Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Does Roman Catholicism teach a work-salvation?
-
10-06-2010 1:58pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »My view would be that nothing can separate me from God - in the sense of losing my salvation. I can (and do) offend God with my sin and that does result in greater distance/less intimacy between me and God.
As far as salvation goes, it's a once off deal: once found I cannot be lost again.
Hi Antiskeptic, and cheers for being so concise! I'm pretty new to some of the 'lingo' so forgive me, but I'm trying to really just understand various outlooks...
May I just say, the way I see this view is that Christians who believe in osas also believe in 'sin' and 'sin' seperates us from God....but in a 'distance' way?
There are so many sins, is there anything you can do that would seperate you from God? or were you never saved in the first place if you went out and chose to reject the Gospel thereafter, even if you believed you were saved beforehand?
....so, in effect, being 'saved' is not really a guarantee once off thing, it has fluidity and doesn't 'happen' until Jesus calls us home.... you still have the free will to reject God, even though at one point you thought you were 'saved'???.....So being 'saved' has a time frame as such? Hope that makes sense
There are various 'Protestant' views about how this happens: the Calvinists say that God choose which men to save without those men having anything at all to do with his choice. The Arminians (to which most denominations would hold in some way I suspect) say that God makes it possible for a person to choose God. I gather they reckon you can loose your salvation - but only by a complete turning away and rejection of Christ - so it's not quite as works-based as Roman Catholicism.
Right, I knew there were a few different takes on salvation, freewill etc. within various protestant denominations...
Yes, Catholics believe that salvation doesn't happen until it 'happens' as such, we can and do chose to seperate ourselves from grace and return to it, we have to abide in it as such.....we have to remain in the Grace of God by not sinning, but something like yourself, that there are some sins more grave than others, for example sins against the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven. We look to the saints as examples of abiding in Grace...and we are taught that 'salvation' isn't the 'aim', it's love of God is the aim soley because he is God and embodies all goodness and mercy...Me? I don't think men can choose actively for God/salvation - but do think men can make a passive once-off choice. And so the biblical exclusions: not by willing it, not by working for it are accomodated.
Right, with respect this is alien to me to reconcile as I believe fully in our free will and that it works throughout our life, and not just passively on one occasion..... we have the choice to actively 'choose' God, and actively 'reject' God, and even after rejecting God to come home again....So it's 'fluid' iykwim....Like the Prodigal son who was fully at home, left and was accepted back again...As far as working after my salvation? It's very active (not in the sense that I work hard but that the work is deliberate and conscious). The reason I work isn't, of course, to retain my salvation. It's to honour and please God and thank God. There is also some self-interest here: the indications are is that there is greater and lesser in the Kingdom of God and I suspect that in the measure you give God your heart here, the closer you'll get to God there.
In it's best moments, it's a healthy self-interestedness.
Us too, we 'work' ( hate that word ), what it implies etc. When you mention 'work' it sounds arbitrary and useless, we say we 'abide' in God, we say we stay clear of sin, that's the 'work' iykwim, and it's a 'deliberate and conscious' act too, to allow God to abide in us...So what do we say to the Roman Catholic who isn't showing their faith in their countenance - in the light of a teaching that says they "have to"? Doesn't a "have to" imply an "or else"?
Absolutely! There is always the alternative.....Like yourself, you can chose God and believe you are saved, but then all of a sudden sin and find out you weren't actually saved in the first place...
We're a soul in time, with the free will and dignity to chose to abide in Christ...An "or else.." compromises the choosing. Perhaps not for you: you could choose to please and honour your husband (say) whether someone holds a gun up to your head or not. But "you" aren't every Roman Catholic: there are many there without love for God who think their works and confession etc will make a difference. Roman Catholic teaching can't divide between the legalist and the person who genuinely loves God. And it's those legalists who are in grave danger. A danger accentuated by a teaching which introduces things we must do or else .. into the mix.
I would grant that there are perhaps some who call themselves Catholic and believe that if they are 'good' then they have salvation, even if they don't have 'faith' - but this is most certainly not what the Church teaches - quite the opposit in fact!Would agree that the free-est choice of all would be one made without any threat of consequences if the choice isn't made. Would you agree that the value to God of the free-est of choices exceeds that of a choice made with the threat of consequences (however background)
I think you could phrase it anyway you like, hell exists for people who don't put their faith in Jesus. I do know that we are taught to love God because he embodies all that is 'good', and we should fly towards the light always 'Jesus'...and want what is good because it's God's will for us...Grace + Works is, as I say, but a variation of a works salvation. If there are things that you must do which, on failing to do, results in your damnation then a works salvation it can only be.
We are not to 'sin'. The same as yourself....that's the 'work', to choose Jesus and abide in him, and listen and learn from our Church as a faith guide and moral guide, and receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the sacraments to help us abide with Christ...
At least you understand that the Church doesn't teach a 'works' based salvation...it's 'faith' and 'perceverence in faith to avoid sin'....
I still don't see the humongous difference, other than you believe you're saved before salvation, and I don't believe I am saved until salvation iykwim....
It's quite confusing I must say, the 'lingo' sometimes gets in the way...
You do believe in free will though, right?0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »If not making them a pre-condition of salvation then why are certain works-issues preconditions to salvation, eg: that a person not have mortal sin on their account at death.
I think it's a fairly recent development that is not directly related to the salvation by works issue (unless we count going to confession as works). I also doubt that this is the understanding of the mortal sin held by the majority of Catholics. I guess if asked which one of two quotes from the same catechism bears more weight "those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" or "there are no limits to the mercy of God" I guess the majority would vote for the later. Some of them would probably even explain how they don't contradict each other.
Even still, I don't know if there is any infallible (form the RCC perspective) source that clearly says that unrepented so-called mortal sin unavoidably leads to damnation.0 -
Slav, as a Catholic lol...one of the 'some' you speak of I would defo say that Catholics leave the judgement end at the end of a persons life and when they are judged up to God above. We don't know whether they were 'really' repentent or no - only God knows! 0
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Hi Antiskeptic, and cheers for being so concise! I'm pretty new to some of the 'lingo' so forgive me, but I'm trying to really just understand various outlooks...
With the devil literally being in the detail (which you would expect were wolves to show up in sheeps clothing).May I just say, the way I see this view is that Christians who believe in osas also believe in 'sin' and 'sin' seperates us from God....but in a 'distance' way?
There are so many sins, is there anything you can do that would seperate you from God? or were you never saved in the first place if you went out and chose to reject the Gospel thereafter, even if you believed you were saved beforehand?
....so, in effect, being 'saved' is not really a guarantee once off thing, it has fluidity and doesn't 'happen' until Jesus calls us home.... you still have the free will to reject God, even though at one point you thought you were 'saved'???.....So being 'saved' has a time frame as such? Hope that makes sense
From my perspective the term OSAS means that once a person is saved (that is, moved by God from status = lost to status = found) there is no going back for them. There is no sin they can commit - nothing at all they can do to reverse that. And there is nothing at all - no matter what - that God will do to reverse that either. The person can be angry with God, even curse God from a height, sin abominably day and night from the moment he is saved 'til the day he dies .. and he will never lose his salvation (although he might reap a lot of trouble and strife in his life for his disobedience).
His salvation is all of God's grace.
It's a once-off tranaction, fueled by God's efforts - with no reversal possible.Right, I knew there were a few different takes on salvation, freewill etc. within various protestant denominations...
Yes, Catholics believe that salvation doesn't happen until it 'happens' as such, we can and do chose to seperate ourselves from grace and return to it, we have to abide in it as such.....we have to remain in the Grace of God by not sinning, but something like yourself, that there are some sins more grave than others, for example sins against the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven. We look to the saints as examples of abiding in Grace...and we are taught that 'salvation' isn't the 'aim', it's love of God is the aim soley because he is God and embodies all goodness and mercy...
By "doesn't happen until it happens" I take you to mean that you cannot be sure you will be saved until the day that happens? This is a logical conclusion to be derived from a works-salvation, given that you can't know:
a) what the line in the sand is beyond which you are 'safe'
b) can't know whether you will succeed in crossing that line.
c) can't know whether you have crossed it.
This is such a sad thing, truly. That people could be robbed of the assurance that comes in knowing that God loves you unconditionally and will never leave you. To be robbed of the anticipation that comes from knowing you will one day see God face to face (without the worry that that face could possibly be the face of Judgement). Don't get me wrong: the idea of seeing God face to face causes me to shrink somewhat - but that's only because I don't comprehend that in his sight I am and will always be - as clean as a whistle. There is no condemnation waiting. No dissapproval.
By mentioning a sin that can't be forgiven you underline working for your salvation again. There is something you have to avoid doing - otherwise you run the risk of being truly lost. That is a work (a work being as much about doing somethings as it is about not doing other things)
As to the aim of loving God? Let me ask you: which is the more love-able God, which God has done the most for you:
a) a God who makes possible your salvation and purification, but who paves the way to his door with conditional landmines, some marked, some not so marked.
b) a God who makes possible your salvation and purification and who does all the work for you. A God who promises never to foresake you once he's found you.
Which strikes you more like a good earthly father?Right, with respect this is alien to me to reconcile as I believe fully in our free will and that it works throughout our life, and not just passively on one occasion..... we have the choice to actively 'choose' God, and actively 'reject' God, and even after rejecting God to come home again....So it's 'fluid' iykwim....Like the Prodigal son who was fully at home, left and was accepted back again...
I'd agree the Prodigal Son parable shows that we can move totally away from God once a son of his. And that God will always welcome us back. It underscores OSAS for example.
For me, the idea of "free will" is scripturally problematic. Mans will is described as being enslaved to sin, his nature unable to apprehend the things of God, his eyes and ears blind to God, his spirit dead as a doornail, his whole being in rebellion against a God he very frequently doesn't even believe exists. Free? I just don't see it described in scripture (although I do see it assumed of scripture).
Then there is the question of the basis by which a person choose for God. There is no clear cut evidence for even the existance of a god - never mind the God of the Bible. Then there is the issue of folk who never hear of God in order to freely choose him.
These both support the notion of salvation being by Gods grace alone. Only God's grace can surmout these obstacles.Us too, we 'work' ( hate that word ), what it implies etc. When you mention 'work' it sounds arbitrary and useless, we say we 'abide' in God, we say we stay clear of sin, that's the 'work' iykwim, and it's a 'deliberate and conscious' act too, to allow God to abide in us...
Work is good! And the work isn't arbitrary or useless. My work is also aimed so that God will abide within, in order that obedience that is due God is forthcoming, in order that God's kingdom come, in order to be a light in the darkness. There are many reasons to work... but ensuring I retain my salvation isn't one of them.
Supposing you were to find out you had a week to live. And that your efforts would be found eternally wanting. Would you spend your last week alive working for the glory of God? It's a hypothetical but I know, but the answer would reveal the self-interest that lies at the core of us - something which a works-salvation cannot help but tickle.Absolutely! There is always the alternative.....Like yourself, you can chose God and believe you are saved, but then all of a sudden sin and find out you weren't actually saved in the first place...
We're a soul in time, with the free will and dignity to chose to abide in Christ...
Like I say, there is no sin that can un-save me
The alternative you suggest is not doing the work that retains your salvation. That a person chooses to do the work that retains their salvation doesn't alter the fact that the salvation is a works based one.I would grant that there are perhaps some who call themselves Catholic and believe that if they are 'good' then they have salvation, even if they don't have 'faith' - but this is most certainly not what the Church teaches - quite the opposit in fact!
What is this faith and how does one get it .. in Catholicism?I think you could phrase it anyway you like, hell exists for people who don't put their faith in Jesus. I do know that we are taught to love God because he embodies all that is 'good', and we should fly towards the light always 'Jesus'...and want what is good because it's God's will for us...
And this state of affairs is achieved by not only choosing it, but going on choosing it, persevering in it?
That's work. Something you have to do.We are not to 'sin'. The same as yourself....that's the 'work', to choose Jesus and abide in him, and listen and learn from our Church as a faith guide and moral guide, and receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the sacraments to help us abide with Christ...
... or else.At least you understand that the Church doesn't teach a 'works' based salvation...it's 'faith' and 'perceverence in faith to avoid sin'....
... or else.I still don't see the humongous difference, other than you believe you're saved before salvation, and I don't believe I am saved until salvation iykwim....
I am saved from the day I'm saved. Salvation occurred that day (in much the same way that salvation at sea occurs the moment the helicoptor arrives on the scene - even though you're not yet back at home with a cup of hot tea to warm you up).
You're not saved yet (you believe). And you don't know whether you will be because you have no grounds for absolute certainty.It's quite confusing I must say, the 'lingo' sometimes gets in the way...
You do believe in free will though, right?
Post-the day I was saved? Yes. I had free will and continue to have it. When I die I'll loose that free will. I won't be free to sin anymore. Can't wait..
Pre-salvation? No. I was just like all other lost men: a slave to sin, an addict. As free as a junkie with a needle hanging out of his arm (if you'll forgive the horrid (if accurate) comparison)0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Hi Antiskeptic. I can see where you get the idea from that Christ never loses you etc. and will defo spend some time re-reading your posts, as I wish to understand it more fully... I'm on borrowed time at the moment as tonight is DVD night with the hubbie..lol..So as it's a big thing to ponder, I'll try to put aside some time tomorrow to explore it more fully - it's a learning curve for me, and I am most grateful that we are talking...
Talk is goodStill though, a quick question; Do most Protestants believe that.. 'even if they curse God from a height and sin abominably they still remain in Grace, and are saved from a point in time? - so basically if they 'believe' in Jesus then that's it?
As you might imagine, view vary. Those leaning towards the Arminian argument would see the possiblity of a person losing their salvation - but not because of anger with God, but rather, by denying their faith altogether. In the main, as I've experienced it, most 'protestants' would draw the line at "nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus". Not even acts/omissions on their part.
As to what constitutes the essence of salvation, what is the ultimate tipping point from lost-to-found? That varies also.
Calvinists hold that God has foreordained from the beginning that this one will be saved and that one won't be - quite aside from anything a person might do or choose. He makes sure those chosen people come to believe in Jesus. And so their believing in Jesus-as-saviour is more a consequence of God having first chosen to save them and less a cause of their salvation. Everyone else holds that man makes a choice of some description: and the result of that choice is that God reveals Jesus as saviour. The choice is a once off event.
God chooses man (Calvinism)
Man chooses God (everyone else (in the main))
It should be noted that "cursing God from a height" is a theoretical thing. The Holy Spirit coming to reside in a person brings a change. That change means that even taking Christs name in vain becomes something the person finds difficult to do. Indeed, hearing others do so, comes like a punch in the face at times. But a person can be angry with God, disappointed in God, furious with God. And perhaps in anguish at a lost child, might even go so far as to curse God.0 -
-
-
Ok, I see there are very many views as to Jesus message within the Protestant faiths, and even as to whether we have free will or no...
The question exists, whether your a Protestant or not.
Rather than see things as Protestant vs. Catholic (vs Orthodox vs Christian-related cult), I see folk as sharing some views and not others - some of which are critical and some less so.
The mode of salvation: by work or not .. is one of those criticals.
Protestant groups might not align in many things but they do align in holding that a mans salvation isn't reliant on what he does or doesn't do. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, aligns with the cults in supposing the way to God reliant on what we do. Which is not to say Roman Catholicism aligns with the cults in many ways.The concept of 'osas' fits in better, to my mind, with the views of Calvin, to me - in a logical way...because 'we' don't really know until the event - we're just surmising!
I can't help feel that in the surmising we are 'saved' at a point in time that something seems off with that...or even boastful of our status, given that we have free will.
I look to the Bible for my understanding of once saved always saved. Once finding that there I can of course add to my overall understanding of what it appears God is up to and I can see the logic of OSAS. What's the point in re-asking a question of someone ("do you want God or not?") who's given you their final answer. What's the point in them signing their name to a contract with you if they or you can simply tear it up again.
This isn't Gods first (conditional) covenent, made be himself and a physical chosen people (the Israelites) - "IF you do this THEN I'll do that". This is God's second (unconditional convenant) , made between himself and a spiritual chosen people (those in Christ)- "I will do it all".
There is no place for boasting. I didn't do anything to contribute to my salvation. I didn't even will for it....I know, obviously that most people aren't going around boasting like there's no tomorrow, but it seems presumtious.......?? especially when 'sin' is so poorly defined? ..and stressed so much in the bible? Why would it be stressed so much to not give in to temptation?
What you're revealing in fact, is the difficulty you have accepting that God is a God who would gift you eternal life without you working for it. It is a bonkers idea - one that bends your mind. But it's an idea that sets the God of Grace apart from the god of every other Religion and Cult in the world. All those other Religions and Cults (including Roman Catholicism I'm afraid) demand a man contributes to his salvation. Typically, it involves you behaving a certain way / observing proscribed laws.
Go look it up. There will be differences in what it is you have to do/not do in this religion and that - but don't focus on that surface stuff. Focus on the fact that lies at the very root: your salvation (or whatever "positive afterlife outcome" the Religion/Cult promises) is dependent in some way, shape or form .... on what YOU do.
I'm not sure what you mean by sin being stressed so much. Temptation is there, I give into it. I sin. Not to underplay the seriousness of sin but .. so what? I'm a sinner. Sinners sin. God is not surprised by this.Otherwise, and I really sincerely don't mean harm or offense,
No offence taken. You must forgive my discussing Roman Catholicism in negative light I do. The intent isn't to offend - but seeing as I consider it teaching an abject falsehood in that most essential of matters (works salvation) there is little point in beating around the bush.I'm just 'talking' and letting the thoughts flow freely, it seems a contradiction in terms when I look at the lengths Jesus went to in order to save everybody...it seems more logical to me, from this 'act' on his behalf that we have a 'role' to play...not a once off role..but a continuous journey to stay on the path and 'bear fruit'..and 'abide'...
There is indeed a logical duty existant here. Commercial transaction logic. Jesus does this for us, it is fitting that we do that in return. He produces a good, we work to pay for that good.
The alternative logical duty is one that stems from being given a gift. We have a duty to unpack it, appreciate it, thank him for it, treasure it. This he asks us to do. There is no logical connection between being given a gift .. and having to do something in order to prevent it being taken back...so obviously it's 'how' we abide in Christ that is the topic of discussion that would possibly give more understanding to eachother...
I think we'd conclude the same things. The above outlines the differences being different by way of motivation. Abiding for a wage/reward vs. Abiding out of gratitude and respect and love....but what 'stirs' me, is perhaps the idea that we're made in the image of God, everyone of us!.... and I find this difficult to reconcile with the bible and the persona of Jesus if we are to adhere to a passive role, with a passive free will?
Made in the image. But Fallen and that image sullied in more ways than we can begin to imagine (although a swift flipping through the Rolodex of mankinds inhumanity to man should begin to inform). One of the ways in which we were sullied was (the Bible repeatedly tells us) that we were injected with a drug call Sin. Sin destroyed our free will as surely as Heroin destroys the free will of a junkie.
I do scuba diving and sometimes when out in a group, folk will beat up the bottom with their flippers - creating a blind-out of sand. You can't see the hand in front of your face and don't know whether you're sideways, upside down, right way up or what. All you can do is trust your only instrument: bubbles. The Bible is my instrument: it says fallen men don't have free will. I can trust it - or something else.
Not that passivity should disturb you. The suggestion is that a man can exercise his will in final answer to reject God's attempt to save him. Or his will can remain silent in the face of that attempt by God. In which the man will be saved.
Will does nothing = saved
Will does something = lost
A man cannot boast that he did nothing .. and was savedI'm sorry, perhaps this is 'alien' to you, as much as the philosophy of osas is to me, or even moreso the concept of predestination too...
Hopefully OSAS is a little less problematic now. Predestination remains bonkers in my eyes too....but I do understand that it's a philosophy of thought that is 'out there' it's a philosophy that each of us must in earnest try to reconcile ourselves with as to the nature of God, and our creation...
I don't think I could ever reconcile myself to a God who choose this one to be saved and not that one - without any reference to the man himself.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Hi Antiskeptic,
I guess your 'view' of what Catholics believe and what we actually 'really' believe is at variance, this is what I was trying to clarify earlier, but I guess we are 'entrenched'...unless we dig ourselves out.....with respect, I think you are undermining us in faith, we're 'about' a long time, you yourself and your philosophy came long after...!.. and examination of the 'faith' as opposed to it's faithful is a requirement!
I 'truely' believe that when Jesus said his coming would cause 'division'..he was speaking of 'us'! Not 'me and you' in particular, but he 'knew'..!...We're coming from 'backgrounds' of thought and philosophy..but there is a 'middle ground'..
I will defo say that I can 'see' where the idea of osas comes from, 'biblically' when I 'extract'!
...and the concept that Christ never loses us once we are 'his'!...
Believe it or no, we believe the very same thing...We have 'faith' and we put our 'hope' and 'trust' in Jesus and our 'faith' in him as our salvation is absolute; but we're taught that we are a work in progress that 'faith' imposes responsiblility to others and ourselves..We're not quite 'done'..till we're 'done'..
....but we do believe that we are given the 'dignity' of being made in the image of God, of 'free will'....and that we 'do' fall...and 'can' actively choose with our actions to fall from Gods will -...that's why we seek to reconcile ourselves and 'fight' our earthly whims..Yes, I can see that throughout history it's difficult to decipher at times, but the Church never sways from the basics...as so many have....With respect, I equally I would see osas as a dangerous doctrine to sway down the wrong path...
We also adhere to the Lords prayer....and wonder why we would be asked not to lead us not into 'temptation'....if we are already saved and it's a done deal? 'Sin' as a concept is not something that Jesus eradicated, he covered so much, but not 'wilfull' sin....and especially not 'knowing' him and then sinning....
Perhaps it's a case of earnest 'search'? We don't know the details and how they 'help' or impede...but we try...
and for 'once' I am rather glad this chat hasn't started off going down the road of...... 'How I interpret this, or how I interpret that'..in the bible, because it's quite clear, that 'both' views are there, but 'I' believe the fullness is truth and dignity is found in the Catholic church!....
We either interpret ourselves or, as with the Catholic faith we see the truth ( Holy Spirit ) at work, and study it with an open heart.....yes, there are bad people everywhere, but, imo, the 'stock' and fullness of faith can be found in no other...and the dignity it gives each person is like no other..the dignity of 'full' free will empoweres the person to choose wisely, which I believe God intended..
As Roman Catholics this isn't an 'insincere' concept, to believe wholeheartedy in Christ as the savior is beautiful! ..and most likely will bring many souls home....but the view presented here seems 'boastful' and 'sure'....
However, we also believe that when we give ourselves in 'faith' in Jesus, which is our 'Grace'..( Lingo, Lingo ) and 'give' ourselves completely, he 'never' loses us! The difference perhaps here is the 'completely'....and how we define it? We believe we 'must' abide and this abiding 'shows' in the fruit we bear and above all our love for eachother...
Once saved always saved, seems to give absolute 'credence' and the ultimate sacrifice of Christ as our saviour that 'never' loses us in 'grace'...which is certain and sure so long as we 'stay' that way and don't reject him inwardly and in doing so 'outwardly'....
..but 'grace' is subject to 'abidance'....
..and how to 'abide' is the 'tool' of my Catholic faith.
St. Francis perhaps puts it well...
To 'love' goodness quite simply because of goodness, and not to be so sure of heaven, or concentrate so much on 'saved'...but so serve in humility and hope....0 -
-
I guess your 'view' of what Catholics believe and what we actually 'really' believe is at variance, this is what I was trying to clarify earlier, but I guess we are 'entrenched'...unless we dig ourselves out.....with respect, I think you are undermining us in faith, we're 'about' a long time, you yourself and your philosophy came long after...!.. and examination of the 'faith' as opposed to it's faithful is a requirement!
The purpose of the thread is to tease out what it is Roman Catholicism teaches in the first instance. Thereafter, the idea would be to figure out whether "things to be done" (assuming there are things to be done) can be described as 'work'.
In any such discussion, where two very different opinions exist about the way things are, faith (or the argument which supports one's faith) may be undermined. I wouldn't myself be concerned with that. It is through such discussions that I moved from being Calvinistically-inclined to not. And from being YEC to not. If my position doesn't successfully meet challenges then my position should be willing to change. That's what I think anyway.
I'm not all that convinced that the length of time Roman Catholicism has been around for has any absolute bearing on anything. Nor am I convinced that Roman Catholicism has been around for quite as long as it says it has been (ie: from Peter on). Evolutionarily speaking, an animal today can rightly claim direct connection back to an origin point. That doesn't mean a human is an amoeba though. To my mind, the church of Christ in constantly evolving and the Catholic church is but one branch of that evolution
The question we're addressing here is whether that branch is one that should be (or has been already) cut off by the Gardener.I 'truly' believe that when Jesus said his coming would cause 'division'..he was speaking of 'us'! Not 'me and you' in particular, but he 'knew'..!...We're coming from 'backgrounds' of thought and philosophy..but there is a 'middle ground'..
In Protestant denominations there is a saying along the lines of "in essentials unity, in no-essentials tolerance". I'm not all that sure that a middle ground is possible on the essential in question here however. Nor am I inclined to suppose the unity Christ/Paul exorted us to, involves diluting those essentials.
By work/man or by grace/God are about as polar opposite as you can get. By works + by grace isn't a middle groundI will defo say that I can 'see' where the idea of osas comes from, 'biblically' when I 'extract'!
...and the concept that Christ never loses us once we are 'his'!...
Believe it or no, we believe the very same thing...We have 'faith' and we put our 'hope' and 'trust' in Jesus and our 'faith' in him as our salvation is absolute; but we're taught that we are a work in progress that 'faith' imposes responsiblility to others and ourselves..We're not quite 'done'..till we're 'done'..
The two positions sound very similar, don't they? The Bible teaches that Christians have a responsibility both to others and to self and to God. That there is a race to be won, a struggle to be engaged in, a master to be obeyed. The glaring difference however is that 'my' system doesn't involve a salvation-related "or else" at any point in proceedings. There are consequences for disobedience of course. But just not salvation-related consequences.
The "or else" inherent in your system is but a tiny term. But it renders our respective systems of salvation as night and day.....but we do believe that we are given the 'dignity' of being made in the image of God, of 'free will'....and that we 'do' fall...and 'can' actively choose with our actions to fall from Gods will -...that's why we seek to reconcile ourselves and 'fight' our earthly whims..Yes, I can see that throughout history it's difficult to decipher at times, but the Church never sways from the basics...as so many have....With respect, I equally I would see osas as a dangerous doctrine to sway down the wrong path...
OSAS is both a dangerous doctrine - at least on first sight - and a beautiful doctrine. Dangerous because it immediately introduces the logical conclusion: "hang on a sec, doesn't that mean that I can sin all I like and still get to heaven? Hey Ho, let's go!!"
There are but two main objections to the doctrine of salvation by grace and this is one of them. Paul, after presenting his argument for salvation by grace (Romans 3:20 > end chapter 5) immediately takes on the objections he predicts will be raised. Starting with this, your one.
Addressing Christians in Romans 6, who've just been told that God's grace is what overcomes sin unto salvation.1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Go on sinning? "By no means ...don't you know.." Don't you know what's happened to you? Don't you know what you now are? Don't you know that you've been translated out of the realm of satan into the very family of God? Don't you know you've actually been put to death regarding sin within and have been raised to new life. Don't you know that you've been born again - that the Old You that enjoyed and revelled in sin by nature has been crucified in Christ? Don't you know that the purpose of God doing this was that you could lead new life?
Logically you can go on sinning all you like. But there is more to life than logic. How about living consistant with who and what you are? Does living consistantly with what you are involve a WWII Allied soldier fighting for the Nazi's? Is it consistant living that a policeman engage in burglary? Of course not!! By no means.
That is Pauls approach - inevitably so, when he is exhorting us to work in any of his epistles. Be consistant with what and who you are. Don't live incongruently. The exhortation appeals to that LOGIC. IF you are a child of God THEN live like a child of God. Anything else and you are being illogical.
And it's a beautiful doctrine. Imagine what it would feel like to know your eternal life has started already - and is irrevocably yours. Imagine how you'd look on life now - through completely new eyes. And the attitude you'd have to others realising that they are trapped in their sin. And the attitude you might have on approaching death. Consider the term "life in abundance" and ask yourself whether the potential prospect of loosing your salvation (because you don't, as a Roman Catholic, know that life won't permit you to fall from grace) is as abundant a prospect as the one in which your eternal destination is secure - whatever life brings.We also adhere to the Lords prayer....and wonder why we would be asked not to lead us not into 'temptation'....if we are already saved and it's a done deal? 'Sin' as a concept is not something that Jesus eradicated, he covered so much, but not 'wilfull' sin....and especially not 'knowing' him and then sinning....
I'm not sure of the point you're making here. I'm not suggesting Jesus eradicated sin. We do sin and we do need ongoing forgiveness. The idea is that Jesus covered all my sin: past, present ..and future.
I don't know of any sin that isn't wilful. Do you?Perhaps it's a case of earnest 'search'? We don't know the details and how they 'help' or impede...but we try...
I find the Bible lays out the mechanism of all sorts of things in fantastic detail and harmony. The nature of salvation is but one.and for 'once' I am rather glad this chat hasn't started off going down the road of...... 'How I interpret this, or how I interpret that'..in the bible, because it's quite clear, that 'both' views are there, but 'I' believe the fullness is truth and dignity is found in the Catholic church!....
You would agree tho' that this is a personal choice of yours at root. Where it is you lay your head, so to speak. And so, it differs not at all, at root, from what I do. I chose myself where to lay my head. We find this "personal primacy" expressed perfectly in..We either interpret ourselves or, as with the Catholic faith we see the truth ( Holy Spirit ) at work, and study it with an open heart
- I am the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from various sources)
- You are the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from one source)
Ultimately we both do our own interpretation - what with each of us being the one to choose where our interpretation comes from. And both claiming assist from the Holy Spirit......yes, there are bad people everywhere, but, imo, the 'stock' and fullness of faith can be found in no other...and the dignity it gives each person is like no other..the dignity of 'full' free will empoweres the person to choose wisely, which I believe God intended..
The biblical position is that as lost men we are all bad. All in sin. All equally in need of salvation. "No one is righteous - not one". And as saved men have the righteousness of Christ.As Roman Catholics this isn't an 'insincere' concept, to believe wholeheartedy in Christ as the savior is beautiful! ..and most likely will bring many souls home....but the view presented here seems 'boastful' and 'sure'....
It is sure. 100% sure. The suggestion is that any loving father (a model not chosen by God per accident) would want his children to be 100% sure.
It is not boastful in the sense of me boasting of myself - I did nothing to contribute. How can I boast in myself?
The word "boast" is a bit like the word "jealously". It tends to always be seen in negative light. There are good shades of jealously however - such as "He was jealous of his wifes honourable name". Or Exodus "3414 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Similarily, there is no problem boasting...Gal 6:14
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"
That's who I boast in. Not in myself.However, we also believe that when we give ourselves in 'faith' in Jesus, which is our 'Grace'..( Lingo, Lingo ) and 'give' ourselves completely, he 'never' loses us! The difference perhaps here is the 'completely'....and how we define it? We believe we 'must' abide and this abiding 'shows' in the fruit we bear and above all our love for eachother...
Which brings us back on topic. It might be that we can agree that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by works - with the works being an expression of whether you want what Jesus offers or not. I simply cannot figure out how words like "must abide" can be used without the inferance of an "or else" attached.
And your wanting what he offers must reach a certain standard ("completely") before you obtain what he offers. There is a bar that must be cleared (the height of which, cruelly, you don't know - because "completely" isn't defined anywhere)
How would you define a works-salvation if not so?Once saved always saved, seems to give absolute 'credence' and the ultimate sacrifice of Christ as our saviour that 'never' loses us in 'grace'...which is certain and sure so long as we 'stay' that way and don't reject him inwardly and in doing so 'outwardly'....
..but 'grace' is subject to 'abidance'....
No it is not.
Grace is a word from which the word gratis derives. The word gratis means 100% free. Grace is not conditional on you doing something, it is not paid for, it is not retracted if you don't scale certain heights. Grace which is earned/paid for/worked for in order to retain it ...isn't grace. You need to think of a different word for whatever it is that is being issued by God. English, at the end of the day, remains English
St. Francis perhaps puts it well...
To 'love' goodness quite simply because of goodness, and not to be so sure of heaven, or concentrate so much on 'saved'...but so serve in humility and hope....
Slaves to sin cannot love goodness. The very nature of fallen men is to hate goodness. Perhaps that's where we also differ - you're supposing that we have free will.
Could you answer that query posed earlier? The one in which I asked whether you would continue serving God if you someway knew now that you'd miss the mark set by him and would be finally lost?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »The purpose of the thread is to tease out what it is Roman Catholicism teaches in the first instance. Thereafter, the idea would be to figure out whether "things to be done" (assuming there are things to be done) can be described as 'work'.
In any such discussion, where two very different opinions exist about the way things are, faith (or the argument which supports one's faith) may be undermined. I wouldn't myself be concerned with that. It is through such discussions that I moved from being Calvinistically-inclined to not. And from being YEC to not. If my position doesn't successfully meet challenges then my position should be willing to change. That's what I think anyway.
Yes, I see where you are coming from with the 'things to be done' bit; especially from a osas perspective...I can also see where you would derive this from scripture too....although I wonder at why we don't look at the whole sometimes rather than 'pluck'. There are very many Protestants who believe in the 'Sacraments' and also many older faiths too.....as found in the east...'baptism'!
I think you may be undermining the emphasis on faith and the idea of persevering in faith and all that entails...One cannot ignore that the Catholic Church doesn't only teach to 'work' our way to salvation, and I am only being honest when I say, 'I am Catholic' and by the grace of Jesus Christ, and mercy of God I will finally be saved...
My 'saving' is not the 'issue' in my faith, yes it's important, but more importantly stressed is what that 'journey' of accepting Christ as my personal saviour entails to my soul and to my duty to persevere for myself and for others..
...Yes, I can see how you 'may' think that it's an awful awl guilt trip RC are put on coming from a osas perspective...but I can honestly say, that I can actually 'see' where you are coming from, but I don't think you really see my faith without the fudge factor of osas....I'm not all that convinced that the length of time Roman Catholicism has been around for has any absolute bearing on anything. Nor am I convinced that Roman Catholicism has been around for quite as long as it says it has been (ie: from Peter on). Evolutionarily speaking, an animal today can rightly claim direct connection back to an origin point. That doesn't mean a human is an amoeba though. To my mind, the church of Christ in constantly evolving and the Catholic church is but one branch of that evolution
The question we're addressing here is whether that branch is one that should be (or has been already) cut off by the Gardener.
I see the 'cutting off' more as an 'individual' than an entire philosophy or church antiskeptic. I am quite sure there are very many Protestants who are brought up in a branch of the faith and will stand before God knowing they did their best. I, however am testifying on behalf of my age old faith, that we do not teach a 'works' based salvation; no more than when I scratch the surface of osas, that a person can lose ones salvation if they once believed they were saved and then rejected Christ....There is a past, present and future tense in this linear existence. Catholics are not trying to undermine the 'grace' of Christ or say we 'don't believe' we are 'worthy' and want to go 'back' in time; we are just facing up to the responsibility that his 'grace' has given us!...but we can be 'saved' by no other....absolutely 'no' other than 'Jesus Christ'...In Protestant denominations there is a saying along the lines of "in essentials unity, in no-essentials tolerance". I'm not all that sure that a middle ground is possible on the essential in question here however. Nor am I inclined to suppose the unity Christ/Paul exorted us to, involves diluting those essentials.
By work/man or by grace/God are about as polar opposite as you can get. By works + by grace isn't a middle ground
The 'middle ground' is our 'savior' and we discuss our beliefs, fears etc with that in mind. I am sorry and saddened that the view of my faith in some circles has so much prejudice, some of the 'concepts' of which are really so way off the mark as regards how we actually operate as individuals...The two positions sound very similar, don't they? The Bible teaches that Christians have a responsibility both to others and to self and to God. That there is a race to be won, a struggle to be engaged in, a master to be obeyed. The glaring difference however is that 'my' system doesn't involve a salvation-related "or else" at any point in proceedings. There are consequences for disobedience of course. But just not salvation-related consequences.
The "or else" inherent in your system is but a tiny term. But it renders our respective systems of salvation as night and day.
Yes, I see where you are coming from when you believe at a point in time that you are 'saved' come whatever may or do whatever may.
Here's the thing though;
Say I'm a Christian who believes that Christ holds me unconditionally from a point in time and I am happy at that point in time that there isn't anything that can seperate me etc. from the Grace of God.....
Then, I convert to [insert any faith, that doesn't have Christ at it's helm]
...Now I'm in dark water; I'm not so 'saved' as I thought I was....
..or am I?
There is a logical flaw here?
I agree, that my faith does emphasise responsibility to abide in Christ and in doing so to above all love our neighbour....I'm not claiming we all 'do' that in practice, I'm simply saying that it's the message at the core of the Catholic faith. 'Faith, hope, and Charity'....OSAS is both a dangerous doctrine - at least on first sight - and a beautiful doctrine. Dangerous because it immediately introduces the logical conclusion: "hang on a sec, doesn't that mean that I can sin all I like and still get to heaven? Hey Ho, let's go!!"
There are but two main objections to the doctrine of salvation by grace and this is one of them. Paul, after presenting his argument for salvation by grace (Romans 3:20 > end chapter 5) immediately takes on the objections he predicts will be raised. Starting with this, your one.
Addressing Christians in Romans 6, who've just been told that God's grace is what overcomes sin unto salvation.
Go on sinning? "By no means ...don't you know.." Don't you know what's happened to you? Don't you know what you now are? Don't you know that you've been translated out of the realm of satan into the very family of God? Don't you know you've actually been put to death regarding sin within and have been raised to new life. Don't you know that you've been born again - that the Old You that enjoyed and revelled in sin by nature has been crucified in Christ? Don't you know that the purpose of God doing this was that you could lead new life?
Logically you can go on sinning all you like. But there is more to life than logic. How about living consistant with who and what you are? Does living consistantly with what you are involve a WWII Allied soldier fighting for the Nazi's? Is it consistant living that a policeman engage in burglary? Of course not!! By no means.
Exactly!!!!....All the Catholic church teaches is that we have to bear in mind to 'abide' in Christ, and in so doing we are never 'lost'....
...if we 'abide', all things that flow from us is flowing from the will of Christ...anything that doesn't fit in with Christ's plan is a warning sign that we are going slightly off the narrow path...
This is why I don't see why the mark in the sand is so 'murky' between what Catholics 'actually' believe and what the Church's role is in helping the faithful as a family in Christ; the Church is obliged to warn us of being too overconfident before we stand before God.......otherwise they are doing the faithful an 'injustice'......That is Pauls approach - inevitably so, when he is exhorting us to work in any of his epistles. Be consistant with what and who you are. Don't live incongruently. The exhortation appeals to that LOGIC. IF you are a child of God THEN live like a child of God. Anything else and you are being illogical.
Totally agree....! Our 'life' goes on after we find our faith in Jesus, and we must 'live' that way....And it's a beautiful doctrine. Imagine what it would feel like to know your eternal life has started already - and is irrevocably yours. Imagine how you'd look on life now - through completely new eyes. And the attitude you'd have to others realising that they are trapped in their sin. And the attitude you might have on approaching death. Consider the term "life in abundance" and ask yourself whether the potential prospect of loosing your salvation (because you don't, as a Roman Catholic, know that life won't permit you to fall from grace) is as abundant a prospect as the one in which your eternal destination is secure - whatever life brings.
Yes, I can see that it is a rather lovely way of feeling...to be honest, it's not so far from the way I felt when as a RC I encountered the real and present Christ for the first time; Wow!! Of course I understand that Christ never loses us, and I totally agree with you on this score; there is a 'footnote' to this imo though, and it is;...so long as we abide with him after the encounter...I'm not sure of the point you're making here. I'm not suggesting Jesus eradicated sin. We do sin and we do need ongoing forgiveness. The idea is that Jesus covered all my sin: past, present ..and future.
I don't know of any sin that isn't wilful. Do you?
Willful 'sin' is different from a sin one may commit without even knowing it...or being ignorant of it. I often think of the quote, 'To those whom much has been given, much is expected'.....I find the Bible lays out the mechanism of all sorts of things in fantastic detail and harmony. The nature of salvation is but one.
Yes, only found in Jesus Christ who made our salvation possible wholly and completely.You would agree tho' that this is a personal choice of yours at root. Where it is you lay your head, so to speak. And so, it differs not at all, at root, from what I do. I chose myself where to lay my head. We find this "personal primacy" expressed perfectly in..
Most certainly I would concede that! I am only starting out on my journey and if one searches and starts their journey then we have a lot to deal with as regards choosing wisely. I have no prejudice in me, or at least I try really hard not to..- I am the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from various sources)
- You are the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from one source)
Ultimately we both do our own interpretation - what with each of us being the one to choose where our interpretation comes from. And both claiming assist from the Holy Spirit.
I think this is the main area where we seperate on how we draw our conclusions ( and that doesn't necessarily mean we are totally at odds; even if you believe we are..lol..) I think the Holy Spirit is found in very many places.
'My' journey started off examining tons of 'faiths' most of them more hip than the one I felt a real bond and continuity with...I understand this.The biblical position is that as lost men we are all bad. All in sin. All equally in need of salvation. "No one is righteous - not one". And as saved men have the righteousness of Christ.
It is sure. 100% sure. The suggestion is that any loving father (a model not chosen by God per accident) would want his children to be 100% sure.
It is not boastful in the sense of me boasting of myself - I did nothing to contribute. How can I boast in myself?
The word "boast" is a bit like the word "jealously". It tends to always be seen in negative light. There are good shades of jealously however - such as "He was jealous of his wifes honourable name". Or Exodus "3414 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Similarily, there is no problem boasting...Gal 6:14
Ok, I don't quote understand this outlook, but I believe you do understand it yourself and are ok with it."May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"
That's who I boast in. Not in myself.
Yes! That's who I 'rejoice' in too....Which brings us back on topic. It might be that we can agree that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by works - with the works being an expression of whether you want what Jesus offers or not. I simply cannot figure out how words like "must abide" can be used without the inferance of an "or else" attached.
There is an 'or else' attached to us all if we don't do God's will. The Church has an obligation to make us aware of not being so 'sure', but to stay in Christs grace and submit ourselves, and to make sure we know to examine our outward actions and whether they are inline with what we 'believe' we have accepted within. Christ if he is fully in control doesn't 'do' sin...And your wanting what he offers must reach a certain standard ("completely") before you obtain what he offers. There is a bar that must be cleared (the height of which, cruelly, you don't know - because "completely" isn't defined anywhere)
How would you define a works-salvation if not so?
Ohh no! We don't presume anything as far as judgement is concerned and the individual soul; only God judges that....we presume nothing. The Church is just the earthly tool that Jesus gave us to help us stay on the narrow path...No it is not.
Grace is a word from which the word gratis derives. The word gratis means 100% free. Grace is not conditional on you doing something, it is not paid for, it is not retracted if you don't scale certain heights. Grace which is earned/paid for/worked for in order to retain it ...isn't grace. You need to think of a different word for whatever it is that is being issued by God. English, at the end of the day, remains English
I agree, 'Grace' comes from Christ alone who covers our sins and is present yesterday, today, and tomorrow to keep us in his 'grace' and to submit to his will to bear fruit and love one another.Slaves to sin cannot love goodness. The very nature of fallen men is to hate goodness. Perhaps that's where we also differ - you're supposing that we have free will.
Could you answer that query posed earlier? The one in which I asked whether you would continue serving God if you someway knew now that you'd miss the mark set by him and would be finally lost?
That's a good if kinda weird question antiskeptik considering we both live in linear time and neither you or I know....
..and you too presume 'free will' ??? and reject predestination???
However, I will try to answer as best I can in the 'view' of what my faith teaches...which highlights our reflection in the image of God, in that we are made with the dignity of free will, which is the ultimate expression of God our maker and his 'will'.... and not made just for amusement purposes....
We are 'loved'!
I 'always' live in 'hope'.....but that doesn't 'undermine' who my savior is when my saving happens, 'if' or if not, it happens! that actually is; Jesus!...both yours and my savior...
...and boy that took a looongg time to type out! Here's hoping it doesn't disappear, or post twice..lol...and congrats and my sympathies to anybody who gets to the end! 0 -
Yes, I see where you are coming from with the 'things to be done' bit; especially from a osas perspective...I can also see where you would derive this from scripture too....although I wonder at why we don't look at the whole sometimes rather than 'pluck'. There are very many Protestants who believe in the 'Sacraments' and also many older faiths too.....as found in the east...'baptism'!
The challenge for any system is that it reconcile the whole of scripture - taking it's understanding from scripture rather than inserting it's doctrine into scripture. The grace alone/osas position does take account of verses that would appear to indicate work required, or salvation lose-able.
I'm not sure what the relevance to discussion of Protestants believing in sacrements (I believe marriage is a sacrement) or baptism (which I believe is wrought by the Holy Spirit on consciouse individuals - not by priests with water on babies). All the difference lies in the details. Beside, the issue isn't where there is unity, nor is it disagreement on non-essentials (if both consider them non-essentials). The issue is the very means of salvation itself - which is hardly a non-essential.
And whether your work influences your being saved. Or not.I think you may be undermining the emphasis on faith and the idea of persevering in faith and all that entails...One cannot ignore that the Catholic Church doesn't only teach to 'work' our way to salvation, and I am only being honest when I say, 'I am Catholic' and by the grace of Jesus Christ, and mercy of God I will finally be saved...
What does perservering in faith entail? For to persevere involves effort. And effort expended (whether physical/mental/emotional effort) is per definition, work.
I understand you saying that it is only by the grace of Jesus that you would be saved (if you are to be saved). The question is: does your work/perservering in faith influence his applying this particular grace to you? Let me put it another way:
Does your confessing of your sin more influence him to save you?
Does your not committing mortal sin more influence him to save you?
Does your going to mass or partaking of other sacrements more influence him to save you?
Does the effort involved in persevering in faith more influence him to save you?
Does the quality of your life more influence him to save you?
Does the communing and relationship that might arise from such activity more influence him to save you?
Does your remaining more in the centre of the narrow path than falling of the edges more influence him to save you?
Does your being a Catholic more influence him to save you?
If "no" to all these questions (and any other effort-based questions that might arise), if saying that these things have no bearing whatsoever on your chances of being saved by grace then I would concede Roman Catholicism does not teach a works-salvation.
I would also have to conclude that Roman Catholicism has nothing to say on what it takes to be saved - other than that "it's a mystery why God saves a person" - in which case I'd have to question the value of Roman Catholicism. And whether it is right that they have people focus on things that have no bearing on their salvation. This is eternity we're talking about afterall.My 'saving' is not the 'issue' in my faith, yes it's important, but more importantly stressed is what that 'journey' of accepting Christ as my personal saviour entails to my soul and to my duty to persevere for myself and for others..
...Yes, I can see how you 'may' think that it's an awful awl guilt trip RC are put on coming from a osas perspective...but I can honestly say, that I can actually 'see' where you are coming from, but I don't think you really see my faith without the fudge factor of osas....
Your salvation isn't the issue? Of course it's the issue! What worth all that focus on 'journey' if the destination is that you be tossed on the rubbish heap? What worth is there in daily accepting Jesus as personal saviour - if it's not that important whether or not he turns out to actually save you.
A race stripped of a finish line, a task without a goal is no race and no task. It's not that you have to focus on the goal - there being much worth in the participation. But strip the import of the goal away and you have nothing.
I'm not sure what the "fudge factor" of osas means here.I see the 'cutting off' more as an 'individual' than an entire philosophy or church antiskeptic.
Tell that to the church at Laodicea ..Revelation 314"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.I am quite sure there are very many Protestants who are brought up in a branch of the faith and will stand before God knowing they did their best. I, however am testifying on behalf of my age old faith, that we do not teach a 'works' based salvation; no more than when I scratch the surface of osas, that a person can lose ones salvation if they once believed they were saved and then rejected Christ....There is a past, present and future tense in this linear existence. Catholics are not trying to undermine the 'grace' of Christ or say we 'don't believe' we are 'worthy' and want to go 'back' in time; we are just facing up to the responsibility that his 'grace' has given us!...but we can be 'saved' by no other....absolutely 'no' other than 'Jesus Christ'...
The answers given to the questions above should clarify things here.
Note that grace must be a part of any system of salvation. For example: God providing a way of salvation that involves our work can still be said to be one that relies on God's grace. It is God's grace that provides the system. And God's grace that honours and converts the work done into salvationThe 'middle ground' is our 'savior' and we discuss our beliefs, fears etc with that in mind. I am sorry and saddened that the view of my faith in some circles has so much prejudice, some of the 'concepts' of which are really so way off the mark as regards how we actually operate as individuals...
Again, your answers to questions should clarify.
It's not so much prejudice, as my having heard many knowledgable-sounding Roman Catholics say works are a part of salvation. They point to James for their proof for example.Yes, I see where you are coming from when you believe at a point in time that you are 'saved' come whatever may or do whatever may.
Here's the thing though;
Say I'm a Christian who believes that Christ holds me unconditionally from a point in time and I am happy at that point in time that there isn't anything that can seperate me etc. from the Grace of God.....
Then, I convert to [insert any faith, that doesn't have Christ at it's helm]
...Now I'm in dark water; I'm not so 'saved' as I thought I was....
..or am I?
You are. Your salvation doesn't rely on your believing you are saved. It doesn't rely on you at all. Remember the depths to which our Prodigal Son fell.I agree, that my faith does emphasise responsibility to abide in Christ and in doing so to above all love our neighbour....I'm not claiming we all 'do' that in practice, I'm simply saying that it's the message at the core of the Catholic faith. 'Faith, hope, and Charity'....
I believe I have a responsibility to abide in Christ. The question is what happens if I don't - in your system and mine. Again, your answers above should clarify.Exactly!!!!....All the Catholic church teaches is that we have to bear in mind to 'abide' in Christ, and in so doing we are never 'lost'....
...if we 'abide', all things that flow from us is flowing from the will of Christ...anything that doesn't fit in with Christ's plan is a warning sign that we are going slightly off the narrow path...
This is why I don't see why the mark in the sand is so 'murky' between what Catholics 'actually' believe and what the Church's role is in helping the faithful as a family in Christ; the Church is obliged to warn us of being too overconfident before we stand before God.......otherwise they are doing the faithful an 'injustice'......
You don't seem to recognise the inherent "or else" in your having to abide in Christ.
Your answers to the above questions should clarify though.
(quote]Totally agree....! Our 'life' goes on after we find our faith in Jesus, and we must 'live' that way....[/quote]
Your answer to the above questions your clarify what happens if the "must" isn't satisfied sufficiently.Yes, I can see that it is a rather lovely way of feeling...to be honest, it's not so far from the way I felt when as a RC I encountered the real and present Christ for the first time; Wow!! Of course I understand that Christ never loses us, and I totally agree with you on this score; there is a 'footnote' to this imo though, and it is;...so long as we abide with him after the encounter...
And that footnote underlines the cavernous divide between the two systems. Here is the "or else" I was speaking of. "So long as..." with the consequences of failing to meet this condition sufficiently being your damnation (or more likely damnation)Willful 'sin' is different from a sin one may commit without even knowing it...or being ignorant of it. I often think of the quote, 'To those whom much has been given, much is expected'.....
Could you give me an example of a sin you can commit un-willfully?Yes, only found in Jesus Christ who made our salvation possible wholly and completely.
Made possible. All that remains to do is that you do the abiding?I think this is the main area where we seperate on how we draw our conclusions ( and that doesn't necessarily mean we are totally at odds; even if you believe we are..lol..) I think the Holy Spirit is found in very many places.
'My' journey started off examining tons of 'faiths' most of them more hip than the one I felt a real bond and continuity with...I understand this.
Okay. My point was that we are both personally interpreting. I chose my way - you choose your way. Which would mean this statement of yours..
"We either interpret ourselves or, as with the Catholic faith.."
...isn't an either/or statement in fact. That you personally choose the Catholic intepretation and that I personally choose whatever interpretation I chose means we are both interpreting ourselves .. at root. It's just that in one case, the interpreting duties are contracted out to another.
That the one person shoots another in the head (personal interpretation) and the other contracts out the killing to another (takes on the Catholic interpretation) doesn't alter both being murderersThere is an 'or else' attached to us all if we don't do God's will. The Church has an obligation to make us aware of not being so 'sure', but to stay in Christs grace and submit ourselves, and to make sure we know to examine our outward actions and whether they are inline with what we 'believe' we have accepted within. Christ if he is fully in control doesn't 'do' sin...
Okay. The "or else" provides a motivation to do the work.Ohh no! We don't presume anything as far as judgement is concerned and the individual soul; only God judges that....we presume nothing. The Church is just the earthly tool that Jesus gave us to help us stay on the narrow path...
...with the end being potential salvation. Working to stay on the narrow path with a view to final salvation. That you can never be sure doesn't alter the work element.I agree, 'Grace' comes from Christ alone who covers our sins and is present yesterday, today, and tomorrow to keep us in his 'grace' and to submit to his will to bear fruit and love one another.
Your answers above should clarify what happens if you don't play your part.That's a good if kinda weird question antiskeptik considering we both live in linear time and neither you or I know....
..and you too presume 'free will' ??? and reject predestination???
However, I will try to answer as best I can in the 'view' of what my faith teaches...which highlights our reflection in the image of God, in that we are made with the dignity of free will, which is the ultimate expression of God our maker and his 'will'.... and not made just for amusement purposes....
We are 'loved'!
I 'always' live in 'hope'.....but that doesn't 'undermine' who my savior is when my saving happens, 'if' or if not, it happens! that actually is; Jesus!...both yours and my savior...
...and boy that took a looongg time to type out! Here's hoping it doesn't disappear, or post twice..lol...and congrats and my sympathies to anybody who gets to the end!
This doesn't answer the question (which is a thought-experiment so you don't have to concern yourself with the fact that you can't actually see into the future)
So again, if you knew already that you weren't going to be saved finally, would you persevere in the faith for the various reasons you've given. The suggestion is that a "no" answer underlines just how much the prospect of final salvation motivates your activity - even if you don't happen to focus on it in the minute.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Hi antiskeptic, I just sat down and typed a huge long post and the silly thing timed out on me when i posted..so annoying!!! I will answer your post 'again' tomorrow lol...cause you asked so many questions the reply was quite long..
Where do I go on boards to find out why I get timed out after logging in and replying? Anybody? Is it the Holy Spirit telling me to shush..lol....
Sickner - although pressing the back button gets me back to the reply box in Firefox.
A good case for assembling your posts in Word and copying the text to the reply box (something I used to do in Explorer cos the back button didn't always maintain what I'd written)
0 -
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Yet when we look at repentence, we see it means turning away from the sin. Which means struggling and striving not to commit that sin again
Strictly speaking - no. It's only acknowledgement that sin is wrong and I don't want to be bound to it. The rest is the fruits, same as the in Protestantism the works are fruits of faith. However definition of works is not really relevant to the topic we're discussing. As I've said before Catholicism does not really separate works from faith at least the way Protestantism do it. Therefore it's rather pointless to apply Protestant categories to Catholicism and then try to make sense of Catholic soteriology in those categories. This will get us nowhere.
The question here is what kind of trouble?It's just that in Roman Catholicism, those works need to shape up to a standard or else you're in trouble.
So it is in RCC afaik.In grace-based salvation, the works demonstrate your faith alright. But you are not condemned for your lack of expression of faith.
It's not about salvation.If they don't know how it works, then they have no business advising that a person need do this that and the other by way of works
Do I really? I seemed to be suggesting that from the RCC perspective we don't know. Any speculations whether it reduces or increases or leaves equal the chances of salvation are pointless.You seem to be suggesting that the person who couldn't give a fig about God, church, repentance, communion and all the rest of it has as much of a chance of salvation as the person who does all they can to commune with God?
If we say that something (be it faith or works) is increasing the chances of salvation aren't we trying to limit God's freedom and sovereignty? If we are saying that lack of something is diminishing the chances of salvation aren't we trying to set a limit on God's mercy? That is the Catholic position as far as I understand it.As soon as salvation chances are increased/diminished by your communing/non-communing activities you are back to a works-based system. Back to appeasing God.
Now this is only my understanding of the Catholic faith and I could be wrong here (I'm not even a member of the RCC) but I find it rather amazing that when talking about salvation even the Catechism only identifies the source of it but pretty much silent on the means.
Do you know if there are any infallible (per RCC standards) sources which teach works-based salvation? Maybe as we all have exchanged opinions in this thread it's time to look at the books of evidence? I would be very much interested to see any such teachings. 0 -
Do I really? I seemed to be suggesting that from the RCC perspective we don't know. Any speculations whether it reduces or increases or leaves equal the chances of salvation are pointless.
All of which would seem to render Roman Catholicism superfluous - given that it has no system of salvation to offer people - other than "it's from Christ and a mystery as to how one is to access it"If we say that something (be it faith or works) is increasing the chances of salvation aren't we trying to limit God's freedom and sovereignty? If we are saying that lack of something is diminishing the chances of salvation aren't we trying to set a limit on God's mercy? That is the Catholic position as far as I understand it.
I don't see how.
If God decides to scribe a line in the sand beyond which salvation is issued. And decides that certain things move you towards and other things away from that line then he is sovereignly entitled to do so.Now this is only my understanding of the Catholic faith and I could be wrong here (I'm not even a member of the RCC) but I find it rather amazing that when talking about salvation even the Catechism only identifies the source of it but pretty much silent on the means.
I'm dealing with it as I come across Roman Catholics dealing with it. StealthRolex, Onesimus, Smurfhousing all appear to insist on works a factor in whether you'll be saved or not. Even the Roman Catholic dog in the street seems to hold that view.
lmaopml is the first self-confessed (:)) Catholic that seems to hold another view - but I'm awaiting her response to a list of questions which should help clarify her stance.Do you know if there are any infallible (per RCC standards) sources which teach works-based salvation? Maybe as we all have exchanged opinions in this thread it's time to look at the books of evidence? I would be very much interested to see any such teachings.
I think it would be more interesting to examine how it is that so many Catholics labour under the impression that their work counts towards their salvation. That is the effect of Roman Catholic teaching on the ground and so is Roman Catholic teaching. Unless you're a legalist of course..
I'd also be interested in hearing what on earth Roman Catholics are doing communing with a God about whom they know nothing regarding their salvation. They could be worshipping the very person whose this minute intending to cast them into outer darkness come judgement. How does one reconcile this I wonder.. 0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »All of which would seem to render Roman Catholicism superfluous - given that it has no system of salvation to offer people - other than "it's from Christ and a mystery as to how one is to access it"
On the other hand why would Church need to present or even research the details and criteria of salvation when it Christ who saves, not the Church?
Saying that, RCC is not completely silent on salvation. It clearly says who saves (Christ) and how it looks from our perspective (grace). I don't see it much different to the common Protestant understanding. I think the root cause of the majority (if not all) disagreements between Catholics and Protestants are not faith matters but rather ecclesiological differences. They don't agree on what is Church and what its role should be.
It's your understanding and it makes perfect sense in your tradition but we are looking at things from the Catholic perspective, don't we?I don't see how.
If God decides to scribe a line in the sand beyond which salvation is issued. And decides that certain things move you towards and other things away from that line then he is sovereignly entitled to do so.
StealthRolex did not post in the thread, did they? Onesimus and Smurfhousing were more attacking Protestant position rather then explaining the Catholic teachings. Anyway, what question this thread is dealing with? What is the RCC teaching o[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]r[/FONT] what do the local Catholic posters believe? I thought it's the former but it would be wrong from methodological and statistical point of view to count yes/no "votes" from boards members. Looking at the official teachings of RCC would be be more logical I guess.I'm dealing with it as I come across Roman Catholics dealing with it. StealthRolex, Onesimus, Smurfhousing all appear to insist on works a factor in whether you'll be saved or not. Even the Roman Catholic dog in the street seems to hold that view.
lmaopml is the first self-confessed (:)) Catholic that seems to hold another view - but I'm awaiting her response to a list of questions which should help clarify her stance.
Without answering the OP question first I guess it would not be too interesting. I also think that phrasing it like this is not really nice unless you can prove your claim somehow (but in this case what was the point of starting this thread if you already knew the answer).I think it would be more interesting to examine how it is that so many Catholics labour under the impression that their work counts towards their salvation.
They know enough. BTW, looking again at the way you're phrased it, have we already started treating Catholics as mentally challenged if their beliefs are not the same as ours without trying to understand where they are coming from?I'd also be interested in hearing what on earth Roman Catholics are doing communing with a God about whom they know nothing regarding their salvation.
So what? Isn't it a fair position? If you find yourself on your own in the ocean near your sunk ship and see a lifeboat that mysteriously appeared nearby isn't it natural to try to make your way to it? Is it it natural to think that those on board are not obliged to rescue you no matter how strongly you believe that they are the true and the only saviours but it's only by their mercy you can be saved? Especially if you realise that you do not deserve to be among those on the lifeboat (and somehow it's your fault as well that the ship has sunk). Isn't it natural to have a hope still?They could be worshipping the very person whose this minute intending to cast them into outer darkness come judgement.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement