Catholics and Non Catholics

[Gman]

It's just that the catholic church's understanding wasn't really that far off

Howdy, I'm back... Well I think it was pretty far off at the time. With the Council of Trent from 1545 - 1563 it was considered one of the most important councils in the history of the Catholic church as a response to the theological and ecclesiological challenges of the Protestant Reformation. Canons 11 and 24 stated the following about faith and works, (from that meeting).

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Moreover, the Council of Trent is still upheld as authoritative by Rome. Pope John XIII who convened the Vatican II Council made it plain in his opening speech that Trent remained in force: "The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians and which ... still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent" (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715). The Vatican II Council repeatedly referred to Trent as authoritative. The present Pope also affirms Trent. In his 1984 encyclical, Pope John Paul II called Catholics back to the canons and decrees of that Council.

Thank God that the claim of infallibility as guided by the Holy Spirit is given to the church and not to individuals.

Who was the Apostle Peter or Paul?

Exactly my point; she's got the right idea (about Catholics and Protestants being similar). Maybe you should talk to her more.

Well if they are similar why aren't Catholics attending Protestant Churches and visa versa today? Although I think we can agree on some things such as abortion or the trinity, I still think there are a number of things we still differ on. Another one would be sainthood. Why all the beatification stuff? Why are they mostly Catholic and why are some of them controversial now after they were canonized by the church many years ago?

The ambiguity has since been corrected (thank you HS).

I still think Catholicism teaches that justification occurs by faith and works. I would go into it more but I thought this website below explains it well:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/r ... 0602W2.htm

unless as I said before you are on one extreme of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism

Ah, I kind of like it in the middle. Not too hot not too cold. I'm just looking for the truth. I'm also middle of the road when it comes to politics. Let's just compare the facts...

Just a thought.. I think my point here is I wish we could agree on more things.. I don't hate the catholic church or it's people... I don't like the rifts between the two... I just find some of it's teachings foreign to my beliefs. If I had just the Catholic music and the stain glass windows I'd be happy. I love that chanting stuff too..

God bless,

G -

[Byblos]

It's just that the catholic church's understanding wasn't really that far off

Howdy, I'm back...

Glad you're back Gman.

Well I think it was pretty far off at the time. With the Council of Trent from 1545 - 1563 it was considered one of the most important councils in the history of the Catholic church as a response to the theological and ecclesiological challenges of the Protestant Reformation. Canons 11 and 24 stated the following about faith and works, (from that meeting).

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Let me try to explain what I mean that they weren't far off. Before we examine the quotes above from the council of Trent, keep in mind one thing, catholic doctrine teaches that one can lose their salvation if they do not maintain it with works of love and charity. This is one of the more fundamental differences between catholicism and the reformation. Most reformists believe in Once Saved Always Saved, but at the same time, if one continues to live a sinful life it proves they weren't saved to begin with. So the difference boils down to this: If you're catholic you need to persevere in the faith, otherwise you can lose your salvation and go to hell (i.e. we believe in salvation as a continuous process). The other side of the coin is a one-time, instantaneous salvation that may be proven not to have occurred if a person continues to live in sin or commits a grave sin, in which case they will also go to hell since they really weren't saved to begin with (i.e. it's a continuous process whether we like it or not). Do you really not see the similarities?

Now let's look at canons 11 and 24:

What Canon 11 says is that if anyone thinks they can keep their salvation 'to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost' they can think again. I ask you, how different is that from a saved person who lives in sin and in the end is not really saved?

Canon 24 talks about justice preserved and works being the cause of increase. You will notice nowhere in either canon does it say that works will merit salvation. The theme is that works will always preserve or increase, not merit. And all of that is precisely because salvation in catholic doctrine is a continuous process and not a one time event. That is exactly where the misunderstanding was and why it took nearly 500 years to rectify it. The way I see it, it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. We both believe in an unmerited initial salvation that is the free gift from God. Either we persevere in the faith or lose our salvation (for catholics) or be saved but prove we never really had it (for reformists). The end result is the same, either we walk the path of Jesus or we end up in hell. I hope this clears up what I mean.

Moreover, the Council of Trent is still upheld as authoritative by Rome. Pope John XIII who convened the Vatican II Council made it plain in his opening speech that Trent remained in force: "The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians and which ... still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent" (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715). The Vatican II Council repeatedly referred to Trent as authoritative. The present Pope also affirms Trent. In his 1984 encyclical, Pope John Paul II called Catholics back to the canons and decrees of that Council.

I don't disagree with that, but in light of my explanation above, I think you should see why too.

Thank God that the claim of infallibility as guided by the Holy Spirit is given to the church and not to individuals.

Who was the Apostle Peter or Paul?

I was referring to the church post-apostolic age. Sorry didn't make that clear.

Exactly my point; she's got the right idea (about Catholics and Protestants being similar). Maybe you should talk to her more.

Well if they are similar why aren't Catholics attending Protestant Churches and visa versa today? Although I think we can agree on some things such as abortion or the trinity, I still think there are a number of things we still differ on. Another one would be sainthood. Why all the beatification stuff? Why are they mostly Catholic and why are some of them controversial now after they were canonized by the church many years ago?

I have no problem whatsoever attending Protestant churches and you're doing a fine job attending catholic ones. Yes, of course we still have many differences but none that are terribly important (as far as salvation is concerned) so I think we can very easily put those differences aside. As far as the canonization of saints, well, that's an issue I feel very strongly about. We can discuss this in private if you wish as some of the experiences are very personal. Suffice it to say that I, as a catholic, would not lose a wink of sleep if I never asked a saint to intercede on my behalf. Again, it's not something necessary for salvation but we believe it is beneficial, just as asking our christian friends and family members to pray for us is also beneficial.

The ambiguity has since been corrected (thank you HS).

I still think Catholicism teaches that justification occurs by faith and works. I would go into it more but I thought this website below explains it well:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/r ... 0602W2.htm

Well, I hope I managed to spark a tiny grain of thought to the contrary.

unless as I said before you are on one extreme of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism

Ah, I kind of like it in the middle. Not too hot not too cold. I'm just looking for the truth. I'm also middle of the road when it comes to politics. Let's just compare the facts...

Guess what, we just met in the middle.

Just a thought.. I think my point here is I wish we could agree on more things.. I don't hate the catholic church or it's people... I don't like the rifts between the two... I just find some of it's teachings foreign to my beliefs. If I had just the Catholic music and the stain glass windows I'd be happy. I love that chanting stuff too..

I never once thought that you hated catholics or the church. And my point is that we do agree and the important things. My hope is that more and more people realize that on both sides, just as I did.

God bless,

Byblos.

[Canuckster1127]

Just as a point of information, in the for what it is worth department,

My mentor while I was in college working on a Biblical Literature Degree was Dr James Shelton. He was and still is an associate professor in the New Testament Department of the undergrad program at Oral Roberts University.

Jim is recognized as a leading expert in Luke-Acts.

While I was at ORU in the early 80's, the theology department was charismatic (no surprise there) but Oral Roberts himself was officially a methodist and the grad school acted as a primary feeder into the Oklahoma United Methodist Churches Conference. That changed in the later 80's when they pretty much cleaned house and went with a more aggressive supporting of Word Church theology, (the irony of course being the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to support popular Word church theology, which resulted in a loss of accreditation of the Grad School of Theology, but that is another matter.)

Jim Shelton was UMC and remained through this time as most of the cleaning out was in the grad school, not the undergrad. He eventually was influenced by the writing of Scott Hahn and has since that time converted to Roman Catholicism. ORU chose to keep him aboard despite this. This stands in contrast to many evangelical schools that would have made this grounds for dismissal (Wheaton College had a recent episode of this for instance.)

http://www.scotthahn.com/

Those who know ORU aren't all that surprised. There is a strong charismatic faction within Roman Catholicism that has had ties with ORU for quite some time. A regular speaker while I was a student at ORU was Francis MacNutt, who was a Roman Catholic Priest, (since married and now a RC lay speaker). He had a healing ministry and was very respected by many on campus.

Another popular speaker was Dennis Bennett, an episcopal priest.

So anyway, why I mention this is that there has been some movement in evangelical circles, primarily under the leadership of Scott Hahn, where evangelical academics and scholars have moved back toward catholicism, many joining. Vatican II is a major factor for this.

It's by no means an overwhelming popular trend, but it is worth noting that there are those returning to catholicism who believe that some essential elements of Christian Faith and practise have been lost in protestantism and that the RC church has addressed several of the issues prompting the "split." Of course, much of the reformation found its roots outside of Church matters and was a means of transferring political power and property from an established institutionalized church to a monarchy that sought wealth and power and fixed in part upon such leaders as Luther as a means to accomplish this. Not that simple of course, but it has to be factored in.

I have a personal situation for looking at some of this as my youngest Brother converted to catholicism in order to marry a Filipino girl whose family was catholic and would not have accepted him otherwise. My brother went though the process of discipleship quite seriously and has become very active and committed to the RC church where he plays guitar (he a professional musician) and takes his faith seriously.

He and I had some very deep conversations while he made this transition. He told me at the time and maintains still that while the marriage obviously prompted him to make this transition (it took a year and delayed the ceremony) he came to conclusion that he believes and was prepared in the end to make the transition whether he got married or not. A good deal of the process for him was unlearning some of the things he "knew" about catholicism that he had been taught by evangelicals in Christian Schools who were well meaning, but in his estimation, not balanced.

I have issues with Roman Catholicism in several doctrinal areas and with the history of the Church. However, I have always maintained that emotional anti-catholicism is not a worthy position for any Christian to take. God judges men and women, one at a time. Not as a group. So should we. Further, we need to realize that Protestant groups have only been in existence for about 25% of the span of Church History. Like it or not, the pure faith was maintained within Catholicism for much of Church History. I also believe that protestantism at times has proliferated a great deal of conflicting teaching and overcompensated for the perceived ills of the RC church, (many of which were and are real, but many of which were addressed in the Counter reformation and Vatican II.)

Much of the development of the Church follows the socio-political development of nations moving through monarchy, republics and into democracy and has been impacted by increased literacy, communications technology and by certain strong charismatic (not in the theological sense, I mean in terms of personal appeal) leaders who have moved Christian teaching and communities in directions that upon reflection of the history can be seen as springing as much or more in the context of the times and place, rather than any particular issue that finds it roots solely in Scripture.

Any way, discourse over. This thread just spurred me to share some of my history and thoughts in this area.

Bart

[Byblos]

Just as a point of information, in the for what it is worth department,

My mentor while I was in college working on a Biblical Literature Degree was Dr James Shelton. He was and still is an associate professor in the New Testament Department of the undergrad program at Oral Roberts University.

Jim is recognized as a leading expert in Luke-Acts.

While I was at ORU in the early 80's, the theology department was charismatic (no surprise there) but Oral Roberts himself was officially a methodist and the grad school acted as a primary feeder into the Oklahoma United Methodist Churches Conference. That changed in the later 80's when they pretty much cleaned house and went with a more aggressive supporting of Word Church theology, (the irony of course being the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to support popular Word church theology, which resulted in a loss of accreditation of the Grad School of Theology, but that is another matter.)

Jim Shelton was UMC and remained through this time as most of the cleaning out was in the grad school, not the undergrad. He eventually was influenced by the writing of Scott Hahn and has since that time converted to Roman Catholicism. ORU chose to keep him aboard despite this. This stands in contrast to many evangelical schools that would have made this grounds for dismissal (Wheaton College had a recent episode of this for instance.)

http://www.scotthahn.com/

Those who know ORU aren't all that surprised. There is a strong charismatic faction within Roman Catholicism that has had ties with ORU for quite some time. A regular speaker while I was a student at ORU was Francis MacNutt, who was a Roman Catholic Priest, (since married and now a RC lay speaker). He had a healing ministry and was very respected by many on campus.

Another popular speaker was Dennis Bennett, an episcopal priest.

So anyway, why I mention this is that there has been some movement in evangelical circles, primarily under the leadership of Scott Hahn, where evangelical academics and scholars have moved back toward catholicism, many joining. Vatican II is a major factor for this.

It's by no means an overwhelming popular trend, but it is worth noting that there are those returning to catholicism who believe that some essential elements of Christian Faith and practise have been lost in protestantism and that the RC church has addressed several of the issues prompting the "split." Of course, much of the reformation found its roots outside of Church matters and was a means of transferring political power and property from an established institutionalized church to a monarchy that sought wealth and power and fixed in part upon such leaders as Luther as a means to accomplish this. Not that simple of course, but it has to be factored in.

I have a personal situation for looking at some of this as my youngest Brother converted to catholicism in order to marry a Filipino girl whose family was catholic and would not have accepted him otherwise. My brother went though the process of discipleship quite seriously and has become very active and committed to the RC church where he plays guitar (he a professional musician) and takes his faith seriously.

He and I had some very deep conversations while he made this transition. He told me at the time and maintains still that while the marriage obviously prompted him to make this transition (it took a year and delayed the ceremony) he came to conclusion that he believes and was prepared in the end to make the transition whether he got married or not. A good deal of the process for him was unlearning some of the things he "knew" about catholicism that he had been taught by evangelicals in Christian Schools who were well meaning, but in his estimation, not balanced.

I have issues with Roman Catholicism in several doctrinal areas and with the history of the Church. However, I have always maintained that emotional anti-catholicism is not a worthy position for any Christian to take. God judges men and women, one at a time. Not as a group. So should we. Further, we need to realize that Protestant groups have only been in existence for about 25% of the span of Church History. Like it or not, the pure faith was maintained within Catholicism for much of Church History. I also believe that protestantism at times has proliferated a great deal of conflicting teaching and overcompensated for the perceived ills of the RC church, (many of which were and are real, but many of which were addressed in the Counter reformation and Vatican II.)

Much of the development of the Church follows the socio-political development of nations moving through monarchy, republics and into democracy and has been impacted by increased literacy, communications technology and by certain strong charismatic (not in the theological sense, I mean in terms of personal appeal) leaders who have moved Christian teaching and communities in directions that upon reflection of the history can be seen as springing as much or more in the context of the times and place, rather than any particular issue that finds it roots solely in Scripture.

Any way, discourse over. This thread just spurred me to share some of my history and thoughts in this area.

Bart

Thank you so much for your insight and for sharing some personal things. I checked out Dr. Scott Hahn's website ( http://www.scotthahn.com/ ) and what an inspirational story it is. Not because he converted to catholicism as I'm certain there are many catholics who converted out, whose stories are just as inspirational. It's because it simply illustrates the point I have been trying to make since I joined this forum (and many others, none of which are catholic sites by the way) that, no matter how deep and how insurmountable they may seem, we can bridge our differences as christians under the umbrella of Jesus Christ.

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Jac3510]

Byblos,

I just wanted to pick up on one thing you said:

Let me try to explain what I mean that they weren't far off. Before we examine the quotes above from the council of Trent, keep in mind one thing, catholic doctrine teaches that one can lose their salvation if they do not maintain it with works of love and charity. This is one of the more fundamental differences between catholicism and the reformation. Most reformists believe in Once Saved Always Saved, but at the same time, if one continues to live a sinful life it proves they weren't saved to begin with. So the difference boils down to this: If you're catholic you need to persevere in the faith, otherwise you can lose your salvation and go to hell (i.e. we believe in salvation as a continuous process). The other side of the coin is a one-time, instantaneous salvation that may be proven not to have occurred if a person continues to live in sin or commits a grave sin, in which case they will also go to hell since they really weren't saved to begin with (i.e. it's a continuous process whether we like it or not). Do you really not see the similarities?

Let me congradulate you here, because you've nailed it. This is why, at its core, both Calvinism and Arminianism are simply watered down Catholicism. As Bob Wilkin likes to say (paraphrasing), "If I die and find myself in Hell, I don't suppose there is any comfort in saying 'Oh well, I guess I just never had salvation in the first place . . . at least I didn't lose it!'"

This is why I soundly argue that Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholicism all teach salvation by works. As G-man said, how can you work to maintain a gift? For those on this board who hold to the Final Perseverance of the Saints, I think you would do well to call them lost Catholics, Byblos.

Now, for those of us who believe in OSAS, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and who reject the idea that all genuine believers are guaranteed to persevere in the faith, we have an absolutely impossible barrier to cross, you and us. What we disagree on is the very nature of the Gospel itself. "Where there is no works there is no salvation." That statement is either true or false. There really is no middle ground here.

So, I suppose in a way that you help prove my point on salvation: either you and others in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are right and I am utterly wrong, or I am right and you and those in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are utterly wrong. Put even simpler, one of us are heretics.

Again, I'm glad to see that you point out the similarities, and to my protestant friends on the boards, I'd ask you to seriously consider the ramifications of the simple fact that, so far as his argument goes here, Byblos is right.

God bless

[Canuckster1127]

Byblos,

I just wanted to pick up on one thing you said:

Let me try to explain what I mean that they weren't far off. Before we examine the quotes above from the council of Trent, keep in mind one thing, catholic doctrine teaches that one can lose their salvation if they do not maintain it with works of love and charity. This is one of the more fundamental differences between catholicism and the reformation. Most reformists believe in Once Saved Always Saved, but at the same time, if one continues to live a sinful life it proves they weren't saved to begin with. So the difference boils down to this: If you're catholic you need to persevere in the faith, otherwise you can lose your salvation and go to hell (i.e. we believe in salvation as a continuous process). The other side of the coin is a one-time, instantaneous salvation that may be proven not to have occurred if a person continues to live in sin or commits a grave sin, in which case they will also go to hell since they really weren't saved to begin with (i.e. it's a continuous process whether we like it or not). Do you really not see the similarities?

Let me congradulate you here, because you've nailed it. This is why, at its core, both Calvinism and Arminianism are simply watered down Catholicism. As Bob Wilkin likes to say (paraphrasing), "If I die and find myself in Hell, I don't suppose there is any comfort in saying 'Oh well, I guess I just never had salvation in the first place . . . at least I didn't lose it!'"

This is why I soundly argue that Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholicism all teach salvation by works. As G-man said, how can you work to maintain a gift? For those on this board who hold to the Final Perseverance of the Saints, I think you would do well to call them lost Catholics, Byblos.

Now, for those of us who believe in OSAS, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and who reject the idea that all genuine believers are guaranteed to persevere in the faith, we have an absolutely impossible barrier to cross, you and us. What we disagree on is the very nature of the Gospel itself. "Where there is no works there is no salvation." That statement is either true or false. There really is no middle ground here.

So, I suppose in a way that you help prove my point on salvation: either you and others in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are right and I am utterly wrong, or I am right and you and those in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are utterly wrong. Put even simpler, one of us are heretics.

Again, I'm glad to see that you point out the similarities, and to my protestant friends on the boards, I'd ask you to seriously consider the ramifications of the simple fact that, so far as his argument goes here, Byblos is right.

God bless

Jac,

Does misunderstanding on this level raise to heresy?

What constructive difference does it make in terms of the belief, trust and faith of a person that raises to the level of a person being saved or damned?

Is there room for mystery, uncertainty etc on this without making it grounds for disassociation or lack of fellowship?

I'm not saying it's unimportant. If salvation however hinges upon perfect understanding of all the mechanics and nuances, then aren't we possibly all sunk? If that is true then where do we draw the line? Is our faith in Christ or in our understanding of soteriology as a concept? Would such an understanding of salvation not in itself equate to works?

Just a thought.

Bart

[Byblos]

Byblos,

I just wanted to pick up on one thing you said:

Let me try to explain what I mean that they weren't far off. Before we examine the quotes above from the council of Trent, keep in mind one thing, catholic doctrine teaches that one can lose their salvation if they do not maintain it with works of love and charity. This is one of the more fundamental differences between catholicism and the reformation. Most reformists believe in Once Saved Always Saved, but at the same time, if one continues to live a sinful life it proves they weren't saved to begin with. So the difference boils down to this: If you're catholic you need to persevere in the faith, otherwise you can lose your salvation and go to hell (i.e. we believe in salvation as a continuous process). The other side of the coin is a one-time, instantaneous salvation that may be proven not to have occurred if a person continues to live in sin or commits a grave sin, in which case they will also go to hell since they really weren't saved to begin with (i.e. it's a continuous process whether we like it or not). Do you really not see the similarities?

Let me congradulate you here, because you've nailed it.

Thanks, Jac (I think).

This is why, at its core, both Calvinism and Arminianism are simply watered down Catholicism. As Bob Wilkin likes to say (paraphrasing), "If I die and find myself in Hell, I don't suppose there is any comfort in saying 'Oh well, I guess I just never had salvation in the first place . . . at least I didn't lose it!'"

This is why I soundly argue that Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholicism all teach salvation by works. As G-man said, how can you work to maintain a gift? For those on this board who hold to the Final Perseverance of the Saints, I think you would do well to call them lost Catholics, Byblos.

I don't know, Jac. I think many will have an issue with that but I'll let them object.

Now, for those of us who believe in OSAS, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and who reject the idea that all genuine believers are guaranteed to persevere in the faith, we have an absolutely impossible barrier to cross, you and us. What we disagree on is the very nature of the Gospel itself. "Where there is no works there is no salvation." That statement is either true or false. There really is no middle ground here.

So, I suppose in a way that you help prove my point on salvation: either you and others in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are right and I am utterly wrong, or I am right and you and those in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are utterly wrong. Put even simpler, one of us are heretics.

Again, I'm glad to see that you point out the similarities, and to my protestant friends on the boards, I'd ask you to seriously consider the ramifications of the simple fact that, so far as his argument goes here, Byblos is right.

I will start by saying that I totally disagree with you that our position must be heretical if yours turns out to be correct (the converse may be true, however).

First let's be clear (for Gman's sake) that your position of free grace, aka antinomianism, is not a new doctrine and was declared heretical from the early days of christianity.

Second, nowhere in the bible is there any mention of grace alone and certainly no mention of faith alone. What there is in the gospel of Jesus is ample evidence of both salvation by faith on one side and works as the outward signs of a true faith on the other, because faith without works is dead. Now either the bible is contradictory or your position is untenable.

Third, let us assume that your position is the correct one. That in no way makes us Calvinists/Arminianists/Catholics (they're gonna love this, being put in the same group) heretical. Simply because if your position allows for the likes of Hitler to be saved (remember that one?), there's certainly room for it to allow a mere Calvinist/Arminianist/Catholic to be saved as well. All we have to do is simply take your position for an instant then turn back to our old heretical selves and bingo, we're all saved, right? In fact the entire nation of Islam can do just that tomorrow morning and they're all saved while we will burn in the fires of Hades.

Fourth, the converse is not necessarily true but I should clarify that it doesn't really depend on perseverance (or lack thereof, which at worst will result in loss of heavenly rewards) but it does depend on how far off one has strayed from Christ's gospel. For antinomianists, there would be such a thing as a no-turning point beyond which there will be no salvation (as per our position). But as long as you don't cross that threshhold, I guess you can sit back and do nothing and there will be hope even for you Jac . So as you can see, it's possible for either of us to be wrong and for both of us to be saved (the problem is if both of us turn out to be wrong, God forbid!).

Fifth, there's no escaping the free will issue Jac (I guess this is where us Catholics/Arminianists will depart from our brethren Calvinists). We have hashed this out before and, of course, I still maintain that your position will totally deny us the choice to reject God and will make God bound to save us irrespective of our actions subsequent to being saved, however evil and vile (again, a la Hitler being saved in his youth).

Sixth, I've read somewhere you describe this process as a contract. I was reading today the story of Dr. Scott Hahn (posted by Canuckster in another thread) where he describes the covenants between God and his people, not as a contract, but rather as a family pact. A contract is decided by the terms of the contract or by a judge. It is a one time, instantaneous decision and that's it; done. God's covenants with his people, on the other hand, are meant to last a lifetime and then some. There's nothing instantaneous about them. It is the same with Jesus Christ. It's a new and everlasting covenant, not a contract.

This is Dr. Hahn's conversion story:

http://www.chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Gman]

So, I suppose in a way that you help prove my point on salvation: either you and others in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are right and I am utterly wrong, or I am right and you and those in the Calvinist/Arminian traditions are utterly wrong. Put even simpler, one of us are heretics.

Jac, just some words of advice, I wouldn't be shocked to find that when one goes to heaven that probably neither the Catholics or Protestants will have the majority rule there... Some of the Jews in their times couldn't understand Christ's message either. And they thought they had the whole thing down too.. Including the higher ups. So Jesus choose a tax collector and a fisherman and some other dudes he saw running around in the streets... Huh? Those guys don't even read scripture, (except Paul maybe, and he had it all wrong too). And then Jesus calls a non-jewish ROMAN centurion (a guy not even allowed in the temple) as having one of the greatests faiths in all of Israel? Luke 7:9. Go figure...

I think it's best to be religion blind, because we have NO CLUE half of the time who is in God's favor. It's not a black or white issue..

However, I have always maintained that emotional anti-catholicism is not a worthy position for any Christian to take.

Canuckster, I know you mean well, but I think it is ok for a person to have a little emotion in their talk. I'm not really offended by it... As long as we don't try to kill ourselves I think we will be ok. After all we are talking about our belief systems. Something that affects our very souls.. I'm curious though. What are your views on this topic?

What Canon 11 says is that if anyone thinks they can keep their salvation 'to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost' they can think again. I ask you, how different is that from a saved person who lives in sin and in the end is not really saved?

Ok, and now finally Byblos. I like to save the best for last... Perhaps I should make it clearer too.. I don't really believe that Canon 11 is not directly addressing Salvation here but rather Justification.

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified (i.e., justification) either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them (i.e. the Catholic view of infused justification), or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Since this is really reffering to justification, I think we have a different ball game here, hence the reference to my web site: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/r ... 0602W2.htm

If you're catholic you need to persevere in the faith, otherwise you can lose your salvation and go to hell (i.e. we believe in salvation as a continuous process).

Ok I got ya... Thanks for the clearer explanation. I do have a question though about losing your salvation. You've given me the Catholic canonized views on this but what about the Biblical views?

Guess what, we just met in the middle.

Well..... Maybe... Somewhere around there. I guess.. Maybe half baked?

All the best,

G -

[Canuckster1127]

Gman,

Thanks for noting my comment on emotional anti-catholicism. I wasn't as clear as I should be.

You're right. There is nothing wrong with having some passion and it is a worthy subject to work through with some edge befitting the importance of the issue.

What I am referring to is response that is solely based on emotion and in which critical thinking goes out the door. Probably I should have just used the word "bigotry." Unfortunately there is an element at times in evangelical and protestant thinking that just automatically rejects anything or anyone that is "catholic" and discussion pretty much ends.

That is a position unworthy of a Christian, in my mind, anyway.

It's fine to disagree. We should explain why we disagree and not just toss out the idea that "catholic" = "bad".

I'm not suggesting anyone on this thread is doing that. It was just a general comment on what unfortunately a common theme with far too many Christians. (and let me also acknowledge that protestants don't have a corner on that market either.)

I wasn't clear enough. Thanks for calling me on it and giving me the opportunity to further expand upon my comments (like I need an invitation.)

Bart

[Gman]

What I am referring to is response that is solely based on emotion and in which critical thinking goes out the door. Probably I should have just used the word "bigotry." Unfortunately there is an element at times in evangelical and protestant thinking that just automatically rejects anything or anyone that is "catholic" and discussion pretty much ends.

Agreed... Thanks for the clarification Canuckster and thanks for calling me on my bigotry. I said some things earlier here that were not nice nor accurate. A friend of mine who left the Catholic faith told me that I was wrong for presuming that the Catholoic higher ups drove around in expensive cars. He told me that some of them don't even have a dime... Which when you think about it is true.

Cheers,
G -

[Felgar]

If salvation however hinges upon perfect understanding of all the mechanics and nuances, then aren't we possibly all sunk? If that is true then where do we draw the line? Is our faith in Christ or in our understanding of soteriology as a concept? Would such an understanding of salvation not in itself equate to works?

I generally agree completely with Jac's theology but I would stop at his last statement that one of the two is heresy. And I think you hit the nail right on the head Bart, that there IS room for mystery. I think there's a reason that Paul basically says not to endlessly debate who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

For the vast majority of LSer's, I can very much image their conversion experience going something like this. Witness: "Jesus was God's Son and was sinless, and he died and paid the price for your sin. If you believe this then through him you will have everlasting life. Do you believe this? Will you accept Jesus as your saviour?" New Christian: "Yes I do." at this point, everyone will agree that if the person answered honestly he IS saved. Witness: "Ok then, now you have received the Holy Spirit and must begin to live like God commands."

You see, regardless of what happens in part B, Jac would have to agree that the person is saved. And most would agree with Jac on that. After that, we can leave the only place for disagreement up to God, and that place is: "If the New Christian does absolutely NO good, then does it show that he didn't answer honestly?" LSers would say yes, FG's would say no. I would reconcile the two by saying "only God can know the person's sincerity, and only God can judge whether his future actions were good, relative to their unregenerate state." This is the mystery of which Canuckster speaks.


P.S.

If I had just the Catholic music and the stain glass windows I'd be happy. I love that chanting stuff too..

The Anglican church is for you my friend. You should definately check one out. A much too simplified description of them (pardon me Byblos) is that Anglicans are Protestants who behave like Catholics. (edit: right down to the robes and funny-looking hats )

[Jac3510]

I'm going to preface all this by saying that I agree with every word that Felgar just wrote. However, it is extremely important that we don't let our appeals to similarity override the simple fact that FG'ers and LS'ers (or, more appropriately for this thread, those who hold to Perseverance and FG'ers) are offering different gospels.

Now, Byblos made a phenomenal point: if you believe that perseverance is necessary, be it to preserve your salvation (Arminian) or be it as a necessary result of your salvation (Calvinist), the results are exactly the same. This is precisely the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that is, that we must persevere in faith and good works if we are to enter into eternal life. Thus, both Arminianism and Calvinism are nothing more than watered down Catholicism. Those who hold to the belief in Final Perseverance, in one form or fashion, have more agreement than disagreement with Catholic soteriology.

The "Free Grace" Gospel is diametrically opposed to that teaching. For us, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. There is only one condition for salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ for everlasting life. Period. Referring again to Wilkin, the Gospel can be broken down into three statements:

1. Believing
2. in Jesus
3. for everlasting life.

If you don't mention believing, or the equivalent (like being persuaded), then you haven't been clear. If you don't mention the name of Jesus, you have not given enough information. If you don't speak of the promise of everlasting life, or the equivalent (like justification that can never be lost under any circumstances no matter what we do or don't do in the future), then you have not articulated the saving message. (Bob Wilkin, "Justification by Faith Alone." JOTGES 18:35 '05, p.12)

Zane hodges has well said that we are not saved by believing biblical language, but we are saved by believing biblical truth. The Gospel is that salvation is by faith alone. If you do not believe that salvation is by faith alone, then you do not believe the Gospel. This, anyway, is according to the Free Grace view. Of course, you may have believed it at some point in the past and now have changed your view. If so, you are saved. But if you have never believed that salvation is through faith alone, then you have never believed the Gospel and are still lost in your sins.

In contrast, Calvinism/Arminianism/Catholicism argue that salvation is by continued faith, or faith plus works, or faith plus repentence, or whatever. In actuality, what these people have done is redefine faith. "True faith," they say, "is a faith that leads to commitment and repentance." I have at home a bulletin from the Gateway Christian Church in Mt. Sterling, KY. In it, they say that salvation is by faith, but they define faith as "Belief, Repentence, Confession, and New Testament Baptism." Thus, "faith" is something totally different than "faith" in our view. In reality, "faith" is an umbrella term in which to put the necessary elements of salvation. Thus, for Catholics, and for the majority of Protestants, salvation is by repentance from sin. If we do not repent in the future, it proves that we never really repented, or it means that we lost the salvation that we obtained by initial repentance.

Now, in the Free Grace view, salvation is NOT by repentance. Salvation is by believing. If you believe that salvation is by repentance, then you have not believed the Gospel.

As a final note before I leave off this:

If someone wishes to assert that the Free Grace gospel is antinominian, then I would recommend they look to any standard theological dictionary. Antinomianism is the belief that Christians are not under any moral law and are thus free to live as they see fit. Nothing could be further from the truth with reference to Free Grace. Christians, of all people, are called to live under the Law of Christ. They are, in fact, the only ones called to live under such a law, and there are severe -- eternal, in fact -- consequences for not doing so. The fact that those consequences do not include Hell does qualify the Gospel as antinomian. If, however, you wish to define antinomianism as "the belief that no law must be kept in order to be saved," then I gladly take such label and boldly proclaim it, for salvation is not by any law, but by grace!

Again, we are talking heresy or not. There are many, many issues we can compromise on, but the offer of the Gospel is not one of them. The sin qua non of our faith cannot be altered. Does this mean that all Catholics, Calvinists, and Arminians are hellbound? No, but if a person has never simply believed in Jesus Christ for everlasting life, then he is "already condemned," to use John's language. This is true whether he is Catholic, Calvinist, or Arminian.

So, again, I set the choices plainly: either Catholicism and its derivates is correct, or the simple message of free grace is correct. There is no middle ground here.

God bless

edit: btw, Felgar . . . while I do agree that most LS'ers have a salvation experience like you describe, my problem is more with their presentation of their gospel. They say things like, "if you want to be saved, you have to give your life to Christ," or "turn from your sins and ask Jesus to forgive you . . ."

Now, commitment, repentance, confession, and forgiveness are all wonderful things, but they come after the moment of saving faith. LS'ers, however, won't present that moment, because they see the moment of salvation as the moment a person dedicates themselves to Christ via repentance.

[Felgar]

In contrast, Calvinism/Arminianism/Catholicism argue that salvation is by continued faith, or faith plus works, or faith plus repentence, or whatever.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and say that most of those people would disagree with this statement. They do not see their salvation as faith plus works or faith plus repentance. You see their belief as that, but they don't. Do you agree that most would categorically deny they hold to a "faith plus" doctrine for justification?

.....

If so, then again, one would be forced to conclude that they ARE in fact believing in only Jesus for salvation, and are thus saved, regardless of whether or not they may be confused about the implications of some of their stated values...

If you ask August "do you believe in a faith + works salvation?" and he honestly answers "no" then that has to be the end of it. Sure you can point out that logically his values show that possibly it is a borderline "faith plus" doctrine, but it's only what HE believes that matters... And I would say, that a great majority of Armenians, Calvinists, and even Catholics would tell you that they are first saved by grace through their faith, and their way of living is a result of it. YOU can choose to turn it around and say that the innevitable "good works" result also implies a necessary condition (which IS a logical statement that you'd be making)... But if they don't believe/see it that way, then I don't think God sees it that way, and all we've proven is that those people would probably fail a course in logic, but we haven't shown that they are not saved....

Consequently, I disagree with your assertion that Catholicism, Armenianism, and Calvanism are necessarily heresy. I would agree that the three "as you interpret them" are heresy, but not necessarily as a good many of their followers interpret them. If you can get someone else to say that they believe works are necessary to earn salvation then I'll be right there with ya Jac, but I don't think many of those believers would ever see it that way.

Edit: I completely agree with you that the presentation of the gospel is a very real and legitimate concern.

Also, just wanted to point out that perhaps my playing devil's advocate will be valuable as I can potentially have more impartiality and thus maintain a level-headed discourse... So hopefully you're willing to play along.

[Jac3510]

Of course they would catagorically deny the statement, on the simple grounds that we know (at least, Calvinists know) that any "faith plus" doctrine is a damnable one. Thus, they will say "I believe in faith alone!" until they are blue in the face

Now, I'll use the same illustration that I used with August some time ago. Byblos claims to believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone. He's given us a Papal quote to prove it. But, what he has done is to simply redefined what the terms mean. He certainly doesn't belief in "faith alone" in the same sense I do.

As I noted earlier, we are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth. You have to believe the saving message. If a person has never believed the saving message, then they are not saved. The saving message is that salvation comes by trusting Jesus Christ for it, apart from anything we say or do. And by "salvation," we mean everlasting life, or complete and irrovocable reconciliation with God.

If then, a person denies the truthfulness of these statements, then he can say all day long, "But I believed!" The question is this: what did he believe, because if it wasn't the Gospel of Christ, then it won't save him. Catholic dogma, and its Calvinistic/Arminian derivatives, flatly deny the basic Gospel message, and therefore, cannot save.

As an aside, if I am looking to discover if a person is saved, I don't ask them whether or not they have "believed in Jesus." I ask them what they believe a person has to do to be saved. If they say, "To be saved, you have to believe in Jesus," then I ask them what that means. If they say, "Just what it says . . . Jesus said if we believe in Him for salvation then we have it," then I say the person is saved. But if they say, "It means that if we repent of our sins and give our lives to Him then He will save us," then I say, if that person has ALWAYS believed that way, then he is not saved.

edit: You can play all you like, and I'll play along, too. I've actually managed to moderate my personal emotions on the matter, believe it or not. The impact has been that I've come to state what I believe to be true in much stronger language . . . still looking for the appropriate level of baldness, I guess you could say

[Felgar]

The saving message is that salvation comes by trusting Jesus Christ for it, apart from anything we say or do. And by "salvation," we mean everlasting life, or complete and irrovocable reconciliation with God.

Right, the believing saves and the actions are irrelevant. Thus, maintaining good works IS NOT relevant in terms of one's salvation. Therefore how can you claim that a Catholic wouldn't be saved? For he has testified that he saved by belief and has done the actions out of thanksgiving...

See, I think, you are making an implication of where this person's true trust lies. Does it lie in trusting that Jesus redeemed him, or does it lie in his ability to maintain good works? Most will say that it lies in the former, and if that's what their heart believes then they are saved. (note that in the former I've removed any implication one's own actions, therefore an affirmative response is not open to criticism on the basis of altered definitions of believe and faith)

I hear you that there is a possibility for them to misunderstand "faith" and "believing" but it's still a very basic concept for anyone: "Jesus washes sins" therefore our salvation is of his work alone and most understand this on a basic fundamental level - don't you think? I don't think they've twisted their understanding of "belief" as far as you would assert they have. Certainly not far enough to say that they've missed the boat and never even believed in Jesus, esspecially given that only God can see the heart.

Edit: Maybe I'm more emotionally in this than I thought. Because it's donned on me that one of the main things that's so wonderful about FG is the assurance it provides to a believer. Like you said, it imparts freedom and I believe will typically draw people to an even closer and more fulfilling relationship with God. So for me, there's absolute assurance of my salvation.

BUT, in your further insistance that ONLY the proper understanding of free grace is necessary for salvation, what you've done is robbed my assurance for everyone else. Did my grandfather put too much emphasis on doing good? My pastor just preached a sermon on repentance; does my pastor really believe in true FG?

When someone starts wondering if maybe people they know "have done too much good works" then you gotta see there's something flawed with the belief system. And like I've said, I believe that flaw is in your assumption of the true heart of all those other believers...