Featured Justification - Rome versus Baptists

False delemma. I never said infants are baptized by their choice I said their faith is ultimately their choice. However, with the graces provided at baptism and strong community support they have a more free choice for their faith (at a later point) then if they weren't interred to begin with. You can be baptized but still reject the faith at a later point. Whereas there is no choice if they were never baptized save conversion at a later point in their lives. You are trying to suggest I said Children are baptized by their choice. I never said that. And you can't prove that I did. They are entered into citizenship but just like anywhere else they can reject it. So this argument of yours is a straw man.

You've shown a lack of understanding of what I actually said by this statement. Man's natural state is Heaven before the fall baptism restores man to being able to truelly choose as he was able to truelly choose in the garden. When he reaches the age where he can make choices to sin or not then it truelly is a matter of choice to continue to recieve or reject the faith freely given. Again you show a false delemma.

That is not an accusation. It is a fact. Your own language shows your position to be forensic. You just told Biwald in the above post that he was correct that we are "legally" declared righteous which occures in your arguments at a singular point in time. That by definition is forensic. Your theology just based on your statement declairs it to be so. And his says that we do not become righteous but are only declaired so and that there is dual citizenship in both kingdoms. Catholics don't believe that at all. We are either a citizen of the kingdom of God or we are citizens of this world. We prove to which we belong by our lives. If in reciept of faith we are diplomates in this worldly kingdom for a time but our citizenship is heavenly. However, pointing out the forensic nature of your theology by your own argument is not an accusation its just showing the nature of it. And it certainly doesn't compare to your accusations of me that I just want to argue. Or make personal jabs which I have not done to you.

You can't take justification out of your soteriology it is a key element.

I beg to differ with you and let me explain why. When does one become Glorified according to you? Regeneration and sanctification are the only things that aren't forensic in your view. In fact it is my view that no matter where someone is in their sanctification process according to your theology that when they die the immediately enter into glorification. The only aspect of your view of glorification that isn't forensic is that its not just a legal declaration. However, there is no true requirement to be sanctified as long as you have believe which questions my view of yours about sanctifiation not being in a sense forensic. Ie.. the common statement "I'm blood bought (past tense), Saved (past tense), and sanctified (past tense)" either way if not sanctified in this life immediate sanctification (in your view I believe) with glorification is attained at physical death. Note that though I say death a real believer is not dead. That is how I see your view. If you want to explain how you differ from this by all means go ahead.

I think you were more forcused on insulting me than explaining your view. However, I'm not asking you to defend your view but if you say its not forensic then explain how. Justification is inseperately connected to Salvation.

Who? Where? I never heard of it and I've graduate from Lee University which is Pentecostal and from Eastern University which is American Baptist. And I have associates that are graduates of Gordon Conwell. And my brother in law is a advid Ruckman follower (which makes family get togethers difficult). I think I'm pretty widely read. But I can't say I've read everything so maybe there is a theological aspect to "Eperiential Salvation". Perhaps you can direct me to an author.

Provide me a book or paper discussing this issue so I can see what you are talking about.

Okay. You don't have a Total forensic view of Salvation you have a totally forensic view of a key part of salvation. Is that better?

 

Two seperate topics. You haven't seperated the topic and are stubornly combining two topics of the catholic view and trying to make it one. Again there is the Topic of Infant baptism which has nothing to do with catogorizing sin. And then there is a second topic that does talk about catorgorizing sin. Two issues.

there is.

 

Paul spoke about Abraham as an example polemically to deal with specific Jewish identifiers as I've discussed before. There is nothing in Paul which does away with sacramentalism especially when you regard James who put the distinction clearly in the universal perpective rather than directing it specifically at the Judiazers.

 

[

quote] Where is the assurance of salvation? Does a catholic hold to absent from his body immediatly into presense of Christ in heaven? Can he forfet salvation by refusing to do the sacraments or by cease being catholic than?
the ONLY sin given by God unforgiven is to habitually reject jesus as saviour, 'spitting" on his sacrifice...

how can a Christian lose salvation as long asChrist died for him, and God the father will NEVER lose him, eternally secured?

ONE sin is enough to have God judge us, why is there sins that damn even after saved, others don't?[/quote]

 

It seems you got a few misunderstanding issues about Catholic doctrine. However, let me know I can't read what you've colored in light blue so I have no idea what you are saying in those places. But let me correct the errors I do see.

Catholics believe that God's salvation is given by Grace alone. The Catholic view is that We are saved by Grace through Faith working in love. Period. Good works are a participation in the life of Christ as is baptism. But its the Merits of Jesus alone that grant us salvation. Your problem is you can't see salvaton beyond a forensic condition. You believe its a singular event and done. Whereas we believe there are entry points into salvation and the divine life thereafter is salvation continued. Thus no matter what we do we cannot merit eternal life. Period. Grace makes us see and understand the gift of Faith. Grace allows us to accept faith. Once we accept faith for ourselves that is the entry point into salvation or the gate into salvation and the divine life. Once we enter through that gate provided by faith we partake in the divine life being baptized does as it symbolizes (its not a work) Good works are the results of living out our faith because now we are truelly sons of God and have the rights and responsibilities as heirs.

If a Catholic does not have faith and participates in these practices they do not attain the full promises and grace these practices provide and condemn themselves. However, in faith these activities which are participation in the divine life are effecasious and add to the divine life already recieved and these things work to the fullness of our salvation. If a Catholic were what we call cultural catholic or a catholic in name only they are decieving themselves and have not converted themselves to the faith. That being said the basis of a Catholic salvation is Jesus Christ alone. And Salvation brings about our transformation into his image.

In the statement Jesus made in the scriptures. "Remain in me, as I also remain in you" Because it is clear that if we do not remain in Jesus then "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." which is scriptural discription of hell.

Yes and God's presense is a "consuming fire" as described in Hebrews "for our “God is a consuming fire."

He can forfet salvation by rejecting the faith given to him.
A note because I think you really are asking a different question. Can a Catholic forfet salvation if he leaves the Catholic Church. That depends on his understanding and reciept of the faith. As I've just said there are many Catholics who do not have faith and will go to hell because though the Catholic Church teaches the faith many reject it even while surrounding themselves in the trappings of the Church. If they do not know what they believe and they leave the "trappings of the Catholic Church" for a protestant denomination there may be salvation for them if they attain faith from grace that works in love. These are the ones who believed they worshiped statues and made gods and goddesses of the saints. I would say these first did not know their own faith they claimed to have and if that is what they were doing it is best for them to have stopped doing such. However, the more you know the more you are responsible for. If a person leaves the church knowing full its proper teaching and yet rejects that faith then they have rejected Jesus Christ. I place men like John Crossian into this catagory.

By rejecting faith and not repenting of your sins isn't that what you've just described? however, I agree with this statement. God is always willling to forgive the repentant heart.

if he rejects that salvation by not remaining in Jesus Christ.

All sins are an offense. Some sins sever our relationship with God. Others are the result of concusipence. Let me ask you a question if you have a choice between prayer and watching a tv show and choose the tv show will that sever your relationship with God? Or will God require you to just be more disciplined. If you prefer to eat a full stack ribs with greasy fries regularily when you are overweight further causeing damage to your temple created in the image of God, have you severed your relationship with God? These are sins that don't sever our relationship with God but they are still an offense. These are venial sins and still must be repented of, but they won't send you to hell unless you keep choising them over God and they become your god. However, if you willfully break any of the Ten commandments commit adultry etc.. then what does that do to your relationship with God? Without repentance of these types of sin where does that leave you?

 

Unfortunately, you're making to much of my typo. Having been a Security Policeman in the Air Force I'm used to saying Entry Control Points or Entry Points. Seeing my use of the singular with gate should be evidence enough I meant point rather than points.

As for a mischaracterization of salvation theory by Yeshua you're entirely wrong. That may be true for you but not necissarily for him. Saved is a singular event for Yeshua upon which there resolution entirely in that a person can not then reject it and there is a guarantee of it. I was responding to his assurance question. He believes by his language all is already said and done. Sanctification is optional. Whether or not sanctification occures in the believer is not relevant because all sanctification is met in the single glorification event in his view.

 

Now you're just making garbage up. The Catholic Church believes that Everyone who is saved is saved by Grace. And that Jesus Christ is the only gate to salvation. Your point is not valid.

You did not understand one thing I said about infant baptism. So according to you if someone cannot understand faith who is mentally retarded then grace is not provided to them because they cannot "accept faith". You've condemn all infants by this same statement. Sorry I can't buy that. There is no Catholic Doctrine of proxy. All baptised infants go into heaven by Jesus Christ and his grace as well. Again you are making stuff up and you accuse me of falsly claiming forensic doctrine on others! Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

According to you regenerative faith is progressive and ties in with sanctification. What progression is their in an infants death? You contradict yourself.

I don't know ask him.

 

Your statement is both predujicial and polemical. Factually questionable.

The child is entered into the community of believers and that community already has faith. The request is to pass on that faith to the child so that when the child is of the age of consent they can freely accept that faith for themselves. The child has yet to "attain faith". But is still given grace by God so that he has true freedom in that choice when it is time. Proxy therefore is not a good reference to call that belief.

You're leaning back towards forensic.

Therefore glorification can happen without sanctification and thus no real need for sanctification.

 

Glorification happens to believers at the time of the rapture/Second Coming of Christ, as THEN we will receive bodies as jesus now exists in...

Sanctification process while here on earth is to get us more as Jesus is thoughts and deeds/actions wise, and prepares us to do good works and glorify God, but NOT used by God to 'glorify" us!

 

However, according to your soteriology do you agree sanctification is optional? A person can take it or leave it and still having already been saved?

 

believe that the person saved by God should desire to walk with him and becoming more like Him, by his grace and enabling....

we are not saying a saint should sin willingly, but that he should strive to obey the Lord, for that is the will of God for his life...

 

I would agree with that a person would desire to walk with him and become like him however you still make santification an option.