The link didn't work. Would you mind reposting it?
Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by JarJo, Jan 12, 2012.
Page 2 of 16
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
There is nothing in the bible about an intermittent period of sanctification between death and heaven. Nor anything about a place called Purgatory. There is heaven and hell.
Do Catholics use any scripture at all to try to justify this belief or is it church tradition only? -
Hi Ruiz,
Thanks for posting the canons from Trent. I think we have to be careful when reading these canons, because their intent is often to focus in on a very specific idea that is objectionable, but I think you might have interpreted them to condemn a wider range of ideas than they do. Please let me explain:
If you had a member of your church who said "I believe that Jesus died for my sins, but I absolutely refuse to change my life. I will fight God to the bitter end if He tries to change me and make me holy in any way shape or form. I will not cooperate with sanctification". Would you say this person is saved? I don't think you would. I've heard of some Christians who would say yes, that person is saved, but I thought baptists required true repentance, and that faith meant accepting Jesus as Lord?
I'll have to get back to the other points in another message. -
How do baptists think this happens? What happens to someone with a sinful habit between when he dies and arrives in heaven? Does God change them instantly? Or do they arrive in heaven still sinning? Or is it just not possible to sin in heaven, even though they want to sin? -
It's not until we shed our earthly, sin corrupted bodies that we will be totally free of sin. But spiritually, we have already been freed from the penalty of sin (which is eternal death) and have already passed from death to life in Christ Jesus.
When we die, we go immediately in the presence of the Lord. No stops in between, because our sin has already been judged on the cross. -
Your objection to my view of sanctification really is not an objection to sanctification, but an objection to Luther's, and the Bible's, understanding of Bondage of the Will. Only through justification is the will made to become free (See Edwards', "Freedom of the Will). We do not cooperate thus becoming synergists, but the work of sanctification is completely of God, a monergistic viewpoint. We want to become Holy, not because of anything in us but because we were regenerated by God. You are conjuring up the old Erasmus/Luther debate. Erasmus believed this to be the fountainhead of the Reformation discussion, both Luther and I agree.
How does this play in Sanctification? Trent clearly explains that Sanctification is a part of Justification, I cited clear examples of this in Trent. My view is that sanctification does not add one iota to justification. Trent says that just because we have faith does not mean we will be justified. I disagreed, we are justified because God has declared us just. My works have nothing to do with justification.
How do these differ? The Catholic church views moralism as a key component of your salvation. If you keep the sacraments, you fulfill certain obligations, or rely on certain forms of religion. Protestantism sees moralism as deadly, in fact contrary to the Gospel. We are not sanctified because we are moral, we are sanctified because we are regenerated.
Thus, the idea that we come to God saying we will not change is a radical misinterpretation of protestant theology. You ignore our view on regeneration to set up a straw man to argue against.
With all this said, I do go back to the Council of Trent. Trent clearly stated that my belief is an anathema. I think Trent is much more honest with our disagreements than most today. These are extensive and important distinctions... and either your view is an anathema or mine. -
-
I didn't think I *was* arguing against your view of sanctification. Anyway I seem to be in way over my head here. I can't really follow all of this.
My "straw man" of the person who said he had faith but refused to change was not meant to represent you or other baptists. It's just my (possibly wrong) understanding of what the canon was condemning.
My own belief and experience is that from the moment that I was given the gift of faith and asked for forgiveness, God forgave and overlooked my sins and was therefore able to live in me. Then all I had to do was step aside and let God finish his work in me, knowing that at any point along the way I'm prepared to die and meet my maker and go to heaven. I suppose it isn't worded very well theologically, and there must be some theological distinction between what I said and what you believe. I suspect that if we need a degree in theology to understand the difference, then maybe the difference is really just splitting hairs. -
I asked my beginning question because whether you hold to Vatican II or Trent (which I do believe they contradict each other in places), you cannot deny these are serious issues. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Ruiz said ....."I do believe they contradict each other in places), you cannot deny these are serious issues"
I will add.....Involving your salvation. Don't treat this lightly! -
1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is the most commonly cited scriptual source.
Matthew 5:26 is interpreted by Catholics to have an allegorical reference to purgatory--paying the last cent.
Matthew 12:32 is a pretty clear statement that at least some sins committed on earth may be forgiven in the age to come. -
(Mat 12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
It is an emphatic statement that this sin will never be forgiven.
The more important question is, what is this sin that will never be forgiven>
IMO, it is a sin impossible for one to commit in this generation. -
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
New International Version (NIV)
12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. -
That is pretty arrogant, especially since you are not God.
He could have said: "can never, never, never, never be forgiven." But he didn't. He had his own emphatic way of saying things. "not now or in the age to come." It was said that way to be emphatic. In the future please don't try to correct the way the Lord speaks.
(Mat 12:22) Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
--Go back ten verses. The story starts with this miracle, a miracle which amazed all that saw it (vs. 23)
(Mat 12:24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
--Instead of attributing this and other such miracles to God, especially the Holy Spirit, the Pharisees attributed this miracle to Beelzebub, a name of Satan, literally "prince of evil spirits."
(Mat 12:27) And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
--A good answer from Jesus that made them look foolish.
(Mat 12:30) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
--It is evident that the Pharisees were not with Jesus. Now they had seen his miracles, heard his words, were there in person to see and hear God come in the flesh--a privilege relatively few people have ever had (throughout the ages). They were privileged. And yet they attributed his miracles (which demonstrated his deity) to Satan.
(Mat 12:31) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(Mat 12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
This sin could only have been committed during the first century by those who had seen and heard the miracles of Jesus and then had attributed them to Satan. It is impossible to commit that sin today. Jesus is not among us today in the flesh. He is not working those miracles right in front of us today. No one is attributing those very miracles to Satan. This was a particular event in history not replicable today. -
The Catholic church leaders condemned "faith alone" period. Luthur and many others were not preaching anything less than what protestants and baptist preach and believe today about "faith alone". And the Catholic church had them and many like minded believers killed for it!
You see, they cannot defend it because it is scripture. They cannot retract it because they believe they are infalable. So what is left? Well, let's teach that the doctrine is being misinterpreted.
Problem is, we have the "faith alone" preacher's own writings which prove that they preached "faith alone" just as baptist preach it today and the RCC hunted them down for it. So do not believe the lie that It only applies to certain kinds of "faith alone", that is simply trying to lie one's way out of the plain truth of the matter. On this point "alone" is why I cannot trust or be part of the RCC. -
Using primary sources is the best way to show Catholics what they teach and why we are different. -
Luther also said:
I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That
the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted.
St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs,
have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world;
so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor.
Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state,
it is no ground for separating from the Church.
On the contrary, the worse things are going,
the more should we hold close to her,
or it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.
We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil,
nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still
abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly.
There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to
dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body.
For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Page 2 of 16