Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

PDN

OK. A number of posters are becoming frustrated at how multiple threads are being dragged into squabbles about whether Catholicism or Protestantism is right or wrong. Some of the sectarianism on display has, in my own opinion, been an awful advert for Christianity.

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to rile up Catholics or Protestants in other threads will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

So how does this work? It will still be in order, if a poster asks a question, to say, "This is my belief as a Catholic/Methodist/Anglican etc.". It is OK to ask posters to clarify their beliefs, so as to avoid misunderstanding. The mods will be the judge of whether that crosses the line into a squabble.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

According to the Gospels, it seems as if something is expected

Expected indeed. The question though, is whether the work produces salvation or whether the salvation produces work.

Afterall..

1 Thessalonians 1:3 wrote:

We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord ...

antiskeptic

Antiskpetic, you should read this so as to gain a better understanding of the Catholic teaching. In most cases, there is a great misunderstanding about what each believes, particularly from Protestants about the Catholic position.

I've scanned your link but prefer to discuss with you than with links - otherwise we could simply trade links all day.

There isn't anything here that counters the claim that Roman Catholicism teaches work required for (retaining) salvation. The CATHOLIC simply gives his interpretation of the bible that allows him to conclude so.

And he gets into a bit of a muddle here - which you could perhaps clarify for me?

CATHOLIC: I might agree if that’s all there was to it. But Paul speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14). He then explains that we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.

Our works don't justify us. Yet works are a part of our justification. But if that part is missing, presumably we won't be justified. Which means our works do contribute (if only in part) to our justification. I'd note too that Paul doesn't make any mention of justification or works relating to retaining or gaining salvation in the Phillipians passage - so I'm not sure what the relevance is to that topic here

Which is salvation by works (whatever else might also be involved).


What have I misunderstood?

georgieporgy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Expected indeed. The question though, is whether the work produces salvation or whether the salvation produces work.

Afterall..

this topic of whether or not Christians are expected to do good "works" is probably a good area to kick off the great debate! If we can all avoid getting offended by each other's differing points of view, maybe ,at the very least, we will come out of it with a better understanding of such opinions.

Donatello

I'm interested here in this idea that salvation cannot be lost. We can look at works afterwards.

Antiskptic earlier was asked about his/her dying right in the moment of committing adultery (or it might have been fornication, it matters not which). He/she said that he/she would go straight to heaven, without any repentance or anything like that being necessary since all the sins were laid on Christ.

This is not correct, since unrepentant sin cannot be forgiven. Nothing impure shall enter heaven - there can be few things more impure than a person right in the middle of committing adultery. How on earth could such a person expect to enter heaven? If this or any other sin is not repented and forgiven, there will be no forgiveness. Simple as that.

"Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you remain in the Son and in the Father" (1 John 2:24)

-- So we must remain in Him.

See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity towards those who fell - but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in His kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off. - Rm, 11:22

-- SO we can be cut off even after we've been grafted in.

The un-Biblical notion that salvation cannot be lost is not to be found in Scripture nor in the writings of the Church Fathers, nor any other Christian writer until Calvin.

For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire. - 2. Peter 2.

So those who have been born again can return to his life of sin and thus be lost.

The Bible warns Christians that they can fall from grace (Gal. 5:1-5), they can be be cut off from salvation (Rom. 11:18-22), they can have their names removed from the Lamb's book of life (Rev. 22:19-19), by committing certain sins and not repenting of those sins (cf. Eph. 5:3-5; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; Rev. 21:6-8). In a very chilling reminder of the possibility of losing salvation by separating ourselves from Christ, St. Paul says, "I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) - sew its seams even Paul was aware that he too could lose his salvation.

This is a doctrine of demons - a very, very dangerous doctrine indeed. I think we needn't look too far to see such doctrine in action - amongst the countless Catholics who, for example, co-habit, or those who commit adultery, and all kinds of sins (Our Lady of Fatima said most souls go to hell because of sins of impurity) To illustrate how ridiculous such a notion is, that one can be up to his ucksters in the most depraved sin, and expect that should he die in that state, then all with be well since his sins have been 'laid on Christ'.

Take a look at this anecdote:

Something I came across on the Internet demonstrates the obvious importance of works. Below is a (albeit rather smart-alecky) joke letter to a pastor who preaches "faith alone":

I am a former Catholic who was recently saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ. All my life I knew I was a homosexual. The Catholic Church told me that I had to refrain from what I was in order to be saved! I never knew that my good works meant nothing! To think, I would have spent my entire life struggling not to engage in homosexual activity, just to wind up in Hell! I now realize that Salvation is through the finished work of Christ ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!

The pastor, almost completely misunderstanding Catholicism but who has an entire ministry devoted to "saving Catholics", responded in part by saying:

It is true that a person is not saved by his works and that salvation is completely of grace. However that does not mean that works have nothing to do with salvation.

Well, "pastor," that's what Catholics have been saying all along!

Make no mistake: GOD is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due season we shall reap our harvest if we do not give up.
-- Gal 6:7-9

keano_afc

I believe that once saved is always saved. I have always held the belief that Christ would not have talked about salvation being ETERNAL if we could then lose it. Nothing thats eternal can be lost.

It also throws up interesting questions. How many sins are needed to lose one's salvation? How do you know its lost? How is it then got back? We are sinning all the time. Does this mean that evertime we sin we lose our salvation?

Donatello used fornication as a sin. But Jesus never classified sin. What if a Christian were to look at a neighbours car, really really want it and drop dead at that moment. Since he is guilty of the sin of coveting, would he be turned away from heaven as a result?

I find that notion hard to believe.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

(Our Lady of Fatima said most souls go to hell because of sins of impurity)

Do you understand why non-Catholics will find this less than convincing?

philologos

keano_afc wrote: »

I believe that once saved is always saved. I have always held the belief that Christ would not have talked about salvation being ETERNAL if we could then lose it. Nothing thats eternal can be lost.

Not a Roman Catholic, but I would have to ask you what do you make of Hebrews 5-6.

Hebrews 6:5-6 wrote:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened who have tasted the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace.

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

this topic of whether or not Christians are expected to do good "works" is probably a good area to kick off the great debate! If we can all avoid getting offended by each other's differing points of view, maybe ,at the very least, we will come out of it with a better understanding of such opinions.

I think both sides are agreed that a Christian is expected to do good work. The difference lies in what that work is supposed to result in. RC says it results in (retaining) salvation. Protestants say it's nothing to do with getting / retaining salvation.

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand why non-Catholics will find this less than convincing?

Yeah but, in this thread we are entertaining catholic views as well as non rc views. It is easy to get the facts on what happened at Fatima. Plenty of evidence is readily available . Many non catholics who have done the research have ended up catholic.

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand why non-Catholics will find this less than convincing?

It's a footnote. It might be better to look at the content of the post rather that picking up on a footnote.

keano_afc wrote: »

I believe that once saved is always saved. I have always held the belief that Christ would not have talked about salvation being ETERNAL if we could then lose it. Nothing thats eternal can be lost.

It also throws up interesting questions. How many sins are needed to lose one's salvation? How do you know its lost? How is it then got back? We are sinning all the time. Does this mean that evertime we sin we lose our salvation?

Donatello used fornication as a sin. But Jesus never classified sin. What if a Christian were to look at a neighbours car, really really want it and drop dead at that moment. Since he is guilty of the sin of coveting, would he be turned away from heaven as a result?

I find that notion hard to believe.

St. John in his Gospel makes a distinction between mortal and venial sins - check out 1 John 5:16-17. He explains 'all wrongdoing is sin', but that some types of sin are 'mortal' sins (Greek = unto death), while there are other sins that are 'venial' (Greek = not unto death). One who is born of God does not commit mortal sins. If he does, he is 'cut off' from the body, as St. Paul tells us in Romans 11:22-24:

For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either. See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated one, how much more will they who belong to it by nature be grafted back into their own olive tree.

and Galatians 5:4:

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
-- Heb 10:26-27

St. Peter also speaks of this in 2 Peter 2:20-22 (which I posted about previously). Christ provided the ordinary sacramental means by which a person who commits a grave sin and subsequently repents may be restored to fellowship with God and the Church (see John 20:21-23). The Sacrament of Penance is the ordinary means for the forgiveness of mortal sins committed after Baptism.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think both sides are agreed that a Christian is expected to do good work. The difference lies in what that work is supposed to result in. RC says it results in (retaining) salvation. Protestants say it's nothing to do with getting / retaining salvation.

Hi Antiskeptic,

'RC says it results in (retaining) salvation'

Just to make it clear, that is really really not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

They may teach that one can 'lose' their salvation, and fall from Grace by rejecting God - which is entirely different and entirely imo true.

If a person never had grace through faith in Christ in the first place than no amount of being lovely is 'enough' only grace justifies, but faith without works is dead. ( or not real faith at all..)

A quote from the council of Trent:

None of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Basically, only through the grace of Christ are we capable of being saved / justified - it's not on our own 'merit' at all. That is entirely due to the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

What the Catholic church teaches is that any 'secondary rewards' as promised in the bible in Romans 2:6 -- 11, we may receive are for acting under the impetus of that grace....

So perhaps some allow themselves to act 'more' under the impetus of God's grace than others, or at various times - although some may 'have' faith they don't actively take part as much as they could to fulfill God's plan and 'act' under that grace they have received through Christ, they sideline it, have faith but it never manifests itself in this life and truely fulfills God's will...

I remember chatting with you before and you mentioned a difference in the 'level' one reaches when they are finally judged? I presume that is how much they fully chose to co-operate with God's will once they have found faith, true faith in Christ from your perspective?

Hope that clarifies and helps.

Donatello

This is really simplistic, but it helps illustrate the difference between the Catholic religion and many, if not the vast majority of, variants of Protestantism.

Catholicism teaches us that Christ gives us the gift of salvation by granting us membership of His Church, His body, which comes about, ordinarily, through the Sacrament of Baptism. Think of a man with a little lamp. Christ lights the little lamp. The man must nurture the little flame in the lamp with good works, by avoiding sin and doing what he can to cooperate with God's grace which will keep the flame burning. Mortal sin puts out the little flame and the man is no longer in the state of grace. He is spiritually dead and if he dies in such a sorry state, he will go to hell.. If the man repents sincerely before death (meaning perfect contrition, which does not grow on trees, it being a special grace), then he can be restored by God to the state of grace. Ordinarily, a man is restored to the state of grace through the Sacrament of Penance - Confession. However, if this is not possible, then a perfect act of contrition will suffice, and he can get to confession asap, and only after that may he receive Holy Communion.

Adam and Eve had their perfect state and they lost it; so too, we must be careful that we do not fall ourselves, just as St. Paul warned.

"I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified"
(1 Cor. 9:27)

The OSAS position essentially teaches that no matter what the man does, he cannot lose his salvation. Rather than the little flame concept, it's more like a contractual arrangement. Neither the man nor God can revoke the contract. So they say. Catholics believe otherwise - we know that mortal sin does indeed kill the life of grace in the soul.

These differences are so major that I have often mused that Catholicism and Protestantism are, in many ways, separate religions, such are the profound differences in many vital areas. Sure, we share a common Trinitarian baptism into the body of Christ, the one Church of Jesus Christ, but after that, the differences are quite enormous, in proportion to how far from any last vestiges of Apostolic Tradition you stray from. This has a profound effect on one's chances of being definitively saved.

>> The first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn’t subscribe to the theory. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

In the first century, the Didache, commonly known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, said
"Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time" (Didache 16 [A.D. 70]).

[...]

Such consistent testimony could be given from the dawn of Christianity until today, and no suggestion of "once saved, always saved" can be found on the lips of any Christian before Calvin. <<<

More here.

Quo Vadis

Have I got this right ?

Some Protestants believe they are truly saved and going to heaven and it matters not how they sin.

They are still going to heaven no matter what because Christ already died for their sins.

The truly saved won't sin anyway, but if they so happen to sin they haved proved they are not really saved, and just have to declare they are saved again, (this time for real), to be truly saved ?

mathepac

PDN wrote: »

... Some of the sectarianism on display has, in my own opinion, been an awful advert for Christianity...

I respectfully beg to differ. As the posters seem to be at polar opposites mainly about New Testament teachings / writings and interpretations relevant to Paul, the debate has little if any relevance to Christianity of any make, shape or form, IMHO. This is a discussion amongst Paulines about Paulinism.

Fanny Cradock

mathepac wrote: »

I respectfully beg to differ.

Objection noted.

PDN

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Have I got this right ?

Some Protestants believe they are truly saved and going to heaven and it matters not how they sin.

They are still going to heaven no matter what because Christ already died for their sins.

The truly saved won't sin anyway, but if they so happen to sin they haved proved they are not really saved, and just have to declare they are saved again, (this time for real), to be truly saved ?

No, I don't think you have got it right.

First off, most non-Catholics don't hold to the concept of once-saved-always-saved (OSAS). For example, Methodists and most Pentecostals believe that continued obedient faith in Christ is necessary to salvation.

Secondly, what you are describing is a parody of what OSAS people believe. It is similar to the kind of understanding of RC belief and practice that people would have if their only source of information was Ian Paisley.

Most OSAS people believe that the evidence of their salvation will be righteousness. If they continue to sin just as they did before then that would demonstrate that they aren't saved.

I've often heard this parody of OSAS as if it means people can just keep on sinning as much as they like with impunity. I've never actually meet anyone who believed that - although there probably are one or two individuals somewhere who are deranged enough to believe that. Just as there really are a few Roman Catholics whose ignorance is such that they worship Mary as God. But, in either case, they are hardly representative of the larger body.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Antiskeptic,

Hi L

'RC says it results in (retaining) salvation'

Just to make it clear, that is really really not the teaching of the Catholic Church. They may teach that one can 'lose' their salvation, and fall from Grace by rejecting God - which is entirely different and entirely imo true.

I'm afraid it's not entirely different at all - in deed, it is precisely the same thing.

If failure to perform in a particular way means you lose your salvation then your salvation is performance dependent. You can call the 'failure to perform' a 'rejection of God' but that's merely shifting words around.

If avoiding certain behaviors / carrying out certain behaviours influences whether you are to be saved finally or not affects your salvation then you've a works salvation.

If a person never had grace through faith in Christ in the first place than no amount of being lovely is 'enough' only grace justifies, but faith without works is dead. ( or not real faith at all..)

A quote from the council of Trent:

None of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Basically, only through the grace of Christ are we capable of being saved / justified - it's not on our own 'merit' at all. That is entirely due to the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.

There is no difference between a salvation you work to get (not the Roman Catholic position) and a salvation you are given but can lose through a failure to perform (the Roman Catholic position).

That the salvation you can loose is first given to you by grace is only half the story. The other have, retention of salvation, isn't by grace alone. So, the totality of salvation is X percentage grace and Y percentage works.

Making it a works salvation.

What the Catholic church teaches is that any 'secondary rewards' as promised in the bible in Romans 2:6 -- 11, we may receive are for acting under the impetus of that grace....

So perhaps some allow themselves to act 'more' under the impetus of God's grace than others, or at various times - although some may 'have' faith they don't actively take part as much as they could to fulfill God's plan and 'act' under that grace they have received through Christ, they sideline it, have faith but it never manifests itself in this life and truely fulfills God's will...

I'm only considering performance as it relates to a loss of salvation.

I remember chatting with you before and you mentioned a difference in the 'level' one reaches when they are finally judged? I presume that is how much they fully chose to co-operate with God's will once they have found faith, true faith in Christ from your perspective?

I do suspect that is the way it is. That greater and lesser in the kingdom of God is 'performance' related in the way you describe - via a rowing in, a harmonising with the way God wants us to act.

But that's a completely different matter to how your entrance to heaven is achieved. You can't, afterall, be greater or lesser in the kingdom of God without being there in the first place.

Hope that clarifies and helps.

Alas, not really. You've not said anything that allows me to conclude other than Roman Catholic salvation performance related.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

I'm interested here in this idea that salvation cannot be lost. We can look at works afterwards.

Rather than just drop the issue, could you respond to the fact that the CatholicAnswers link doesn't permit us to conclude other than Roman Catholicism teaching a works salvation. That it fudges badly on that very point is testimony of an attempt to dodge the question.



_______________

Antiskptic earlier was asked about his/her dying right in the moment of committing adultery (or it might have been fornication, it matters not which). He/she said that he/she would go straight to heaven, without any repentance or anything like that being necessary since all the sins were laid on Christ.

This is not correct, since unrepentant sin cannot be forgiven. Nothing impure shall enter heaven - there can be few things more impure than a person right in the middle of committing adultery. How on earth could such a person expect to enter heaven? If this or any other sin is not repented and forgiven, there will be no forgiveness. Simple as that.

Earlier the subject of forgiveness arose and I suggested that the concept of forgiveness (like the concept of jealousy) has a number of sides to it. In the verse you pointed to, the father would not forgive us in the case of our not doing the 'work' of forgiving others. You assumed that the forgiveness in question referred to the legal forgiveness of debt, enabled through Christ, which sees us declared righteous in the fathers sight. I pointed out the existance of other facets of forgiveness, for example, forgiveness also having to do with intimacy of relationship or a reinstatement for former trusted position. I asked how you knew legal forgiveness was the forgiveness in question here.


You didn't respond. So perhaps you'll do so now in this identical case.



I'd add that I don't share your view that unrepented (in the sense of formally asking forgiveness for it) sin isn't forgiven in the legal/salvation sense. Although agreeing that nothing impure shall enter heaven, I don't see that purity as resulting from my having (technically) confessed my sin. Otherwise I'd be in the same position as the Roman Catholic who is best off getting run down by a bus straight after confession (assuming he doesn't sin on the way out of the church)

Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you remain in the Son and in the Father" (1 John 2:24)


-- So we must remain in Him.

Whatever 'remaining in him' means. I don't see the point in expounding your view on one concept by baldly introducing another.

See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity towards those who fell - but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in His kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off. - Rm, 11:22

Tip-toeing through the bible verses..

The context of chapter 11 (and 10) is God's dealing with the nation Israel. They were chosen by him not only to represent him to the world but to be the nation through whom a Saviour would be delivered into the world. He talks of their cutting out in national terms - which is indicative of their being cut off as God's earthly representitives.

Which is the case you would agree: it is the Christian church that represents God to the world, not the nation Israel.

And so, the warnings hasn't to do with salvation but with God-representation. We can see examples of this in Revelation where God talks of spitting certain churches (not individuals) out of his mouth

-- SO we can be cut off even after we've been grafted in.

So not ... from this particular verse.

The un-Biblical notion that salvation cannot be lost is not to be found in Scripture nor in the writings of the Church Fathers, nor any other Christian writer until Calvin.

Scripture is our common ground and I remain to be convinced that scripture teaches the born again can be lost. What the early church and church fathers thought (or are thought to have thought) isn't an overriding concern of mine.

For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.[/I] - 2. Peter 2.

So those who have been born again can return to his life of sin and thus be lost.

Could you point to what it is in that passage (or chapter - on false teachers) that let's you suppose that the people who are being talked of were ever born again?

The Bible warns Christians that they can fall from grace (Gal. 5:1-5),

As above, you're supporting one position introducing other concepts which themselves need supporting. For example: could you show fall from grace = loss of salvation?

they can be be cut off from salvation (Rom. 11:18-22),

See above

they can have their names removed from the Lamb's book of life (Rev. 22:19-19),

You've enough problems supporting the idea of a loss of salvation from plainer-English passage. Could we leave out the complexities of a highly figurative book?

by committing certain sins and not repenting of those sins (cf. Eph. 5:3-5;

There is no talk of repentance in that passage.

If we were to take that passage on it's own we could indeed conclude as you do. WHich is why it's a good idea not to take passages of scripture on their own.

My own view here rests on the congruency case that Paul has made regarding misusing our freedom in Christ (Romans 6). We, children of God, aren't to live as the lost live for the reasons he has given (which haven't to do with loss of salvation). We will be faced with temptation through life so it is good to hold up in front in those times what God thinks of such things. They are the very things which result in the lost being condemned > God hates such things > why would you, a child of God do what God hates?

1 Cor. 6:9;

Ditto the above.

Gal. 5:19;

Again he contrasts. The lost lives according to the flesh but we according to the Spirit. We cannot live according to the flesh because we "have crucified the flesh with it's passions and desires".

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

That doesn't mean Christians don't sin. But it is not what we live by. It is not our guiding principle.

Rev. 21:6-8).

As above

In a very chilling reminder of the possibility of losing salvation by separating ourselves from Christ, St. Paul says, "I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) - sew its seams even Paul was aware that he too could lose his salvation.

The prize Paul speaks of is a crown. In order to make your case you would need to demonstrate that a crown refers to salvation. My hazy recollection is that crowns have to do with heavenly rewards for the saints (obtained through our obedience). They aren't in themselves the way to salvation.


Hopefully some principles have become clearer:

- isolated verses/passages don't stand up to scrutiny. There are other ways to read each and it is best to read in the light of other passages.

- it is not warranted to read your doctrine into the passage. You've don't this innumerable times here, reading repentance and salvation into passages were there is no mention of such things.

- every word counts. Pauls describing the lost as living according to the flesh vs. and our living according to the Spirit gives the overarching live-motivation. That the actions of the found are occasionally the same as the acts of the lost doesn't mean our destiny becomes theirs.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

This is really simplistic, but it helps illustrate the difference between the Catholic religion and many, if not the vast majority of, variants of Protestantism.

As if illustration were required

Catholicism teaches us that Christ gives us the gift of salvation by granting us membership of His Church, His body, which comes about, ordinarily, through the Sacrament of Baptism.

Whereas John tells us in conclusion (at 1 John 5):


13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life".



If eternal life is given (tentitively and subject to later performance per RC) at baptism then it strikes me as unusual that John doesn't make any mention of baptism in all the things he says up to chapter 5. Things he says are written to let a person know they have eternal life.

Why would that be?

Does that not strike you as an oxymoron: having eternal life taken away?

just as St. Paul warned.

As mentioned earlier, I'm looking forward to seeing how you establish crown = salvation..

The OSAS position essentially teaches that no matter what the man does, he cannot lose his salvation. Rather than the little flame concept, it's more like a contractual arrangement. Neither the man nor God can revoke the contract.

The word commonly used is convenant. New Convenant.

These differences are so major that I have often mused that Catholicism and Protestantism are, in many ways, separate religions, such are the profound differences in many vital areas. Sure, we share a common Trinitarian baptism into the body of Christ, the one Church of Jesus Christ, but after that, the differences are quite enormous.

I agree wholeheartedly

georgieporgy

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly

Ah! now we're getting somewhere

philologos

For those people arguing for the OSAS position what do you make of this post.

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

For those people ...

I better get out from under this bushel I guess :rolleyes:

arguing for the OSAS position what do you make of this post.

I make three things from it.

1) It is undoubtably difficult

2) It is undoubtably ambiguous

3) It is (with respect) but a verse. Whereas I would expect the scripture to make a well-supported and multi-layered case for such an vital doctrine. As well supported and layered a case as is made for so many other central doctrines


I'm not settled on what Hebrews 6 does mean. But would look to Matthew 7 for a little light.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

These were never known by Christ. Were never Christians. Yet their list of apparently Christian credentials matches those in Hebrews 6.

philologos

antiskeptic: I think there is basis even in the Gospels for believing that people can fall away. Jesus Himself even describes this in Mark chapter 4 (Parable of the sower). Of course this becomes more and more complex when we consider Romans chapter 8 or Matthew chapter 7 as you've cited. It is also possible that Mark chapter 4 is talking about people who claim to be Christians but never were. There are a lot of parameters and one could make a case from either side in Scripture methinks. I think our will does play a role in our coming to faith, but I can't be sure.

This is very clearly a secondary issue and as such it needs a great deal of humility in probing into, as do all enquiries into Scripture.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

antiskeptic: I think there is basis even in the Gospels for believing that people can fall away. Jesus Himself even describes this in Mark chapter 4 (Parable of the sower). Of course this becomes more and more complex when we consider Romans chapter 8 or Matthew chapter 7 as you've cited. It is also possible that Mark chapter 4 is talking about people who claim to be Christians but never were. There are a lot of parameters and one could make a case from either side in Scripture methinks. I think our will does play a role in our coming to faith, but I can't be sure.

This is very clearly a secondary issue and as such it needs a great deal of humility in probing into, as do all enquiries into Scripture.

Even some Protestants have issues with this OSAS doctrine:

What the Christian Church historically believed about the security of the believer is not the ultimate test for determining our stance on this issue today, but the lack of historical precedent should serve as a warning. Before John Calvin, the teaching of unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the universal church through the centuries.

It has no precedent. I'm interested in the fact that nobody before Calvin peddled this doctrine.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#tradition-II

The Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit deserts the temple because of our mortal sin, and we die in that state, then we cannot be saved. We must repent, and we must receive the forgiveness of God. The sacrament of penance is the ordinary means by which the soul is restored to God's grace.

"Thou art made partaker of the Holy Vine. Well then, if thou abide in the Vine, thou growest as a fruitful branch; but if thou abide not, thou wilt be consumed by the fire. Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, I:4 (A.D. 350).

"It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children--whom He has regenerated in Christ--to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also." Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 18 (A.D. 427).

"And they who mourn their transgressions certainly cast forth by confession the wickedness with which they have been evilly satiated, and which oppressed the inmost parts of their soul; and yet, in recurring to it after confession, they take it in again. But the sow, by wallowing in the mire when washed, is made more filthy. And one who mourns past transgressions, yet forsakes them not, subjects himself to the penalty of more grievous sin, since he both despises the very pardon which he might have won by his weeping, and as it were rolls himself in miry water; because in withholding purity of life from his weeping he makes even his very tears filthy before the eyes of God." Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Pastoral Rule, 30 (A.D. 591).

> Rejecting Tradition

During the Protestant Reformation, beginning with Martin Luther himself, various traditions (in the simple sense) of the Church were not only criticized but, in revising those disputed traditions, an entirely new tradition (in the broad sense) was created. Thus, in rejecting the traditions of the Catholic Church, the Protestants created an entirely new doctrine. Even though they continued to call themselves Christians, they formulated ideas and practices that completely missed the point about true Christianity.

Sadly, many persons today who call themselves Christian blatantly reject Catholic Tradition as well, saying that many things central to the Faith are no longer relevant to today’s enlightened and “liberated” world.

These persons may believe that they are merely tinkering with unwanted “traditions,” but they are in danger of rejecting fundamental Christian doctrine itself. Still, I know that arguing with anyone about any of this won’t get us anywhere. So let’s try something different. Let’s look at some issues from the perspective of common sense. >>> <

Read the full piece here.

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

antiskeptic: I think there is basis even in the Gospels for believing that people can fall away.

There's a basis in the gospels for believing John the Baptist was "the Elijah who is to come" - and so a case for believing in reincarnation.

Jesus Himself even describes this in Mark chapter 4 (Parable of the sower). Of course this becomes more and more complex when we consider Romans chapter 8 or Matthew chapter 7 as you've cited. It is also possible that Mark chapter 4 is talking about people who claim to be Christians but never were. There are a lot of parameters and one could make a case from either side in Scripture methinks.

Which way around do you find it working for you? Take for example your notion for the basis for salvation.

Would you first read the opening verses of the Beatitudes then figure out for yourself that the "the poor in spirit" and "those who mourn" are those who have been laid low by their captivity to sin, are those who mourn over their sinful condition saying "oh wretched man that I am." ?

Or would it be those Paulian doctrines that sheds light on Jesus' from-spiritual-concentrate words?

I find the latter and it appears to me that the overwhelming technical case lies in the direction of salvation a one-way event.

I think our will does play a role in our coming to faith, but I can't be sure.

I think so to. But not in our remaining saved.

This is very clearly a secondary issue and as such it needs a great deal of humility in probing into, as do all enquiries into Scripture.

Question for you. If you did feel retaining our salvation was performance dependent, what would be the essential difference between that salvation and the salvation posited by our Catholic friends. Their not supposing mere following of rules and regs - they couch the work-done as keeping in step with the grace given them by God.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Let’s look at some issues from the perspective of common sense

I don't see any common sense here, I just see someone saying that it is best to follow the tradition of the Catholic church because if it's true, the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

I mean, any old loony can conjure up a similar argument. Or haven't you heard of the IPU?



[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]

Well, consider, then, what you have to gain by rejecting the Tradition of the Catholic Church. You would gain personal convenience and pleasure, perhaps, but nothing more.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]And what do you have to lose by accepting the Tradition of the Catholic Church—that is, if it really doesn’t matter? In restraining your desires, you would lose only personal convenience and pleasure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Hmm . . . so far, it seems more-or-less trivial, right?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]So now consider what you have to gain by accepting the Tradition of the Catholic Church—that is, if the Tradition of the Catholic Church really does matter: you would gain everlasting life.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]And what do you have to lose by rejecting the Tradition of the Catholic Church—that is, if it really does matter? You would be thrown out of the wedding banquet and into the darkness because you refused to put on the wedding garments provided for you. You would, therefore, lose everlasting life.

[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]
[/FONT]

philologos

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question for you. If you did feel retaining our salvation was performance dependent, what would be the essential difference between that salvation and the salvation posited by our Catholic friends. Their not supposing mere following of rules and regs - they couch the work-done as keeping in step with the grace given them by God.

I think it is more that we have to ask ourselves that when difficulties arise are we going to sell our faith down the swally, or are we going to hold fast to our faith in God. There have been a number of decisions in my life that have required to me to make this decision. Temptation can lead us away from faithfulness in God. I don't believe it is work to keep being a Christian, I do think that there are things that can challenge us along the way.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or would it be those Paulian doctrines that sheds light on Jesus' from-spiritual-concentrate words?

Could you explain what you mean with that phrase?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I find the latter and it appears to me that the overwhelming technical case lies in the direction of salvation a one-way event.

The reality is that salvation can be lost.

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

Question for you. If you did feel retaining our salvation was performance dependent, what would be the essential difference between that salvation and the salvation posited by our Catholic friends. Their not supposing mere following of rules and regs - they couch the work-done as keeping in step with the grace given them by God.

It's not couching. We can do nothing without the grace of God. God give us all the grace we need to be saved. We must cooperate with the grace of God. God created us without our consent, but He won't save us without our consent and our cooperation.

There's a good essay here which takes in these aspects and shows how the Catholic world-view is much richer and actually respects the free will of the human person: http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/fundamental-differences-between-catholic-and-protestant-worldviews-by-fisheaters/

Either/Or -vs- Both/And

This brings us to the "either/or" phenomenon found in some Christian groups. It appears to work like this:

"if you don't believe that faith alone saves, then you must believe that you can work your way into Heaven (something Catholics are constantly falsely accused of believing),"
"if you don't believe in sola scriptura, then you are a follower of the 'traditions of men',"
"if you think we can cooperate in our salvation, then you're saying that Christ isn't enough,"
"if you believe that one can freely turn his back on God, then you're denying God's omnipotence," etc.

These either/or arguments consist of an "if" statement, coupled with an implied premise that amounts to a false dichotomy, and followed by an invalid conclusion.

Catholic rebuttals to these sorts of assertions often rely on the heavy use of prepositions:

"we are saved by grace, through faith and works inspired by the Holy Spirit's love,"
"the source of Christian Truth is the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit and which is both the source of and is bound by Sacred Scripture,"
"we are saved solely by the grace of the Cross, with which we must co-operate,"
"God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, but He chose to give us free will with which we can freely choose Him," etc.
It's been said that the Catholic Church is a "both/and" Church; another way of saying it is that, when arguing with Protestants, we are a "Yes, but..." Church:

"Yes, grace saves through faith -- but a faith that works,"
"Yes, Christ is the only way to the Father, but we Christians co-operate with Him in His divine plan and therefore, in a real but limited sense, play a co-redemptive role in salvation history,"
"Yes, we must be born again, but 'born again' refers to Baptism,"
"Yes, Christ is the Spiritual Rock of the Church, but He made Peter the earthly Rock" etc.

Like I intimated, subtlety required. We don't see dichotomies where none exist.

wolfsbane

Donatello said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or: the Catholics split away from and left the original church and apostolic (Scripture's) authority. Unless Rome is essential to the nature of the true Church - which newmug denies.
No, because Christ promised that Peter's faith would not fail and that he would strengthen his brothers.

And that is what he did. What has that to do with the papacy, even if it was his successor? Peter wrote Scripture - the popes do not. Peter performed many miracles - the popes do not. Peter had a wife - the popes do not. And so on.

The communion with successor of Peter is the guarantor that we are in the Church.

That presupposes he was to have a successor that had his powers and authority. As above, no one has. It also supposes the Bishop of Rome is his successor. Peter could just as well have handed on his office to the Bishop of Jerusalem, if it was to be handed on in your sense. What tells against that is the awful record of wickedness manifested by those holding the office of Bishop of Rome. As Christ reminded the religious leaders of His day, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39b.

Peter was given the keys and the power of binding and loosing. Th other Apostles received the power to bind and loose, but only Peter got the keys, so the Apostles must stick with Peter. The Pope and the Bishops in union with him lead the Church. Those who do not gather, scatter.

Paul seemed to be unaware of this interpretation of Christ's words:
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

In fact, he continues:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Yes, popery entered the Church bit by bit, from good men straying from the Word.

*******************************************************************************
Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

wolfsbane

Quo Vadis said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Or: the Catholics split away from and left the original church and apostolic (Scripture's) authority. Unless Rome is essential to the nature of the true Church - which newmug denies.
A bit like trying to say the Republic of Ireland split from the UK but it's the real UK.

Yes, that's right. The RCC is not the real Church. It left Christ, to establish it's own reign.

*************************************************************************
Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, popery entered the Church bit by bit, from good men straying from the Word.
[/COLOR]

Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

-- Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean with that phrase?

I meant that Paul methodically unpacks Jesus concentrated statements. The example used had Jesus saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

We might conclude the saved are those who are "poor in spirit". But what does that mean? Paul expounding on the problem of man's sin and how its burden is utilised to lead men to Christ unpacks Christ's statement. The impoverished of spirit are those who collapse under the weight of the law .. and their failure to keep the law.

The reality is that salvation can be lost.

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

It would serve you well to deal with comments on the last tranch of bible verses dumped here. The problems therein won't be solved by mere repetition.

Then again, dealing with objections to your position isn't exactly your thing. Is it?

Lab_Mouse

a bit off topic but do catholics and other denominations read the same version of the bible?Are all the arguments based on the way one takes the message contained in the bible?

santing

Donatello wrote: »

Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:

Ignatius is an interesting source to quote from - he has been a topic of dispute during the ages. But even his epistles conflict with each other - and with others from his time, enclosed a quote in which the Eucharist is taken more symbolic (esp. if you look at the "long version"!)

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
From the long Version:
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.
Ignatius Epsitle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 6

So as always, the Fathers don't prove anything since you can prove everything by quoting the Fathers

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi L
I'm afraid it's not entirely different at all

That one can fall from grace Antiskeptic?


I believe you can fall from grace? Do you believe that once filled with the Holy spirit and you accept Christ as your lord and saviour that you take no part thereafter in your lifetime? I'm trying to understand the doctrine, and believe me, I don't think it's as far away from many other christians than some may...

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this somehow at times, but we'll persist..lol.... it seems to be mixed up in 'terminology' at times? I seem to understand your stance, but mine is consistently misrepresented - or at least it kind of feels that way, even though there are other non Catholic christians that I would understand better both in scriptural interpretation and when discussing this matter in isolation.

I've only - since browsing this forum got used to the terminology that other Christian denominations use, and I try to use them in order to express myself and be understood.

For instance, in the Catholic church we would never really speak of being 'saved' for all time, being 'saved' is not arbitrary, but it is not something that we say always occurs at the beginning of a journey - from a point in this 'linear' time as such, when we profess faith, we're cautious - because we believe that it isn't over until judgement day, that being 'saved' and self assessment is par for the course - given we still have 'free will' if you know what I mean until the end.

It seems to me that so do other Christian denominations, in fact perhaps the vast majority believe we are a 'work in progress' that we should 'persevere' till the end...?

As a Catholic, and I should know, I am one..and can only explain that we DO NOT teach a works based salvation. Nobody ever gets saved by 'works' without faith.

...and nobody gets saved by faith without works either - This is the Catholic churches teachings and this is 'cemented' in scripture. It's responsible teaching. Even if the teaching tends to lean more towards the good or bad news too much at times in our past, it's finding an equilibruim and encompasses the entire message of scripture.

I understand fully what PDN says about the bias against the osas doctrine - I don't understand 'why' there is a problem in the first place though, because it seems to me, unless I'm really waiting for the punch line, we are all saying pretty much the same thing, I actually don't see the differences 'magnified' when this topic is discussed in 'isolation' aside from perhaps the way the Orthodox and Catholic churches would view sacraments as an 'aid' to enduring and persevering in that faith till judgement and encourage being part of that communion..

You believe it happens as a once off thing in time, we believe we are a work in progress till we expire? Is that the ultimate difference?

....Tis mad! But it's good to talk.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

fall from grace

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
(Gal 5:3-7 ESV)

Fallen from Grace seems to mean something different than what you use it for. Fallen from grace means trying to be saved by our own efforts..

lmaopml

How so Santing? Do you believe you can fall from grace?

Yes/No.

lmaopml

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really, with 'some' doctrines - I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this?

Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

How so Santing? Do you believe you can fall from grace?

Yes/No.

Falling from grace has nothing to do with being lost as the quote from Galatians shows. The Galatians had lost the fact that they were saved by grace alone through faith alone, and thought they needed to work for it. That's why they had fallen from grace

So I may be a work in progress, but "yet I am not ashamed, because I know Whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day (2 Tim 1:12)"
and "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy He has given us new birth into a living hope ..., and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." 1Pet 1:3-5

So the answer to your question - as I want to read your question "yes", but as you asked your question "no"

PARKHEAD67

PDN wrote: »

OK. A number of posters are becoming frustrated at how multiple threads are being dragged into squabbles about whether Catholicism or Protestantism is right or wrong. Some of the sectarianism on display has, in my own opinion, been an awful advert for Christianity.

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to rile up Catholics or Protestants in other threads will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

So how does this work? It will still be in order, if a poster asks a question, to say, "This is my belief as a Catholic/Methodist/Anglican etc.". It is OK to ask posters to clarify their beliefs, so as to avoid misunderstanding. The mods will be the judge of whether that crosses the line into a squabble.

Protestants made up their own religion because a certain King of England couldnt keep his penis in his pants.:)This is a fact.

LordSutch

Can I just put an end to the use of this term 'non catholic', when refering to other Christian traditions. As a Protestant I am a catholic & I believe in the catholic Church, but I am not a Roman Catholic. That 'non catholic' term in relation to Anglicans (C of I for example) is wrong. Please note.

lmaopml

Santing perhaps the Galations were given as an example in the bible to people to appreciate the 'grace' they were given in the first place, from the very inkling of first faith? ...and a warning against taking either grace or works in the spirit for granted?

I don't really understand the yes and no answer though? What is yes and what is no?

Is this a case of 'no' you cannot fall from true grace, but 'yes' you can fall from the beginnings of grace or something?

Some clarity is necessary. and when does one reach being 'saved'? Is it in this life time or the next?

antiskeptic

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

a bit off topic but do catholics and other denominations read the same version of the bible?Are all the arguments based on the way one takes the message contained in the bible?

No and no.

philologos

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Protestants made up their own religion because a certain King of England couldnt keep his penis in his pants.:)This is a fact.

Please go read some history. The Reformation started before Henry VIII. Henry VIII although for wrong reasons was simply the power figure that gave the cause traction. Here's another post I did on it here.

Besides even if that were true (and it isn't) it would only affect Anglicanism rather than those with German or French roots such as Lutheranism or Calvinism, or even those English denominations outside of Anglicanism.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

Santing perhaps the Galations were given as an example in the bible to people to appreciate the 'grace' they were given in the first place, from the very inkling of first faith? ...and a warning against taking either grace or works in the spirit for granted?

I don't really understand the yes and no answer though? What is yes and what is no?

Is this a case of 'no' you cannot fall from true grace, but 'yes' you can fall from the beginnings of grace or something?

Some clarity is necessary. and when does one reach being 'saved'? Is it in this life time or the next?

My answer might not be clear because I think your question is wrong. You ask the question "Can you fall from grace" meaning "Can you loose your (eternal) salvation." When Paul uses the expression fallen from grace he wasn't thinking of their eternal salvation.
So yes, I can fall from grace - out of the position of being blessed by God daily - when I would seek to save myself (add to my salvation / keep my salvation) through works. So theoretically, any none OSAS Christian cannot fall from grace as he/she is not in it.

And - in case it isn't obvious - no, I cannot fall from grace if you mean "loose my salvation."

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really,

Are you mad!! The book of Romans sees Paul spend the first half constructing the very doctrine you find a 'bugbear' ... and the second half elaborating on how it is the Christian is to live in the light of what has occurred to him. Crikey! (oh how my expletives have altered o'er the years!), the epistles are chock full of 'emphasis' on how it is the Christian is to live.

Perhaps you mean OSAS-ers emphasising OSAS and not how it is we live in the light of our salvation? What about this - in response to Donatellos bewilderment as to why it is someone who knows they are irrevocably saved would bother to refrain from sin.

antiskeptic to Donatello wrote:

Love? At the same time as being saved, I am exposed to the most lovable being in existance. AbE to lmaopml:. Are you seriously suggesting I should have no issue with spitting in the face of someone who has shown me more love than anyone ever has?

Life is better? Sin might well satisfy the flesh in the instant but it brings trouble and strife in the not very long run. It's a no brainer that I would seek to avoid sin (sinful flesh struggles notwithstanding)

Avoiding God's discipline. It might be necessary for him to do it but why put yourself through the pain of it if you don't have to?

Congruency? Paul, after painstakingly presenting the mechanics of the the gospel of grace only (Romans 3:21 - 5:20) pauses to insert a parentheses in his argument before continuing at the start of Romans 8. In that parentheses he deals with two objections to that gospel. And the very first objection he answers is the very one you yourself make. First, because it's the automatic objection anyone who ever hears the gospel of grace will make.

His response is that sin is incongruent for the children of God. For that is what a God-defined Christian is (according to the 'Protestants'). I am a child of the living God. A God to whom I have access and whose holiness is sheer attraction to me. How could I cheerfully sin as if it didn't matter knowing what an offence it is to him. Knowing what it was he had to put himself through in order for it to be dealt with?

I'd be like an Allied soldier fighting on the side of the Nazi's for heavens sake!

Utter incongruency...says Paul

- I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this? Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

There is more to eternal life than salvation. Just as there is more to life than being born.

Whether they are born or born again (there is no accident in God's choice of language), a person stands at the beginning of something. Birth is not an end in itself. We are called to persevere, but it's perserverance in the task set us that commences on being born again. It's about growing in relationship, it's about bringing the kingdom of God to a needy world, it's about growing in holiness and conquering evil. It's about demonstrating God's manifest wisdom to the heavening powers, it's about living the life we were designed for. It's about all sorts. Is perserverance.


Because your salvation isn't sure in Roman Catholicism you are not entirely free to focus on the purposes that lie beyond. It is simply impossible to act of freedom when there is a potential gun held to your head. The human psyche simply isn't set up so. Only with sure salvation is there complete freedom to serve with fullness of heart.

Which is why by grace alone can but be the only way. And why every version of satans lie will have to find some way to deny that it is by grace alone. Satan simply cannot help it.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

That one can fall from grace Antiskeptic?

I believe you can fall from grace? Do you believe that once filled with the Holy spirit and you accept Christ as your lord and saviour that you take no part thereafter in your lifetime? I'm trying to understand the doctrine, and believe me, I don't think it's as far away from many other christians than some may...

Could you explain why you think falling from grace means loss of salvation? Without using the Cathecism that is

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this somehow at times, but we'll persist..lol.... it seems to be mixed up in 'terminology' at times? I seem to understand your stance, but mine is consistently misrepresented - or at least it kind of feels that way, even though there are other non Catholic christians that I would understand better both in scriptural interpretation and when discussing this matter in isolation.

I agree it cannot be easy. Which is why we must use the only common ground we have. The Bible. I gather Catholics believe too that scripture interprets scripture. If so, then there will be scripture that tells us that falling from grace means loss of salvation.

For instance, in the Catholic church we would never really speak of being 'saved' for all time, being 'saved' is not arbitrary, but it is not something that we say always occurs at the beginning of a journey - from a point in this 'linear' time as such, when we profess faith, we're cautious - because we believe that it isn't over until judgement day, that being 'saved' and self assessment is par for the course - given we still have 'free will' if you know what I mean until the end.

You've indeed highlighted a number of core differences. Which is why perhaps it's difficult to communicate.

- saved is an irrevocable point in time. It's the point where the RNLI helicopter winchman attaches the line to me. The being saved process might continue for a time after that (I am still being saved) but I've passed the point of no return when the winchline is attached.

- I don't have freewill unto loss of salvation post my being saved. I am a slave to Christ. Purchased for a price (the meaning of "redeemed"). I am not my own. Etc.

- There is no Judgement Day for me.

It seems to me that so do other Christian denominations, in fact perhaps the vast majority believe we are a 'work in progress' that we should 'persevere' till the end...?

Indeed, but just not unto salvation. I gather those Protestant denominations who think you can loose your salvation only think you can under extraordinary circumstances. It is not the commoner garden situation that a person reliles on their performance to gain entry to heaven.

As a Catholic, and I should know, I am one..and can only explain that we DO NOT teach a works based salvation. Nobody ever gets saved by 'works' without faith.

...and nobody gets saved by faith without works either - This is the Catholic churches teachings and this is 'cemented' in scripture. It's responsible teaching. Even if the teaching tends to lean more towards the good or bad news too much at times in our past, it's finding an equilibruim and encompasses the entire message of scripture.

Let me define what I mean by a works religion. A works religion is a religion wherein your salvation (or any other favorable afterlife outcome) is in anyway dependent on your performance.

Let me define what I mean by performance. Performance is any thought or deed you have to do or any thought or deed you have to avoid doing - whilst knowing such things could have an impact on your obtaining a favorable result.

Is Roman Catholicism a works religion according to those definitions?

I understand fully what PDN says about the bias against the osas doctrine - I don't understand 'why' there is a problem in the first place though, because it seems to me, unless I'm really waiting for the punch line, we are all saying pretty much the same thing,

Does the above clarify the essential difference?

I actually don't see the differences 'magnified' when this topic is discussed in 'isolation' aside from perhaps the way the Orthodox and Catholic churches would view sacraments as an 'aid' to enduring and persevering in that faith till judgement and encourage being part of that communion..

An aid to what, if not the work being done to try to ensure your salvation. Donatello's a Catholic too and his query was truly revealing of the (potential) difference in heart between the two denominations.

He just couldn't see the reasons (and I could go on and on) why someone would want to avoid sin if they knew they had an irrevocible salvation. It reveals much about the motive behind the work. It is, as I have said, simply unavoidable that your heart be polluted by a motivation to avoid a negative afterlife outcome.

Jeepers! You've Hell and Purgo to try to avoid. Talk about sticks..

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

I think it is more that we have to ask ourselves that when difficulties arise are we going to sell our faith down the swally, or are we going to hold fast to our faith in God. There have been a number of decisions in my life that have required to me to make this decision. Temptation can lead us away from faithfulness in God. I don't believe it is work to keep being a Christian, I do think that there are things that can challenge us along the way.

Sorry to press bro' but it wouldn't be fair to press our Catholic friends then take the foot off the accelorator with the home team.

At the root of man lies the will. His thoughts (or rather, where he let's his thoughts rest) are a function of that will. So are his actions. Work then, is sourced in the will.

If your salvation depends on an expression of your will in a particular direction during these times of trial then what substantial difference between you and anyone who follows any of the recognised works religions? We would agree that they try to establish their own righteousness through their own effort. But if you lost salvation you would be deemed unrighteous - rendering a direct connection between your performance and your righteousness.

N'est ce pas?

wolfsbane

santing said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donatello
Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:
Ignatius is an interesting source to quote from - he has been a topic of dispute during the ages. But even his epistles conflict with each other - and with others from his time, enclosed a quote in which the Eucharist is taken more symbolic (esp. if you look at the "long version"!)
Quote:
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
From the long Version:
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.
Ignatius Epsitle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 6
So as always, the Fathers don't prove anything since you can prove everything by quoting the Fathers

Good point.

We also must remember that all the errors of Rome did not come at once, but little by little - as good men speculated beyond the word and added 2+2 and got 5. Then too bad men entered the Church and brought wilful error - some of these were swallowed, some were not.

Tertullian, that great Father, wandered off into Montanism. Had it gone differently, Montanism would today be just another of Rome's errors.

*************************************************************************
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really, with 'some' doctrines - I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this?

Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

Our conversion is the beginning of our new life in Christ. We have been given a new heart - our will and affections are now for God, where before they were against God. Just as we were slaves to sin, but still aware of conscience condemning our sin, so now we are slaves to righteousness, but in a struggle with the old nature. That old nature has to be crucified daily. Only when we go to be with Christ are we perfect.

Calvinism teaches that all who have genuine faith will produce good works. They may fall into sin from time to time, but will be recovered - God will bring them back in true repentance. Sin shall not have dominion over them. This is called by Calvinism the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, # 5 in the acrostic TULIP.

Some true Christians may be taken from this life because of their sin, as a discipline on them (as at Corinth). They have not been lost, but taken from their sin. They did not desert the faith.

******************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.