Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

Luther embraced the Augustinian viewpoint; Erasmus embraced a more Semi-Pelagian viewpoint. I would encourage you to read Bondage of the Will and then read Augustine's dispute with Pelagius, I think you will see that the viewpoint is very similar. While I agree with freewill, I disagree with how Pelagius and Erasmus viewed it.

 

The condemnation of Trent has always been more focused on Luther and Calvin. Zwingli, as well, did advocate more of a mental assencion? I don't think so, from the discussions with Luther, Zwingli embraced the theology of faith the same as Luther.

Trent was not an attack on Zwingli, in fact, most of it never deals with Zwinglian particulars. Rather, it dealt mostly with Calvin and Luther. To support my claim, read the Catholic Encyclopedia's recounting of the Council of Trent here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

As you can see, the major focus was the German Reformation. Most histories of Trent seem to focus on Luther, not Zwingli, in the Reformation.

 

THinkingstuff,

I did some more research, and what I am reading is that most scholars believe that Luther was the main focus but Trent did address Zwingli on one issue, the Eucharist. Outside of that, most of the scholars I am reading seems to point to the idea I have been advancing, that Trent was written primarily against Luther.

 

>>You are talking about two different things. 1st Do you believe we can choose for and against Jesus? If we can then when Jesus offers you a free gift are you being noncooperative if you reject it? Of course. Are you cooperating with him when you accept it. Of course. Simple.


>What you have described is blasphemy.
Salvation is a gift. There is no cooperation in receiving a gift. Even an infant (in our world) receives a gift, such as a rattle. What cooperation is there.

Washington State has a program where college credit hours can be purchased for future use. The Wife has purchased credit hours for our thee youngest grandkids. She didn't need anyone's permission and the two year old doesn't know what school is but this asset belongs to him.

Thanks for supporting a universal salvation. "Saved" is the null condition. It is yours until you reject it.

 

Wrong. If a friend offers you a glass of water do you have to receive it?
No. The choice is yours. There is no cooperation involve--neither in refusing or in receiving. You are the one receiving. The one receiving does not do the work.
(Mar 9:41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
--A person can receive or reject the water can't he?
The person giving the water is the one doing the work (hospitality).

There is never cooperation in receiving a gift. Do you work for gifts? Do your children work for birthday gifts given to them? You are a cruel taskmaster!!

And Christ purchased our salvation.
I may not have known that when I was young. But when I grew older I found out, and I was thankful, and accepted that great gift that was purchased for me. It is called salvation. But I had to receive it. I had to appropriate it.

Indeed. It is universal for all who will accept it.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

Man, are you folks discussing free will on a Catholic thread?

And wow! Think of the implications if this is true this free will thing you believe. Now your eternal destiny rests in your hands. You alone make the decision on whether you will go to heaven or hell. Hmmmmm!!!! So in the end it is God that is hospitable (BUT NOT REALLY A SAVIOR) It comes down to you & your a sinner. Ahhhh, got to think on that!

However, is that also what Catholics think..... Id like some commentary from the RC's & their supporters for clarification

 

Romans 4:11 denies that divine external rites are sacramental. They are a "sign and seal" of things already accomplished rather than things accomplished during the application of the external rite.

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Now simply place baptism in the place of circumcision in this context:

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was baptized, or unbaptized? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.

Does not the CCC liken circumcision to baptism in regard to a "sign" and "seal"?

 

The issue is simple.
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God.

The RCC needs to realize that Rom.5:1 (quoted above), does not say "justified by faith and works". It is justified by faith and faith alone. We are justified by faith--the great truth discovered by Luther when he got saved; the great truth so strongly condemned at the Council of Trent.

 

I totally agree with this however I do not want our differences in understanding to cloud what you are saying. Baptists are a Christ centered group of Believers, not works plus Christ. :thumbs:

 

Didnt the RCC also come up with another way to salvation when they say something to the effect that there will be people saved who reject Jesus Christ but have Holy Spirit type good works?

On this thread we have catholics arguing that catholics believe in justification through faith alone (that would be faith in Jesus Christ I assume, in their definition of this).

So where does this salvation apart from receiving Jesus Christ as Lord fit into this doctrine? Asking our catholic friends here.

For the catholic, can a person say no to Jesus as the Son of God and still be saved by their good works? Like Muslim who reject Jesus as God?

 

First, none of these thing you mention (repentance, faith, etc) are works, they are gifts. If regeneration precedes faith, as historic Protestants teach, then you must admit that faith is the necessary consequence of regeneration, not the other way around as you seem to believe that we believe. I do highly recommend you read some of our literature on this issue, as noted, I would start with Luther's Bondage of the Will because you are arguing points that really are based on things we do not believe.

Also, Vatican II seems to disagree with you on another issue, the nature of salvation. Here is a quote from Vatican II that seems to disagree with your statement above concerning the nature of salvation and who is saved:

Pope Benedict has said:

According to both of these statements, it is not merely faith in Jesus, but good works that can save a person even without Jesus at all. The Catholic Church believes in a Christless salvation; Protestants have traditionally denied a Christless salvation believing on only Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. We cannot be saved by all the good works encompassed in the world ever by man, but only by the active and passive obedience of the one, Jesus Christ, by faith and through grace.

I like what Dr. Horton put together and was signed by many evangelical scholars on Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialog as seen here. This helps us to see there are clear distinctions.

 

So in the end, the RCC church will claim that they are the one "True Church" because they have both Christ plus the Teachings of the RCC / Vatican & councils (like Trent) that create dogma.....while you Catholic laity sit in the pews absorbing it all without examining scripture for yourselves which leads to the laity's failure to understand the New Testament doctrines of Justification (in total Salvation) clearly. Essentially salvation means union with Christ, being one with Christ. Then if you have been Born Again (born anew, regenerated etc) You are a NEW MAN in Christ Jesus..... Do you then add & with the "authority of the Catholic Church"? Of course not......What can they add to your Salvation via your walk with Christ? They will tell you Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Marriage, Holy Orders & Extreme Unction, The Assumption of Mary, Purgatory & Limbo & Prayers for the dead to remove them from the places in between Heaven & hell.....oh & the Rosary.

Read Bondage of the Will.....Read Trent.

 

Jarjo,

I don't think I got a response to this post?

 

What is the CCC or are you referring to the RCC?

 

I suspect CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I am currently studying.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

could you answer Binlicists question then?