Featured Justification - Rome versus Baptists

You have a forensic view of Salvation. We do not. God saves us. WE can not earn our salvation. We can accept or decline it. If we accept God's free gift of salvation then we start our salvation. We are at that point a saint. But that is just the begining point of salvation. Salvation includes everything after as well which is inclusive of Justification and sanctification, and being a heir of the Father, and deliberately working to be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ or Theosis. Let me say that unlike you we believe that sin seperates us from God (not from his Love) and if unrepentant and living in a state of separation from God only leads to eternal separation if we remain so at death. It is in effect choosing against the faith freely offered.

 

Anyone think that everything he does is righteous?

 

Like juries, God declares us guilty or not guilty. I don't recall a NT verse where God declares us innocent.

 

There are some things I need to review from your eariler post because I think there are somethings you've mentioned that need be answered but right now I need the time to do so as I have a lot to respond to. So I'll respond to this for now and as I get some free time get back to your other assertions.

Infants are irrelevant to the conversation because they are incorporated into the family but will in the end need to make their own choice.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this statement as can be by your propensity to keep brininging up infant baptism. You're very language belies your view with regard to forensic salvation. I agree Salvation is a broad term but with your forensic view of Justification and salvation apart from sanctification (as you have argued in the past), we can see that salvation is forensic. How common is it to ask by baptist members "Are you saved" Clearly this language shows the forensic nature of your belief regarding salvation. I'm never asked are you justified. No. It's always are you "saved" past tense a one point in time event that begins and ends there.

So, basically it sounds like your saying by having a faith in Christ you are free to sin and not have consequences or damage yourself positionally with God. The only ones in danger of the consiquences of sin therefore are those without faith! I'm certain Paul did not mean that! Sin always breaks fellowship.

There is no confusion on our part. You've futher dichotomized Justification into a "regeneration". Which are inseperable from each other.

In fact it doesn't and I will attend to that assertion as you've repeated from an earlier post. it does refute Judaic perspective however.

The very obvious answer is that any gift can be accepted or rejected.

 

I don't think you understand grace. Grace doesn't erase choice but provides it. Just because a baptized baby is given grace to be more receptable to God doesn't mean that person is forced to take the faith. You don't really understand that aspect of the Catholic view.

Absolutely, I understand the term. And by your language I can certainly deduce your acutal view regard you position on salvation. First of all forensic is a legal declaration and secondly its scope is a singular event. Whereas Catholic and Orthodox with regard to Justification distinguish between initial and final. Thus the question "Are you saved" indicates its forensic nature.

Your arguments and language seems otherwise. You may have to detail your soteriology.

How many salvations are there according to you. I only understand one.

Sounds Catholic.

Sounds like you dichotimize salvation into what you experience and what is actual. I'm seeing an issue with this.

It seems clear to me that is what you are saying. And since I'm a person a least there is one who takes it that way and I suspect there are others. maybe you may want to rephrase. That is not a critisism as such but a suggestion. I'm not attempting to put you down but express how I understand what you are telling me.

So far there is no statement to the contrary.

Certainly

I did. And you started out by saying God deals with people in two ways depending on their relationship with God. God treats his enemies one way and his children in another. The implication is that one is dealt with more harshley than the other thus justice is commutted somewhat for the children though in theory unrepentant.

It seems to me that in both cases God allows for the consequence to bring about the same result in the child as in the enemy. Bring them to repentance.

It's not what I do but what they do to themselves. Seperation from God is seperation from God. People who are unrepentant recieve in the after life what they choose in this life. Either God or Seperation from God.

You absolutely have as you do only state that Justification is forensic or a legal declaration soley and tie in regeneration into sanctification. Clearly thus a man doesn't, in your view, participate in their sanctification and awaits regeneration to take over. Look at your statements. Grace produces the believing heart.

I've been civil with you why must you always look for the Jab. There is no "mental gymnastic attempt" on my part. I'm succintly explaining my view as a Catholic and how I regard your statement. I have not at any point attempted to humiliate or make a jab at you personally. I thought you were to leave Dr. Walter online persona behind. Remember I'm not out to convince you of anything just properly expressing my view.

 

You hold to infant regeneration, thru the sacramental grace of water baptism, correct?

is THAT when a catholic receives eternal life then?

When does one actually KNOW for certain that god has saved them under RCC teaching, and MUST one be earning merit by co operating with god thru all the Sacraments before God can and will apply Grace to save?

is it that a Catholic has salvation, but on a probationary basis, as IF Mortal sin is commited, or else one has willfully reject essentially RCC teachings, or else not able to reach high enough in sacramental gracing, they forfet and lose salvation?

 

Let me answer with a statement from the document called Exultate Deo.

furhter Catholics hold that

 

This is entirely untrue in this case. I put forth what I believe you are saying and the difficulty that I find with it. I think I've put forward proper discussion on the topic. I find it Odd that you easily slip into accusation when its clear that I've provided objective response to your assertions regarding the catholic belief in relation to your belief. I'm not arguing to argue but to provide expression of my thoughts regarding this matter. You sir have made the first Jab. Why is that?

What does that have to do with grace? Is grace only applied to "knowledgeable people"? How about is grace only supplied to people with the ability to comprehend salvation? and if so what of the adult mental defectives or mentally retarted people who cannot understand Jesus saves them? What of the clinically insane? Immediately right them off? Are they ushered into hell because of their lack of comprehension? Can grace be supplied to them also? Do these excersise choice?

It absolutely is. You're issue with not understanding is you consistently without regard for any other perspective hold to forensic Justification. As you do with Salvation. Catholics as I've explained do not have that view. I think I clearly expressed the Catholic view.

Grace provides freedom. You ignore man's natural state before original sin which was innocense and destined for heaven. Do you claim Adam had no choice? So as a child grows to the age of their capability they also have a choice. If they die before that point they go to their natural state after baptism which is in heaven. It is irrelevant that most Catholics are baptized into the faith. Probably (and this is a personal judgment call) the majority of them will go to hell because they willfully reject the faith they are given and deprived themselves of the further graces God wants to grant them. Whether you are introduced to faith as an adult by an outside agency or grow with in the consistent teachings of the faith you are responsible to positively respond. Babies are incapable of responding as babies but certainly upon age of consent they are able to respond and that is what they are accountable for.

I'm not attempting anything. I've shown how your language in describing your belief and your explanation reveals the underlying "forensic" view. I don't know why you feel insulted by this because the forensic justification view was proposed by the reformers themselves. I have redefined your view. Using your own terms I've applied the best moniker as I see it.

Is that not what you are doing with my view?

Seriously, how?

I know you try to classify each aspect in your terms certainly. Though I don't always find that it always correct.

Yes I agree glorification is a part of salvation but it isn't initial justification or "new birth".

Your term which I find singular in you. No one else to my knowledge has ever used this phrase "experiential salvation". I mean seriously what is that. We are either talking about salvation or we are talking about experiences. I can understand the experience of Salvation but when you use the term "experiential salvation" what other conclusion am I to come up with than this is a type of salvation apart from what is regularily meant.

I am not. I'm just pointing out difficulties and how I differ from your perspective. Arguing would lead me to the lowest comon denominator which is insulting you. I have not attempted to do that.

absolutely. So maybe you meant to say the experience one has in salvation rather than "experiential salvation". Is that what you meant to say? If that then is then what is someone else's experience to me or you? What we are discussing is our differing views of Salvation and the efficacy of its component parts and how they work together. The rest of your post just goes on to say I'm arguing to argue. No. I am discussing the Catholic position and what I believe to be the error in your position. Of course we are going to differ on several things thats the nature of this dialogue but I want to present in a fair manner my position. I mean there is a reason I'm no longer baptist and there is a reason you are not Catholic which boils down to our views of these very matters. Its expected that we disagree. I know that no matter how much I try and put forth evidence to support my position or how I debate the matter you will still hold your views. However, I am able to at least properly show the Catholic position. You can either agree or disagree but if you disagree expect that I may have some response as well.
Just as I expect you will disagree with my views.

And I certainly think you certainly skewed the scriptures to fit your doctrines. Unfortunately, the is no Authority to Judge between you and I save God at the judgement. Even if we relied on consensus there is no guarantee that majority vote is correct. But we can both put forth our argument as reasonably as we can. And ask the Father in heaven to lead us in the right way.

 

Does God require ANYTHING else in addition to one having faith in the person and work of Christ in order to have them saved by him?

Do good works complete or add to salvation, they are the means/basis for God to save
us?

At what point in time is a sincere RC saved by God, how would he know?

 

Yes. Can I be more clear? Yes.

This has nothing to do with parsing. An infant cannot willfully sin.

Oh, man you are way off. You've just shown that you don't understand Catholic view of sin! So, I'll explain as best as I can. "All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" - 1 Jn 5:17 Ie Mortal sin does lead to death which is on the level of Adam and Eve disobedience causing seperation from God the severing of the relationship with God. Venial sin is not that type of sin it certainly is an offense and a strain on your relationship with God but not a complete severing of the relationshipo (examples of what I mean: these are things like being too attached to watching TV. Or not controlling your thought life as you should). However, both are covered by Calvary and both need to be forgiven.

Nothing is said of specific types of sin in infant baptism. An infant who is baptized is saved just as is an adult. Because Christ paid for that sin as in the document I quoted suggested. These have not willfully sinned against God and origninal sin is not held against them. You have created an argument that doesn't even exist. That is a false argument.

 

As long as that faith is an effectual faith in otherwords it does as it believes there is nothing else required. However we believe baptism is a work of Christ. But it his work alone. We are just participating in his divine life when we do so.

Good works are the natural result of the Justified. If someone is not participating in the divine life of Christ then they are not his.

are they the means to transform us into his image which is an aspect of salvation ie sanctification? Then yes. But are they required for initial justification before entrance into salvation? No.

A catholic is saved when they accept the free faith God has given him and he is baptized. If he commits sin after baptism then God is ready to forgive if he repents of that sin and he knows he's saved because Jesus promises to save him. However, if he rebells and does not repent of his sin at the point of his death he has forefeited his eternity with God. What we say is if the Christian dies in a state of sanctifying grace he is on his way to heaven.

 

>>Like juries, God declares us guilty or not guilty. I don't recall a NT verse where God declares us innocent.


>You are absolutely correct.

Thus in this life our righteousness is a legal fiction. God declares us righteous. We have our feet in two worlds, a duel citizenship.