Featured has Rome EVER Changed Views On Council of Trent?

Yes - see my link to the Joint Declaration.

 

The now and not yet aspect of salvation (Romans 8:30). "Now" in that salvation is assured. "Not yet" in that the heavenly blessings of Ephesians 1:3 will be fully realized in the eternal state.

 

Is the holder changed in any way by holding that trust? If so, in what way?

 

No. The holder is changed by the One he has faith in (2 Corinthians 5:17).

 

But s/he is indeed changed(?)

 

What does the passage say?

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

So yes, the one holding of this trust, the believer, is irrevocably and organically changed.

 

OK, that's pretty close then to Catholic soteriology.

 

Matt, Roman Catholicism denies Sola Fide as articulated by Luther, and subsequently by the Reformers. You want to distance Romanism from Trent, but you cannot. If Rome and the Reformation are both the same then let the Pope renounce Petrine succession and publicly affirm the five solas of Dordt.

 

You got it sooooooo backwards. Jesus' merits eternal salvation for those who believe on him. Nothing is redefined. You're confusing yourself. What the Catholic Church teaches is that God initiates his saving work by his grace.
Sacraments are the modes by which he wishes to extend more Grace in our personal faith walk with Jesus.

For instance God has given us his inspired word the bible. Now you may have recieved grace to believe and thus you have been given grace though you may never had read the bible. If you read the bible you may recieve more grace but if you refuse to read the bible you are not accessing the grace provided by reading the scripture. So the fact is that if you choose to read scripture you aren't "saving" yourself but you are accessing the grace which helps you to grow in faith. This is how the sacraments work.

 

Don't blame Rome. The Apostles deny it as we can see in James.

You obviously didn't read my post because this makes no sense in the context you provided.

It is clear you don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you actually try reading what I've said or even better read the actual documents themselves.

Again not true. 1st you have to define what you mean when you say saved. Because for Catholics we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.

I know for sure that if I remain in Christ God's final verdict will grant me eternity with him. In fact that is the only assurance you actually have.

See you really don't know what you are talking about.

considering the Catholic Church has existed long before the reformation and came up with the terms, if any thing you are redefining the terms already set forth.

See that is your problem. The Gospel is of Jesus Christ not Paul. You are showing yourself to be no different than Marcion.

 

That assumes that sola fide as believed by Luther corresponds to that laid out by the Synod of Dordt. The Joint Declaration makes it clear that the Pope agrees with Luther on his meaning. As some wag once put it: if Joseph Ratzinger was alive in 1521 he'd have been a Lutheran, and if Luther were alive today he'd be a Catholic.

Let me expand this further: Trent assumed that what Luther meant by sola fide was akin to what we would call the 'Sinner's Prayer' today ie: someone says "I have faith" and says a prayer "committing his life to Christ" but then does nothing about it and carries on living his life of sin as if nothing has happened. Trent anathematised that and still does - rightly so IMO, since that sort of thing is no 'conversion' at all. But when the Catholics and Lutherans sat down and starting talking to each other as opposed to talking past each other, such talks ultimately resulting in the Joint Declaration, the Lutherans were horrified that that's what the Catholic side thought they meant by sola fide and were able to affirm that it meant a genuine conversion, to which the Catholic side were able to sign up. (Similar misunderstandings on the Lutheran side concerning 'works' were also cleared up to the Lutherans' satisfaction.) So, no, Trent's anathema has never been revoked - but I don't think it ever applied to what Lutherans have really meant by sola fide.

 

You are misrepresting Luther. Have you ever read Bondage of the Will?

Luther never wanted to leave Romanism. He wanted changes within the Roman church, but his position against indulgences and his advocacy of Sola Fide were too wide a gulf.

Of course Luther was not the final word on Sola Fide. What he started was advanced by both the continental and Scottish reformations. Rome became incalcitrant as witnessed by the counter reformation. By the time Dordt concluded the rift between Rome and the Protestants was irreverisble.

The theological differences between Rome and Protestantism are not minor. There is no room for dialog between the two, nor should there be. Rome is to be opposed because it stands in opposition to the biblical faith and the real teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Sola Scriptura is just as important as Sola Fide.

 

You are just throwing out phrases with out comprehending it seems. Lets takes this step by step. 1)Jesus Attones For our sins. He paid the price as it where. He did the work which re-connects humanity to the Father. No man apart from him even wants to do it much less even can do it. Ie Jesus Saves. Ie Jesus Atones for our sin. Catholics and Protestants both claim that it is by Christ work Alone on the cross and his resurrection that affects our atonement. Here we are agreed.

As I've said on this point we are agreed.

2) It is by faith in Christ that a) is evidence of the Holy Spirit calling to us working in our lives to first believe in Jesus b) which leads us to repent for our sins c) which also leads us to follow Jesus initially by making a covenant with him through baptism which puts us into a sonship relationship with the Father (being now "adopted Heirs"). d) which allows us to be fully open to the Paraclete.

3) God does more than just "declares us righteous". By this suffering and death. By his spilt blood on Calvary. Jesus actually washes our sins away. We are forgiven and we are given an actual new nature which with the Holy Spirit we are given we are now enabled to follow Jesus.

The only thing is that you are stuck at the begining or entry into salvation. The only thing left is to remain in Christ "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." and let him daily transform you more into his image as Paul says "be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." In other words if salvation were an Ark (boat) what is left is to remain in the boat don't jump out of it and as it were make a "shipwreck of their faith".

See and this is where you are wrong about Catholics who agree that there nothing can be added to the merits of Christ's atoning sacrifice which brings about the forgiveness of sin. What area we are getting into now is what happens after repentance? Because Christ doesn't save us to keep us in our sins but to free us to live in accord with him. He calls us to sanctification. Your stuck on the milk of coming to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin with no thought of remaining in him in order to do the Fathers will in our lives. And this is where we are speaking over each other. You keep insisting the gate is all there is to salvation but salvation is much large than getting just through the gate. So yes I was saved when I believe and that belief lead me to covenant with God so I was also saved when I covanented with God. However, I am being saved as each day as I lay down my sinful nature and nurture the new nature or man. And I will be saved when I die and put of this body which dies and recieve from Jesus an eternal reward. Its really all about the context.

And Christ told us to abide in him therefore Paul's witness to Christ also assumes one abides in Christ.

 

As long as they remain in Christ, yes.

Regeneration isn't a one time event. We are regenerated when we come to faith in him. We continue to be regenerated as we are transformed into his image and we will be complete when we are in heaven.

I, Paul, James, and the Catholic Church disagree with you here. We are saved by the act of God which we can accept or disregard. Upon acceptance our faith combined with the acts of that faith acts towards our justification just as James says

I'm not arguing with scripture.

Yes but my contention is that it doesn't stop there. You want it to stop there but it doesn't I believe and thus I'm justified but if I don't act out that faith in Love by the power of God's grace then my faith is dead. Just as James says. Therefore we must continue to abide in Christ. Not return to our sinful ways and make a shipwreck of our faith.

Nope we hold to the Gospel of Christ who said we must abide in him and commanded us to be baptised. And James never disagreed with Christ and niether does Paul. But if you look at history you see heresy like Marcion whom used Paul develop it but not James. There is a reason Luther wanted to take the book of James out of the NT.

 

It depends which Luther we're talking about! The c.1521-1525 Luther was much more inclined to what modern evangelicals would call sola fide than the post-1525 Luther, the latter realising that the antinomianism implicit in the former's soteriology had led to the Peasant War which horrified him.

Yes, but that has far more relevance to determinism and his view of Original Sin/ total depravity than it does to sola fide.