught that Catholics practice a works/salvation system - and I realize it's difficult to admit that all those who preach that nonsense are wrong - but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. I clearly laid out and echoed what the context of: "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees . . ." was, and that was that St. Paul was preaching against [color:red]works of the law</font color=red>. That, in fact, is the focal point of nearly all of St. Paul's references to "works," but especially this one. Catholicism is not about "works of the law" but, "works done in the state of grace." It goes without saying that grace preceeds such works. What is faith without works? Can such a faith save you? Please, answer me that.<br> <br>Try as hard as you want to apply "works of the law" to "works done in the state of grace" but you're just trying to put square pegs in round holes.</font color=purple><br> <br>Pilgrim continues: We, the sons of God and of the Reformation rejoice in our Saviour, Who has procured ALL that is necessary for our redemption. There is NOTHING we need do but rest in Him and His sufficient atonement.<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: The "sons of the Reformation" are nothing but protestors against Christ's Church that He founded and existed some 1500 years prior to the revolt. That same Church exists today, and will until Christ returns in glory, just as He promised ith would.</font color=purple><br> <br>
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Fri Jul 26, 2002 1:37 AM

In reply to:

Scott replies: Pilgrim, it appears that you too have not followed the point I raised with Paul_S. I realize you've been taught that Catholics practice a works/salvation system - and I realize it's difficult to admit that all those who preach that nonsense are wrong - but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. I clearly laid out and echoed what the context of: "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees . . ." was, and that was that St. Paul was preaching against works of the law. That, in fact, is the focal point of nearly all of St. Paul's references to "works," but especially this one. Catholicism is not about "works of the law" but, "works done in the state of grace." It goes without saying that grace preceeds such works. What is faith without works? Can such a faith save you? Please, answer me that.


The fact is that I did follow the point which Paul_S made and your response to it. The fact is that you are either incapable of comprehending it and/or you are ensnared by your own obstinance against the truth of it. As I wrote before, and it shall be my refrain forever more, the Roman Catholic church speaks of "grace" but in fact it is works+grace=salvation that it teaches. And for your information and for the record, the fact is that no one taught me to believe that the RCC teaches synergism. It is fact that it is taught throughout its OFFICIAL documentation and was made most clear at the Council of Trent although it has been iterated profusely and in myriad ways before and since that document was written. In fact, you have spent some time trying to defend this fact even here over the past few weeks. grin

The fact is that Rome has consistently denied that faith alone, apart from works of ANY KIND, although truth faith is evidenced in "good works", contributes anything to justification. Remember the phrase:

simul iustus et peccator
It is Christ's "work" that is IMPUTED to the sinner; not the sinner's alleged "good works" that are appended to faith. Nor, is Christ's "work" infused into a sinner which is then co-mingled with faith unto justification. Your sophistry in trying to distinguish between "works of the law" and "works done in the state of grace" can never be defended from Scripture as has been shown by countless men over the centuries.
In reply to:

The "sons of the Reformation" are nothing but protestors against Christ's Church that He founded and existed some 1500 years prior to the revolt. That same Church exists today, and will continue until Christ returns in glory, just as He promised it would.


That the RCC is the Church that Christ founded is not fact but presumption on your part. For, Christ never founded His church on a teaching of a synergistic salvation, but upon Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. The fact is that the Reformers never protested against the CHURCH, but against the horrid corruption which Rome had introduced into the CHURCH. And let's get the facts straight, shall we? There were many who lived long before Luther who held to the doctrines of GRACE. Rome tried desperately to annihilate all vestiges of those who held to the truth of the Gospel. But as Christ promised, "I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So, my friend, we who hold tenaciously to the hem of Christ's garment in faith alone are still here. And we shall oppose Rome and her abominable doctrines of works salvation until Christ returns to gather His elect from the four corners of the globe. We shall then co-judge with Him and see Rome and all those she has deceived cast into the Lake of Fire to the glory of God. That is a fact!! joy



In His Grace,
Posted By: Paul_S

An additional set of questions for Scott - Fri Jul 26, 2002 3:29 AM

Scott,

In spite of your refusal to answer my earlier questions, claiming a misapplication of the Scripture to which they referred (in which you are dangerously mistaken), I am submitting an additional set of questions--[color:blue]implying no acquiescence on the earlier set--using terms to which I cannot conceive you objecting, the terms being your very own, as you stated: [color:red]Catholicism is not about "works of the law" but, "works done in the state of grace."

Please answer the following questions:

1) At this moment, are you [color:red]doing works in the state of grace?

2) What assures you of the truth of your answer to #1?

3) Will you continue [color:red]doing works in the state of grace until the consummation of all things?

4) What assures you of the truth of your answer to #3?

5) What comfort, if any, does your reason for your responses to these questions give you?

Posted By: Paul_S

A lesson in deduction - Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:28 AM

Scott,
In reply to:

I realize you've been taught that Catholics practice a works/salvation system - and I realize it's difficult to admit that all those who preach that nonsense are wrong - but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong


I, like Pilgrim, was also never explicitly taught "that Catholics ...", but it has been impressed upon me with every contact with Roman Catholic materials and "teachers of the Law".

Let the reader deduce the place of works in salvation from this [color:purple]official example, culled from the Baltimore Catechism, noting both what is AND IS NOT being said:

LESSON TENTH: On the Effects of the Redemption

Q. 452. What did Adam give away by his sin, and what did Our Lord buy back for him and us?
A. By his sin Adam gave away all right to God's promised gifts of grace in this world and of glory in the next, and Our Lord bought back the right that Adam threw away.

Q. 453. Which are the chief effects of the Redemption?
A. The chief effects of the Redemption are two: The satisfaction of God's justice by Christ's sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.

:

Q. 456. What do you mean by grace?
A. By grace I mean a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation.

:

Q. 458. What do you mean by "merit"?
A. Merit means the quality of deserving well or ill for our actions. In the question above it means a right to reward for good deeds done.

:

Q. 461. What is sanctifying grace?
A. Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God.

:

Q. 465. What is Faith?
A. Faith is a Divine virtue by which we firmly believe the truths which God has revealed.

Q. 466. What is Hope?
A. Hope is a Divine virtue by which we firmly trust that God will give us eternal life and the means to obtain it.

:

Q. 468. Why are Faith, Hope and Charity called virtues?
A. Faith, Hope and Charity are called virtues because they are not mere acts, but habits by which we [color:red]always and in all things believe God, hope in Him, and love Him.

:

Q. 475. What is actual grace?
A. Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good.

Q. 476. Is grace necessary to salvation?
A. Grace is necessary to salvation, because without grace we can [color:purple]do nothing to [color:red]merit heaven.

:

Q. 479. Does God give His grace to every one?
A. God gives to everyone He creates sufficient grace to save his soul; and if persons do not save their souls, it is [color:red]because they have not [color:purple]used the grace given.

:

Q. 482. Can a person merit any supernatural reward for good deeds performed while he is in mortal sin?
A. A person cannot merit any supernatural reward for good deeds performed while he is in mortal sin; nevertheless, God rewards such good deeds by giving the grace of repentance; and, therefore, all persons, even those in mortal sin, should ever strive to do good.

Q. 483. Does God reward anything but our good works?
A. God rewards our good intention and desire to serve Him, [color:red]even when our works are not successful. We should make this good intention often during the day, and [color:green]especially in the morning[Linked Image].

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A lesson in deduction - Fri Jul 26, 2002 2:22 PM

Paul,<br><br>Your whole post was informative and especially the last answer: "...even when our works are not successful." Successful? Hmm. Was the "...especially in the morning" part a joke? I thought it was funny anyway.<br><br>RefBap
Posted By: Paul_S

Re: A lesson in deduction - Fri Jul 26, 2002 2:29 PM

Dear RefBap,<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Was the "...especially in the morning" part a joke? I thought it was funny anyway.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Depends what you mean by a joke. Not of my own making. The text is a verbatim quote[Linked Image] from the Approved Baltimore Catechism used to instruct millions of United States Roman Catholics in the teaching of the church for over one hundred years. <br>
Posted By: Paul_S

Baltimore Oh!'s - Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:08 PM

Dear RefBap,<br><br>If you liked the "especially in the morning" twist, I think you will appreciate the following pair of Questions. I excised them from the former post as not directly pertinent, but they are worth reading to see the dismal effects of synergistic soteriology:<br><br>[color:purple]<br>Q. 463. What do you mean by virtue and vice? <br>A. Virtue is the habit of doing good, and vice is the habit of doing evil. An act, good or bad, does not form a habit; and hence, a virtue or a vice is the result of repeated acts of the same kind.<br><br>Q. 464. Does habit excuse us from the sins committed through it? <br>A. Habit does not excuse us from the sins committed through it, but rather makes us more guilty by showing how often we must have committed the sin to acquire the habit. If, however, we are seriously trying to overcome a bad habit, and through [color:green]forgetfulness</font color=green> yield to it, the habit may sometimes [color:red]excuse us from the sin</font color=red>.<br></font color=purple><br><br>Look at how good and evil are seen purely in terms of behavior and performance, never a matter of the heart. How does that compare with both "All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'" and "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they worship me in vain; their teachings are only rules taught by men."<br><br>So the thief on the cross may not have had the virtue of Faith, since he apparently didn't make a habit of asking?<br><br>Or if I have merely murdered my father, but not my mother, I am not in the grip of a Vice, since I haven't made it a habit yet?<br><br>I wish I had time to comment more on these, but they say plenty for those with ears to hear.<br><br>(If Pilgrim is reading this, take note: you may be able to cash in on your [color:green] "senior moments"</font color=green> one of these days! If you live long enough to forget everything, all those nasty vices may be overlooked!)
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Baltimore Oh!'s - Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:25 PM

In reply to:

(If Pilgrim is reading this, take note: you may be able to cash in on your "senior moments" one of these days! If you live long enough to forget everything, all those nasty vices may be overlooked!)


It would therefore seem that the best course of action would be that we all prayed that God would afflict us with Alzheimer’s Disease or Amnesia, that way escaping from being cooked.



In His Grace,
Posted By: Wes

My Habits vs My Intentions - Fri Jul 26, 2002 6:19 PM

Paul S,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Habit does not excuse us from the sins committed through it, but rather makes us more guilty by showing how often we must have committed the sin to acquire the habit. If, however, we are seriously trying to overcome a bad habit, and through forgetfulness yield to it, the habit may sometimes excuse us from the sin.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>What are your intentions here? [Linked Image] If habitually doing something makes you more guilty then you are guilty of making sense. Because you keep on making sense Paul. Is that what you are intenting to do? [Linked Image]<br><br>However the Baltimore Catechism seems to provide a nice loop hole in theology here. If you forget and just out of habit keep on beating your wife you might be excused on the basis that you did it without intending to. Surely that's forgiveable! That may be one of the reasons why Roman Catholicism is so popular. It certainly provides a lot of loop holes and entitlements for the follower of Rome.<br><br>Wes <br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Baltimore Oh!'s - Fri Jul 26, 2002 6:28 PM

Paul,<br><br>Thanks for posting those. It's really not my intention here to make fun of anyone or their beliefs. God knows that I have been guilty of believing some of the most inaccurate and dishonoring and downright ridiculous things about Him and the way He works. <br><br>I just must be missing something because I fail to see what doing good deeds "especially in the morning" has to do with anything. Am I to assume that doing good deeds in the morning is more virtuous than doing them in the afternoon or evening? Who came up with this? I suppose I'm focusing on a minor matter anyway, but that still strikes me as being funny. <br><br>May the Lord guide us all out of our misconceptions,<br>RefBap
Posted By: Ehud

Re: Baltimore Oh!'s - Fri Jul 26, 2002 8:51 PM

I just have to say that the microwave is one of the coolest *.gifs that I have ever seen[Linked Image]<br><br>Ehud
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A lesson in deduction - Sat Jul 27, 2002 1:12 AM

Just a side note here. My youngest daughter, a tender hearted girl who takes after her mother, recently asked me the difference between what we hold as truth and what Roman Catholics hold as truth. I printed out that webpage Pilgrim has been so kind to put up for us. After she read it she looked at me with tears in her eyes and asked me how could someone want to believe such things. That it was so much better knowing that Christ has done it all for our salvation.
Posted By: Anonymous

Great Lessons from the Baltimore Catechism! - Sat Jul 27, 2002 1:59 AM

Thanks for sharing Paul! Where was this alleged "works/salvation" you said you were going to show us in all that? I saw that GRACE must PRECEED any WORKS - which is something I have been saying all along. If you think works are unnecessary, you're not reading the whole Bible my friend. Please, for all the readers - tell us what kind of "faith" it is that has no works.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A lesson in deduction - Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:11 AM

RefBap wrote: <br>Paul,<br><br>Your whole post was informative and especially the last answer: "...even when our works are not successful." Successful? Hmm. Was the "...especially in the morning" part a joke? I thought it was funny anyway.<br><br>RefBap <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: RefBap, please reread those questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism. Those "works" mentioned as "not successful" were not successful in gaining any merit. It was not about salvation - those who are not saved cannot attain any merit to begin with; those who are saved can gain and/or lose "rewards" or "merits" in heaven. Where are you storing your treasure, on earth or in heaven? <br><blockquote>Luk 18:22 Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee. Sell all whatever thou hast and give to the poor: and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me.</blockquote><br>What's this?! DOING something to have treasure in heaven?! <br> <br>Those with an open mind can surely see the consistency between Scripture and what Paul_S quoted from the Baltimore Catechism! (Thanks again Paul!) [Linked Image]<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Especially In The Morning - Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:37 AM

RefBap wrote: It's really not my intention here to make fun of anyone or their beliefs. <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott responds: Thanks RefBap - I appreciate your lack of sarcasm. I am not even going to bother responding further to some of Paul's diatribes[Linked Image] - such is not worth the time or effort. I will continue with those who remain sincere, and will with Paul too, if he changes his tune a bit.</font color=purple><br><br>RefBap continues: I just must be missing something because I fail to see what doing good deeds "especially in the morning" has to do with anything. Am I to assume that doing good deeds in the morning is more virtuous than doing them in the afternoon or evening? Who came up with this? I suppose I'm focusing on a minor matter anyway, but that still strikes me as being funny. <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Well, if it was said the way you took it, I would think it funny too. The point of "especially in the morning" was regarding the making of "good intentions." (So it appears you were "missing something" - see quote below from Paul's original posting). If you start your day with good intentions, you're more likely to follow-through with them. If you don't even think about good intentions till later in the day, or even till night - you may have wasted a whole day away. So, regarding meditating on good intentions - it is especially a good thing to do in the morning - for it "sets the day."<br> <br>Is that a bit more clear, and perhaps less "funny?"<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br> <br>Quote from Paul's original on this subject, with the emphasis changed a bit:<br><blockquote>Q. 483. Does God reward anything but our good works?<br>A. God rewards our good intention and desire to serve Him, even when our works are not successful. We should make this <font class="big">good intention</font> often during the day, and <font class="big">especially in the morning</font>.</blockquote><br>[color:purple]Noting, the Catechism in this particular Q/A is talking about "anything <font class="big">BUT</font> works." I hope that helps clarify, with the emphasis put in different places.</font color=purple><br> <br> <br>
Posted By: Paul_S

Re: Great Lessons from the Baltimore Catechism! - Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:58 AM

Scott,
In reply to:

Where was this alleged "works/salvation" you said you were going to show us in all that?



Throughout. Any of the redeemed can see it.

In reply to:

I saw that GRACE must PRECEED (sic) any WORKS


Really? How about: A. 842 Good works done in mortal sin profit us [color:red]by obtaining for us the grace to repent and sometimes temporal blessings

In reply to:

If you think works are unnecessary, you're not reading the whole Bible my friend. Please, for all the readers - tell us what kind of "faith" it is that has no works.


If you can tell me where I made either of these statements, I will be happy to respond to your request.

P.S. I just noticed your self-restriction on further contact with me, stated in your reply to RefBap, which all hinges on my sincerity. Would it matter if I mentioned that I am so habitually insincere that I actually forget that I am doing it? But I am sincerely trying very hard to never be insincere again!

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: An additional set of questions for Scott - Sat Jul 27, 2002 4:56 AM

Paul asked:<br> <br>Please answer the following questions:<br><br>1) At this moment, are you [color:red]doing works in the state of grace?</font color=red><br><br>2) What assures you of the truth of your answer to #1?<br><br>3) Will you continue [color:red]doing works in the state of grace</font color=red> until the consummation of all things?<br><br>4) What assures you of the truth of your answer to #3?<br><br>5) What comfort, if any, does your reason for your responses to these questions give you?<br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies:<br> <br>1) That's a rather personal question. Whether or not I am in need of confession is not really any of your business. For the sake of argument, let's just say that I am in the state of grace. . . at this very moment, I am sharing the Truth with you - so I guess you could say I am participating in a good work, at this very moment.[Linked Image]<br> <br>2) I am doing what 1 Peter 3:15 commands, sharing the joy that is in my heart. The Bible assures me.[Linked Image]<br> <br>3) Probably not, but thankfully Jesus provided me with the means of reconcilliation when I stumble. Even though I am not worthy of His grace, He has freely given it to me and loves me even in my failings.[Linked Image]<br> <br>4) What assures me that I will fall again at some point in the future? Well, that's a rather subjective question. I am relatively sure that I will, at some point in time, fall again. Strange that you'd ask me that.[Linked Image]<br> <br>5) I am comforted to know that even when I fall, He is there to help me back up. I hope I don't fall, but I am a sinner - and likely will fall again and again.[Linked Image] Thankfully, His grace is neverending.[Linked Image]<br> <br>In JMJ,<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple><br> <br> <br>
Posted By: Paul_S

Disconnect - Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:41 AM

Scott,

Do you see the disconnect between your previous Catholicism is not about "works of the law" but, "works done in the state of grace." and your (rather touchy!) reply to my question concerning [color:purple]your "works done in the state of grace": [color:red]That's a rather personal question. Whether or not I am in need of confession is not really any of your business
You have portrayed yourself as a Roman Catholic, but now are either unwilling or unable to state that the "essence of Catholicism" is true about you, other than in a hypothetical sense?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A few short questions for Scott - Sat Jul 27, 2002 6:13 AM

Pilgrim writes: The fact is that I did follow the point which Paul_S made and your response to it. The fact is that you are either incapable of comprehending it and/or you are ensnared by your own obstinance against the truth of it. <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: I do not question whether or not you read the exchange between myself and Paul_S, but you haven't admitted the [color:red]fact</font color=red> that the context of that passage from Scripture is talking about rejecting works of the law. You can try to change the subject all you want, but you can't change the Scriptures. The [color:red]truth</font color=red> of what I was saying was the [color:red]fact</font color=red> that the passage in question was about [color:red]works of the law</font color=red>. Why do you refuse to admit that? Are you afraid to admit I am right about that?</font color=purple> <br> <br>Pilgrim continues: As I wrote before, and it shall be my refrain forever more, the Roman Catholic church speaks of "grace" but in fact it is works+grace=salvation that it teaches. <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott responds: If you wish to continue professing a lie. . . Pilgrim, the Church does not teach "works+grace=salvation," sorry, you're just dead wrong on that one. Salvation is purely by the grace of Jesus Christ. Now, He gives to us the gift of Faith - but if we do nothing with that gift, then such a faith is a "dead faith" and such a faith cannot save you. Grace preceeds, then comes the gift of Faith, then there is a matter of what we do with that Faith. Do we "practice" it, or do we merely pay it lip-service on Sunday? <br><br>"Faith Alone" is also a lie and an invention of the protestors of the 16th century. "Faith Alone" is not scriptural, and in [color:red]fact</font color=red> the <font class="big">only</font> place we find the words "faith" and "alone" together in Scripture is in <font class="big">negation</font> of this concept. <br> <br>These [color:red]facts</font color=red> are indisputable.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br>Scott<<<<br> <br><br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Disconnect - Sat Jul 27, 2002 6:25 AM

Paul writes: Do you see the disconnect between your previous Catholicism is not about "works of the law" but, "works done in the state of grace." and your (rather touchy!) reply to my question concerning your "works done in the state of grace": [color:purple]That's a rather personal question. Whether or not I am in need of confession is not really any of your business.</font color=purple><br>You have portrayed yourself as a Roman Catholic, but now are either unwilling or unable to state that the "essence of Catholicism" is true about you, other than in a hypothetical sense? <br> <br>[color:purple]Scott replies: Paul, I am unwilling to discuss in public whether or not I am in mortal sin "at this moment." Surely you can understand that. Whether or not I am in need of confession or not "at this moment" is irrelevant to our discussions. What if I am in mortal sin and in need of confession? In the scope of our discussions - so what? I still have the means of reconcilliation provided me. Will I remain in such a state? No, I would seek reconcilliation as soon as possible, I would hope you would too.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple>
Posted By: Paul_S

Re: Disconnect - Sat Jul 27, 2002 6:49 AM

Scott,<br><br>Since you do seem to be saying that:<br><br>A) Catholicism is about "works done in the state of grace"<br><br>and<br><br>B) It is no one else's business, not a matter of public discussion, whether you are "in the state of grace", since by your own admission, you might not be,<br><br>and<br><br>C) The Catechism clearly teaches that if you are NOT in the SOG, being in mortal sin, a <font class="big">work, apart from grace, obtains grace for you to re-enter the SOG</font> --- <br><br>1) [color:red]How can you continue to call yourself Catholic, while being unwilling or unable to state that you qualify according to your own terms,</font color=red> and<br><br>2) [color:red]How can you continue to state that in your system, grace always precedes works, when your own Catechism clearly denies that, in the case of mortal sin, which is clearly the type you most need to worry about</font color=red>, and<br><br>3) [color:red]You have acknowledged yourself a sinner. How do you know, as you so confidently state, on what or whom is your assurance based, that if in mortal sin, you [color:purple]would seek reconciliation as soon as possible</font color=purple>?</font color=red> <br>
Posted By: Paul_S

The Bottom Line - Sat Jul 27, 2002 1:34 PM

Scott,

You keep trying to convince people that your Roman Catholic system of salvation is not "based on works" by reiterating that the works "precede from grace". But you betray your true intent whenever you make statements like:
[color:purple]
Jesus provided me with the means of
reconciliation when I stumble.

Even though I am not worthy of His grace, He has freely given it to me

even when I fall, He is there to help me back up
because throughout this thread you have also insisted that the [color:blue]efficacy of the gift or help is conditional upon your response to it!

The self-righteousness of your synergistic devaluation of the eternally efficacious grace of God lies in your implication that "based on works" means simply "begins with a human act of my own", which you cleverly refute by having God make an initial offer of a powerless grace. But the salvation of the biblical, God-decreed, eternal, powerfully efficacious Gospel of Jesus Christ, [color:red]which alone saves sinners from the just wrath of God:
[color:blue]

Begins in the love and decree and wisdom and power of God alone, for every one of the elect

Is unfailingly, efficaciously administered by God alone, to every one of the elect

Is not contingent upon, either aided or thwarted, the action, will, heart, motive, intention, disposition, habit, virtue or vice, obedience or sin--that is, [color:black]WORKS
--of any created being, including each of the elect, but is unfailingly, efficaciously contingent upon the pleasure of God alone

Is unfailingly, efficaciously completed by God alone in the life of every one of the elect

Continues through eternity to the praise of God alone, from every one of the elect


This is what the Scripture means when it says:
[color:blue]Not by works, so that no one can boast.

But since by your own repeated testimony, [color:purple]your salvation is efficaciously contingent on your own cooperation with (so-called) grace, you simply cannot make the claims above, and so your system is truly seen to be
[color:red]BASED ON WORKS,
and is therefore [color:blue]really no gospel at all.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Bottom Line - Sat Jul 27, 2002 3:50 PM

Thanks Paul for the excellent discussion and evidence of the heresy of catholicism. It certainly proves the truth of Gal 1:6-9 (as if it needed proof):<br><br>6 ¶ I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,<br>7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.<br>8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.<br>9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.<br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Bottom Line - Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:53 PM

ReformedSBC said: Thanks Paul for the excellent discussion and evidence of the heresy of catholicism. It certainly proves the truth of Gal 1:6-9 (as if it needed proof):<br><br>6 ¶ I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,<br>7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.<br>8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.<br>9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.<br> <br>[color:purple]Scott responds: Interesting. Let's look at this chronologically. Prior to the 16th century, there was no such thing as "Protestantism." Catholicism clearly existed long before Protestantism. We agree that the Gospel preached in Protestantism is different than that taught in the Catholic Church. So WHO is preaching this "different gospel" that Galations is talking about?<br> <br>Excellent point ReformedSBC, excellent.<br> <br>Scott<<<<br></font color=purple> <br>
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Especially In The Morning - Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:58 PM

Scott, I suppose that's a LITTLE better;)<br><br>RefBap
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:09 PM

Please understand, <br>the work of man never saves. Jesus saves. The Catholic Church believes the same. Don't say that Catholics would believe that the work of man saves. Only the grace of God saves. Do not misinterpret. <br><br>In Christ,<br>Hannah
Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Nov 07, 2003 6:22 PM

HWMinngrl<br><br>If after reading this thread you haven't understood why I said that, I am afraid I can't convinced you otherwise.<br>Have a look down the thread at Prestor John's post, I think the link he showed his daughter, shows this as well as any of the other posts.<br><br>Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sat Nov 08, 2003 1:06 AM

Hannah,<br><br>Do you believe that the RCC teaches in her official doctrine that man's good works are meritorious before God with respect to salvation? In other words, does man's good works contribute to the merit they need to stand before God and be saved? Or, is the merit of Christ alone imputed to us by grace through faith sufficient to save us?<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron
Posted By: Henry

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:10 AM

You gotta just hate those guys who jump in on a discussion afer 8 pages, but hopefully I have a few things to add that haven't been said before.<br><br>For clarity's sake, I think it would do all of us, especially our Catholic friends, to read this: http://www.the-highway.com/catholic4_Armstrong.html. This is a page right on this website. This page is part of a broader work, whose table of contents can be found at http://www.the-highway.com/catholic-toc_Armstrong.html.<br><br>Read down to the quotes from the council of Trent. For example, <br><br>"Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone. . . , meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."<br><br>"Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy. . . . which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."<br><br>Compare this with Galatians 3:2-3:<br><br>"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law or by BELIEVING what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain you goal by human effort?"<br><br>Or vs. 6:<br><br>"Consider Abraham: 'He BELIEVED God, and it was credited to him as righeousness.'"<br><br>Or what about the well-known Eph. 2:8:<br><br>"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- AND THIS NOT FROM YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD-" etc.<br><br>What is the "this" in "this not from yourselves"? Simple exegesis, or at least basic grammar, shows that this is plainly the aforementioned faith.<br><br>I could go on and on, citing different passages here and there, but be assured, Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity are two very different things. Arguing over side issues like "we were here first" or whatever is useless. A careful, unbiased look at Roman Catholic doctrine will reveal that it is very different from the doctine taught in Scriptures. Period. There's no way around it. <br><br>This isn't a "Catholic interpretation vs. Reformed interpretation" issue. This is erroneous teaching standing in complete opposition to plain and simple Scripture. One is stretching the very essence of credulity to assert anything past this.<br><br>Edit: made the url's clickable
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:52 PM

Catholics do not believe that human effort saves us. Only grace. In fact, the Catholic position can be summed up like this: "Nothing, whether faith or works, apart from the grace of God, can save us. We are saved by grace through faith which works by love." Besides, the scripture does not only offer verses regarding salvation (or justification) in the past tense , but many that speak of salvation as a present and future event. <br>Consider, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18) or "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 10:22). The Bible also speaks of justification in the past, present, and future tenses, implying that it is an ongoing process of sanctification in the life of a believer. "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). [we are] "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ" (Rom 3:24). "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Of course not!" (Gal 2:17).<br><br>In Christ, Hannah
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Hannah,<br><br>Do you believe that the RCC teaches in her official doctrine that man's good works are meritorious before God with respect to salvation? In other words, does man's good works contribute to the merit they need to stand before God and be saved? Or, is the merit of Christ alone imputed to us by grace through faith sufficient to save us?<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Catholics do not believe that human effort saves us. Only grace.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>"If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified…let him be anathema.” Canon and Decrees of the Council of Trent: On Justification, Canon XXXII<br><br>Hannah, <br><br>"Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." Romans 4:4-5 <br><br>The Roman Catholic Church will say with you: "Nothing, whether faith or works, apart from the grace of God, can save us. We are saved by grace through faith which works by love." <br><br>No one from a Reformed perspective would argue that we are not saved by grace through faith, but we would add the word alone. We believe that we are saved by grace alone, through faith in alone, in Christ alone -- apart from works of merit. Roman Catholicism on the other hand teaches that man needs intrinsic merit to stand before God. This merit is not only intrinsic, it is something that is obtained by co-operating with grace. The merit, in other words, is not a result of pure operative grace or unconditionally bestowed by God. Accordingly, even the said merit is not received by grace alone since Roman Catholic theology teaches that each man actually causes himself to differ from another. However, the word of God rejects such a notion with statements such as: "For who makes you to differ from another... now if you did receive it, why do you glory, as if you had not received it?" 1 Corinthians 4:7<br><br>The simple truth is, the official teaching of Roman Catholicism on this matter is that man's good works are meritorious before God. Moreover, man must cause himself to differ from another. Therefore, in the final analyses, the devout Roman Catholic will not agree with the conclusion of the apostles and all the saints, which is: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 4:28 Added to this, "...and whom he justified, them he also glorified" Romans 8:30c. All this is to say, God causes one sinner to differ from another. God justifies sinners apart from their works. And finally, God will keep all of his in his grace; which is to say God grants his people everlasting life.<br><br>In Mercy and Grace,<br><br>Ron<br><br>
Posted By: Henry

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:34 AM

Forgive me if I sound antagonistic, because I really am enjoying this discussion, but you're skirting the issue. These verses would be neat to discuss, but first I'd be curious what your response is to my previous post.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:41 AM

I fail to understand how you can assert that the RCC does not teach a faith-works view of the gospel. You are simply in error. Now I do believe that it is possible that you are minsinformed about your own Church's official position. However, it is the official position of the RCC that both faith and works is required for justification. This is most clearly taught in the official documents of the RCC and can be found plainly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Posted By: Dvan34

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:10 AM

As a former Catholic, there are many problems inherent in Roman Catholic doctrine, and worship which must be considered. Much more important than just that “salvation is works”. The Roman system is based upon the Mass, ritualism, and sacramentalism. There are no sacraments, as such delineated in the Bible. There are two Ordinances which were instituted by Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Communion if you like.

Communion in the Roman Church is known as the Holy Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches that the priest has the power to change the bread and the wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ each time he presides at the Mass. This is known as Transubstantiation. That the priest actually calls down Jesus Christ and re-sacrifices Him on the altar. I am not going to be quoting the scriptures here, but we know that Jesus 'died once and for all'. If we don't know that it is useless to go through all of that.

The Catholic Church claims to have the power through their sacrament of penance to forgive sins by auricular confession. But Scripture tells us that only God has the power to forgive sins. It also claims that baptism is necessary to forgive Original Sin. The Catholic Church offers prayer through intermediaries, the Saints, particularly the Virgin Mary, through her many alleged apparitions. They have also elevated her status to almost that of God the Father, while Jesus appears in a nearly submissive role to that of His 'mother'. Nowhere in Scripture will you find any basis for this. The Church claims that Mary was 'assumed' body and soul into heaven, without undergoing natural death and that she is the Queen of Heaven. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that Mary was accorded any special status other than that as the mother of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church calls her the Mother of God! It is interesting to me that if Mary had been 'assumed' quite possibly John, who cared for her, or some other apostle or biblical writer would have attested to this. John certainly would have been around long after this had occurred. It would have been an event that would have rivaled even the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. It certainly would have been worth recording in Scripture.
These are traditions (of men) that have been added through the years. They should have no standing at all.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is the One True Church, founded by Christ upon Peter. History tells us that it is not such. The 'Roman' Catholic originated some time after the Emperor Constantine made Christianity a state religion in Rome in 317 A.D. It certainly was not around in Acts, during Pentecost, all those were Jews.

There are many other doctrines other than these which are contrary to the Holy Bible.:



The Cult of Mary:
I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Isaiah 42:8


Salvation is only through the Lord. The Roman Church considers Mary to be a co-redemptorist with Jesus Christ.

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

It is also important to have a 'personal relationship with 'Jesus Christ' rather than through rituals, and sacraments.
Posted By: Dvan34

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:21 AM

“What does SAVED mean? Saved from what.”
Can you imagine my shock? After more than 12 years of frequent meetings and discussions with this former Catholic seminarian, who had studied for the priesthood.


In our previous meeting of an hour and half he had indicated a problem with God and punishment. He seemed hung up on a God that is “all love- all forgiving- all accepting”. A problem with God's Sovereignty.


After I got over my initial shock I answered him in these 6 words. “Saved from the Wrath of God'. Saved from Eternal Separation from God, and Eternal Death. Saved from what we were rightfully condemned after the disobedience and offense of our representative 'first parents' and the FALL of mankind into SIN. Saved from Eternal punishment in Eternal hell!


Nicodemas, was a pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin and a teacher of the Jewish religion. A very learned man who came to Jesus in humility and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could do the miraculous signs that you do unless God were with him.”


Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:1- 21)

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”



Nicodemus apparently did not struggle with the concept of being saved. The Jewish religion and the concept of sin and atonement was strong and clear. He had no problem accepting the concept of Eternal Death and hell. The pharisees were very familiar with the concept of Sin and a Wrathful God.


Surprisingly, Catholic doctrine concerning Sin is very certain and clear. However, the Catholic Church's doctrines on Salvation are very complex and dependent upon works, The Mass, the sacraments, ritualism and man-made doctrines. For someone who had studied for the priesthood this should have been obvious. Let's face it! If we were not promised and assured of Eternal Life by Jesus Christ how many of us would be following Him right now? What possible reasons can you give ?


The concept of a Wrathful God may be a terrifying concept but it is all too true. But it is also true that a loving God, from the beginning, planned a Way for us to escape His Wrath. His Way is in no way too complex for the most simple-minded of us. We must believe in Jesus Christ, that He is God, that He died to restore us from Eternal separation (SIN) from God, that He arose again from the dead and ascended into heaven where He acts as our sole mediator , advocate and Savior, interceding for us before God the Father.
Posted By: Cranmer

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:29 PM

First of all, I would agree that salvation is three fold: 1) We are saved. There is an initial decision to follow Christ and a beginning point where we become disciples of Christ and students of the whole counsel of God in all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. 2) We are being saved. That is, salvation is also a growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Sanctification is always imperfect, however. (2 Peter 3:18; Philippians 3:9-11; John 17:17). 3) We shall be saved. No one knows absolutely that they are "elect". That is, we believe we are saved and our assurance partly comes from good works. But we will not be ultimately and finally saved until we are glorified at the hour of our death. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

All that being said, the problem with Rome is that Rome confuses justification with sanctification. I take it that reason you are also confused here is that the preaching you are sitting under has not made this clear. There are many false prophets out there who preach the same doctrines as Rome.

The bottom line is this: If justification is not by means of faith alone then you are correct. Justification would be by faith plus works. But if that is so no one could ever have any assurance of salvation whatsoever. Why not? Because God's moral law requires absolutely sinless obedience. No one except Christ could possibly meet that standard. (Matthew 5:17-20, 48).

Although good works do contribute something to our assurance the ultimate assurance comes from the fact that the ground of our justification is NOT in US. It is the CROSS! It is an objective and finished work of Christ who lived a sinless life for us and paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. This is called the active and passive obedience of Christ. When He died He said, "It is finished!". The finished work of Christ is absolutely necessary for any assurance of salvation. (John 19:30).

God does not grade on a curve. If you are going to heaven based on works, you FAIL. That is why Roman Catholics are not saved. It's also why ALL those who teach salvation by works are lost:

Quote:
"Not everyone who says to Me,`Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me in that day,`Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them,`I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matthew 7:21-23 NKJ)


Furthermore, all of our righteousnesses are like filthy menstrual rags in the sight of God (Isaiah 64:6). Unless we are justified by faith our works are worthless and cannot please God whatsoever. Saying that works are necessary for our justification before God is to confuse sanctification with justification. Justification is objective and the ground or basis for our justification is outside of us on the cross. Faith is not the ground of our justification. It is the means or instrument by which justification is applied to our minds/hearts. Justification is perfect. It is imputed to us on the legal and forensic basis of Christ's sacrifice for His elect on the cross.

Sanctification, otoh, is always imperfect. We grow in sanctification but never arrive. (Philippians 2:12; 3:12-14). Sanctification is infused in the heart. It is subjective and relative. This is why Rome gets it wrong. Rome confuses the cross with the imperfection of our progress in sanctification of the heart/mind.

Although it is true that some evidence of a true profession of faith is necessary for membership in the visible church, it is not true that sanctification adds ANYTHING to our justification whatsoever. Salvation is founded on justification, NOT sanctification. Sanctification is the logical result of our justification and in that sense is part of our being saved. BUT if you're trusting in good works to JUSTIFY you now OR in the judgment then I would say you can have NO assurance of salvation whatsoever. Good works are a "sign" of a true profession of faith. They can add to our assurance because we obey the moral law as part of our duty under the 3rd use of the law. But the ultimate assurance, as Martin Luther taught, is from the justification which is by means of faith alone. (Romans 4:1-8; Galatians 2:16-20). We all fall short of the mark (Romans 3:23).

The false teachers love to confuse justification with sanctification and focus on ambiguity rather than logical clarity from God's propositional truths in Scripture.

The reason the thief on the cross was saved was faith, not works. The same is true of every true believer here on earth.

Quote:
XII. Of Good Works.
ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. Article XII


Justification is by faith and faith alone:

Quote:
XI. Of the Justification of Man.
WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. Article XI


The pertinent Articles in the 39 Articles of Religion that deal with salvation, justification, sanctification, etc. are Articles 9-18.

God's peace be with you,

Charlie

Romans 5:1-2
Posted By: Dvan34

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu May 23, 2013 9:05 PM


Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’
May. 23, 2013 11:33am Billy Hallowell

[NOTE: This has links to articles. I deleted the links but kept the blue color.]

[NOTE: Look at the following quote. It looks as if the pope is saying that atheists have been redeemed with the Blood of Jesus Christ, and that atheists are children of God. If so, then he is a promoting a one-world religion, and he he taking Catholics far away from true Christianity and far from traditional Catholic teaching.]

QUOTE: The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/...lood-of-christ/

Atheist activists have long touted the notion that one doesn’t have to be religious to be considered a “good” person. On Wednesday, non-believers’ claims were given some credence when Pope Francis endorsed this view during Mass. Regardless of theological perspective, the pontiff said that “doing good” is a universal value that unites all of humanity. He also said that “even the atheists” have been redeemed “with the blood of Christ.”

Following the Vatican Radio report recapping Francis’ words, numerous media outlets highlighted the contents of his sermon. As a result, speculation and conversation will likely mount regarding what, exactly, it all meant.

Was he saying that non-believers, too, will inherit salvation? Or was he speaking more generally to the fact that all of humanity was saved by Jesus Christ’s actions on the cross? And then there’s the main question he attempted to answer: Are atheists really capable of being “good”?

As for this latter query, Francis made it clear that, in his view, it is possible for non-Catholics — and even those with no faith at all — to do good. Using the Bible (Gospel of Mark), Francis noted that even Jesus’ disciples assumed that only they could act in accordance with God’s will, because they possessed the truth.

But Jesus corrected them and told them to allow a man outside of their group be free to act in a positive fashion.Vatican Radio explains:

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”

Everyone, in Francis’ view, is a part of the human experience and has an inherent potential for goodness.

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us,” Pope Francis said, going on to provide examples. “‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him.”

By closing others out, Francis warned that believers do harm and cause unnecessary division and war. The push to do good, he claims, is in every individual’s heart and has been ingrained in mankind by the Almighty. As for redemption, the pope went on to make it clear that everyone — even atheists — has been considered and redeemed by the Lord. Here’s what he said:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.“

Here, Francis made a plethora of important statements. To begin, he claims that, regardless of whether they accept the notion, atheists, too, have been redeemed by Christ. The very definition of redemption is, “to buy or pay off; clear by payment,” thus it appears he is speaking here about sin and goodness — issues pertaining to Christ’s crucifixion.

It does not appear as though Francis is speaking about the afterlife or salvation. Instead, he is highlighting the fact that Christ, from a theological perspective, died for all of mankind.

Beyond that, Francis calls everyone, regardless of religious views, to do good and to find common ground. Rather than railing against one another, the Catholic leader wants to see people from all perspectives come together to work for humanity.

Rather than cutting non-believers out of the mix, it appears he’s taking extra steps to make them feel welcome — a noticeable departure from other past leaders.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu May 23, 2013 9:24 PM

1. Just another attempt of the Roman State Church to make catholicism, "amiable" with the the end goal of increasing its dwindling numbers.

2. The pope's remark, "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ..." if taken generally, even theologically, is no different than the doctrine of the vast majority of 'evanjellycals' and other so-called Christian denominations and religions. Most hold to universal atonement and believe that Christ's death paid the penalty for EVERYONE'S sins.

3. I agree that the RCC is becoming more and more "mushy". evilgrin
Posted By: Dvan34

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu May 23, 2013 11:09 PM

I even begin to wonder if the pope understands what 'redemption' means. IMHO redemption means that Christ paid the penalty for the redeemed, that they have been saved and set aside for Him until the time He does redeem at the time of their death or at the Rapture. It is possible that some of the atheists are 'elected' by God and predestined and awaiting God's efficacious call. But I fail to see that redemption' is in effect until after they have received Him by faith.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri May 24, 2013 3:20 AM

So much for the last Pope saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church.

Tom
Posted By: Dvan34

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri May 24, 2013 4:17 AM

the Pope's statement implies "Universalism". Or if everyone is NOT saved, "Redeemed" and reject HIM, Christ died invain? That does not fly with Reformed Theology.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Fri May 24, 2013 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Dvan34
the Pope's statement implies "Universalism". Or if everyone is NOT saved, "Redeemed" and reject HIM, Christ died invain? That does not fly with Reformed Theology.

And once again, let's be consistent with criticism, rightly justified to be sure, because it applies equally so in regard to the vast majority of denominations, churches and professing Christians who hold to the doctrine of universal atonement in any of its various forms.

Of course, John Owen expressed it best HERE.
Posted By: Milan

Re: Roman Catholicism and salvation - Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:34 PM

Here is link for excellent but long video about teaching of RC and Reformed review. You can find there nearly all RC teaching examined in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bVEXZ38Vs8&t=162s
© 2017 The Highway