Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
I cannot comment on the judgement of God regarding your eternal destination without committed the same sin of presumption that others do. Regarding salvation by faith alone, it needs to be said that the only time you see the words "faith alone" in Scripture is when James says a man is saved by works and NOT faith alone. I don't say this to downplay the significance of saving faith, but rather to demonstrate that faith is only the first step. Since the early Church, baptism has been the way through which sinners entered into God's holy Church, a sure indicator that this is what Christ taught
Quote
Acts 2
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”
41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
Again we see this with the Philipian jailer and his family (were there a few infants? there certainly wasn't an age of accountability) and again with the Ethiopian eunuch who was taught by Philip. The fact that Christ, as firstborn among many brethren, was himself baptized ought to seal the argument for good.
I see you don’t want to judge, but surely when you read such words as “anathema,” this means, “cursed” and therefore “damned.” The serious problem I have with this is that it is a pronouncement of man. A few more observations:

1) Did you read my interpretation of Matt 25? I believe James uses the word justify in that sense, not in the sense Paul uses it. As Luther said, “We are saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone.” See below.
2) You emphasise baptised “for the forgiveness of sins.” Now what do you make of this passage: “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.” (Acts 8:13) A few moments later, Peter says, “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23) He was still unregenerate (in bonds!) and unforgiven, even after his baptism.
3) Baptise in Acts always follows salvation. From Acts 2, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.” The jailer and Eunuch were already regenerated/born again/saved/ forgiven/justified before their baptism … read the passage in context.
4) Baptism in the NT does not always refer to water. E.g. Jesus, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” and Peter, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In fact, this type saving baptism is spiritual, and is with the Holy Spirit and fire, not water.
5) Christ was baptised for a totally different purpose. It was to “fulfil all righteousness” on our behalf.

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
With all due respect to this forum and its platform, the disagreement I have with Calvinism is that it precludes the participation and free will of man at every step as if the free will of man necessarily trespasses upon the sovereignty of God, his glory, and the perfect work on the cross by which we have been vouchsafed eternal life. Scripture warns us repeatedly of enduring to the end: "Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown" (Rev 3:11). And again we are told to be faithful until death in order to receive the crown of life (Rev 2:11) Far from man's freewill being excluded at every step, I see Scripture as painting it necessary at every step.
Do you refer to Hypercalvinism? True Calvinism in no way precludes the responsibility of man, but vehemently promotes it. Yet, let me add that an unconverted person is dead (Eph 2). A dead man has no free will.

I must confess I am still confused. This links to what you also said above. What do you mean by “saving faith,” when you believe salvation is a process? If a man believes in Christ unto eternal life, then he is SAVED … finished. “…whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (Jn 5:24) There is a definite transition. Now, yes, he must persevere, he must work, he evidence that he is saved. But his work does not in slightest contribute to his salvation. But unless it is God who is faithful, who will “keep you unto the end,” we would certainly fall away.
Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
But when James says that "faith without works is dead," (James 2:17) he is speaking of works of a completely different nature.
And therefore a totally different kind of justification…

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
James, having been taught by the Savior himself, was referring to the riches we are to store up in heaven by our works. While it cannot be said that works earn salvation, it must be said that salvation is not merited by anyone bereft of works, a sure lesson to be gleaned from the parable I quoted in Matthew 25. This isn't a devout observation of the law works, but rather works of charity and the spreading of the everlasting gospel which springs from saving faith. The lesson in Jesus cursing the fig tree that bore no figs, or the parable of the tree that bore no fruit, ought to drive this point home. As James says, a man is justified by works (keeping in mind the kind of works he's referring to) and not faith alone.

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
It's apart from the grace of God that our works are meaningless.
Quote
Lk 17
7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’?
8 But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’?
9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”
The fact that we are "unprofitable servants" ought to be of the greatest comfort to us for it alludes to the grace by which we're saved. We work because we do "what is our duty to do". It is the obligation that we owe after such a perfect work has been done for us. Should the person who does good works in hope of salvation be afraid? No. Rather it is the person who receives such a wonderful gift and does nothing with it (think of the parable of the talents) that ought to fear for the perdition of their soul.
AMEN to this! But (forgive me if I misinterpret you) why then must we do this and that, before God will give us grace? Let me use a specific example. A man is dying on his sick bed, unconscious. The priest hastily sprinkles him with water, and through this work, supposedly communicates grace to him. Yet the man need not even have FAITH! He need not REPENT! This is surely no manifestation of fruit, but “devout observation of the law works”, and totally contradicts a host of Scriptures. “Repent and believe in the gospel”. Thus my question as to what you believe saving faith is??

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
Here again is the mistake of pitting one article of salvation against another. One problem with evangelicals is that they like nice, tidy formulas based on just one thing Scripture has to say on the topic of salvation and hinge it all on that passage. Scripture has much to say on the topic of salvation and being born again is just one. Scripture also speaks of baptism, faithful endurance, works (bearing fruit), confession, the indwelling of the Spirit (parable of the foolish virgins) and vigilance.....tying each of these irrevokably to one's eternal fate.
The paradigm shift I experienced in becoming Catholic is one from the either/or of Protestantism to the both/and of Catholicism. This is a core shift that changes the dynamic of many topics we disagree on. For instance, the manner in which Mary is honored does not intrude upon the glory of God any more than the king honoring Mordecai, Esther's uncle, in any way subtracted from the king's glory and dominion. Once this shift occurred for me, it was simply a matter of training my mind to no longer think of the wares of salvation or the economy of heaven as a zero sum game.

Now this is not true. Which evangelicals are you referring to? I believe it is surest way to fall into error by using only one passage. The only reason you have probably found this, is that on forums it is too difficult and long-winded to give many passages. I for one, believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, and the absolute responsibility of man. Some things have no compatibility though. E.g., either Christ is mediator OR Mary is Mediator. There can only be one (1 Tim 2:5).

Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
Actually God promised precisely this: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." (Jn 16:13) Jesus also breathed on the apostles saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" which was consumated on the day of Pentacost when the Spirit descended upon them in the form of flames. It's actually far more difficult to demonstrate that Jesus intended the Church to be governed by a book since Scripture seems to indicate strongly that it is the Holy Spirit that would lead the church. The Apostles consulted no scripture when they eliminated circumcision or changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Even the Bible itself which would come about in the 4th century was a product of the authority of the Church. It's not that Scripture stands (or does not stand) on equal ground with tradition, it's that the Scripture is part of the entire revelation of God through the holy Church. Paul makes reference to this in calling the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15). It was by this authority, passed directly from Christ to the apostles, that the canon was made official. It's truly a queer notion that Luther came up with that makes a master out of the servant and servant out of the master.

Oh sorry! I made a serious typo here. I meant to say, God never promised the subsequent infallible transmission of TRADITION through the centuies. But yes, the Word is timelessly infallible. I don't believe 1 Tim 3:15 refers to tradition within the church. Notice the words, the “pillar” and “foundation” of the truth, not the truth itself, notr the transmitter of truth. It supports the truth by upholding the Word.


Last edited by Peytonator; Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:49 PM.