What do you mean by "required for salvation", Rick?
I mean "Do you believe salvation comes by God's grace, through faith in Christ, alone, or are you not saved unless you are baptized in water, perform the Eucharist, etc."
If you mean that if you don't receive them you have not met the necessary conditions for salvation and therefore will go to Hell (or not go to Heaven, if you want to make a distinction), then there is a sense Catholics would agree with you.
That's basically what I'm asking. And, not just for Catholics, but Byblos is graciously taking the time to deal with my questions.
The reason is that they are "required for salvation" only in the normal sense, all things being equal, they are the means by which we receive the one thing that is required for salvation: the grace of God.
If that is what you and Byblos are saying, then I disagree. I believe we receive the grace of God, required for salvation, by believing on Christ, not by the sacraments.
Thus, Catholics insist that there is a sense that they are saved through faith alone, insofar as the sacraments are really works of faith by which they receive the grace of God.
I understand that. Then I guess you're right about "faith" being the word in question here.
Everyone has always agreed (wrongly, I think) that works of the moral law are required for salvation, but that they are not human works--they are works wrought by the Holy Spirit, and that we receive the grace necessary to be saved via the sacraments and ordinances, and the reception of those sacraments and ordinances (e.g, prayer, Bible study, the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc.) in faith is what enables a person to live so; or better, it is the means by which God applies His saving grace.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't agree with that.
That idea is even in the staunchest Southern Baptist Church. Why do you think they emphasize Bible study so much? That's the means by which we receive the grace to live out our repentance towards God, which validates their "profession of faith." But just studying the Bible won't do it, they say. It's studying the Bible in faith, that is, believing that it is the Word of God and applicable to your life as the rule of faith and living. Put differently, we put ourselves under the authority of Scripture, which is an act of faith.
How, for instance, do you think a Southern Baptist would feel and respond if you told them that putting themselves under the authority of Scripture was a work? They'd obviously react rather negatively. And suppose you asked them what was necessary for sanctification? They would surely say something along the lines of a commitment to discipleship, which is to say (again), a deep and lasting commitment to living under the authority of the Word. And again, if you accused them therefore of being committed to a works based salvation (insofar as sanctification is part of the salvation process)?
I would have no problem calling that a works based salvation, or at least, a works based santification.
The Catholics that I have talked to have a similar reaction when Protestants accuse them of a works based salvation. The great irony is that the vast majority of Protestants I have talked to about the issue (especially Reformed Protestants) really believe the same types of things as Catholics with regard to works, justification, and sanctification. The terminology is different, so they don't see the connection. But it's right there in their own definitions. You mentioned fiducia earlier in the thread. I'm telling you, and I'll prove it in a few days, fiducia in Reformed Theology is virtually identical to the Roman view. Faith is not merely assent (assensus, but actually faithfulness--the ongoing living out of the moral life.
My only point with distinguishing between different kinds of faith, was to say that only an intellectual faith(like the demons have) won't save. I'd like to see what you have to say, though.
I would suggest again, then, that the argument is not the nature of works, and it does precious little good to accuse someone of practicing a "salvation by works." The argument is the nature of faith, and the truly damning assertion is that the person who says they have faith in Christ has no such thing because they have misdefined faith.
Ok, then what's the next step to see if we can come to an agreement on what faith is? Although, I'm getting the impression from you that there won't be any consensus.
And, I'm not singling out Catholicism. I'm questioning any denomination, that I'm seeing as 'works-based'. No Catholic bashing here. Just trying to question as honestly as I can.
Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns, Jac. I do appreciate it.
So, according to Catholicism, one believes he must continue to participate in these sacraments, on a daily, or weekly basis, in order to feel a measure of security? If, as a Catholic, I believe if I don't participate in the sacraments, I may deny Christ, and "lose my salvation", for lack of a better term? Can't you see how this leads me to think that as a Catholic, I must participate in sacraments, in order to have a hope of not losing my salvation? Furthermore, can't you see how I feel that's a terrible burden for one to carry. Feeling that if I skip church, then I miss some sacraments here or there, then I may fall away from Christ, and deny Him? Do you really live with that kind of stress?