- This topic has 1 reply, 12 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[b:5mexbhyk]To all non-Catholic Christians:[/b:5mexbhyk]
[b:5mexbhyk][color=olive:5mexbhyk]what does your church teach about salvation?[/color:5mexbhyk][/b:5mexbhyk]
I’m just curious to find out the different variations between denominations. Thanks!
” title=”Smile” />
All of the churches I have been apart of before my conversion to true faith of Catholicism has been to “accept Jesus Christ as you personal Lord and Savior”, and you [b:2k8oqpsq]will[/b:2k8oqpsq] go to heaven. These even includes the Episcopal Church I was at for 2 years and was married in (although there are no set beliefs between the ever-splitting Episcopal Church anymore :rolleyes: ).
Most of the time, I hear that you cannot lose your salvation no matter what you do.
Now I believe that God continues to seek a person out and call them back to him like a Shepard calling his lost sheep because he is “not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Pet. 3.9). But to say that we can do nothing to separate ourselves from God, not even by choice(a.k.a. mortal sin) is foolish and dangerous.
God’s mercy and love is that of the Father of the Prodigal son, but if the son chose to stay in the city tending the pigs rather than going home to his father, he would have starved to death, period.
[quote:2oqp6w57]Most of the time, I hear that you cannot lose your salvation no matter what you do.
But to say that we can do nothing to separate ourselves from God, not even by choice(a.k.a. mortal sin) is foolish and dangerous.[/quote:2oqp6w57]
I feel the same way. That whole concept doesn’t really make sense to me. Sure God forgives, but if you break that relationship (sin) then why would God let you into his house?Of course the catch is that if you are sinning against God then you never really were saved in the first place. If you’re saved you do good and nice things all the time because the Spirit is with you.
It seems that concept takes away free will and the personal choice we have, no matter how much grace we receive, to turn away from God.
Indeed!
I remember awhile back, hearing about the unrepentant Presbyterian minister who killed an abortion doctor with a shotgun and was tried and put to death. He was quoted as being unremorseful and unrepentant and felt he was doing God’s will. By all means this man would not be able to enter into heaven with such an unremorseful and unrepentant heart over what he had done.
Immediately, I thought of the First Letter of John Chapter 3 verse 15 where it says “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him”.
Does this mean that this once minister of God, in the general sense, turned cold-blooded killer won’t be going to heaven? Well that’s for God to decide, but based on the verse above, it seems he’s already decided.
(sorry if I got off the subject)
[quote:19t44si8]I remember awhile back, hearing about the unrepentant Presbyterian minister who killed an abortion doctor with a shotgun and was tried and put to death. He was quoted as being unremorseful and unrepentant and felt he was doing God’s will.[/quote:19t44si8]
See, these kinds of actions don’t make any sense to me. Why would anyone ever think that they are doing God’s will by going out and murdering someone? Especially a minister!You would think that he, of all people, would know that his mission as a Christian is to help convert the person’s heart to God, not kill him.
[quote:3coe70lp][b:3coe70lp]To all non-Catholic Christians:[/b:3coe70lp]
[b:3coe70lp][color=olive:3coe70lp]what does your church teach about salvation?[/color:3coe70lp][/b:3coe70lp]
I’m just curious to find out the different variations between denominations. Thanks!
” title=”Smile” />[/quote:3coe70lp]Well, Orthodox soteriology is a little different to the RCC’s teaching, but nothing like that of the Protestants. Our doctrine of salvation is called [i:3coe70lp]theosis[/i:3coe70lp] and it is a synergy of God and man working together to make man like God by grace.
We do not believe in [i:3coe70lp]once saved always saved[/i:3coe70lp], but nor would we ever talk of someone losing salvation. As we would never say that someone who is still alive is already saved, how could we say that they had lost what they had never attained? A process of ever-greater perfection can never be finished – certainly not in this life.
James
[quote:3fuepcic]Well, Orthodox soteriology is a little different to the RCC’s teaching, but nothing like that of the Protestants. Our doctrine of salvation is called theosis and it is a synergy of God and man working together to make man like God by grace.
We do not believe in once saved always saved, but nor would we ever talk of someone losing salvation. As we would never say that someone who is still alive is already saved, how could we say that they had lost what they had never attained? A process of ever-greater perfection can never be finished – certainly not in this life.
James[/quote:3fuepcic]
The first paragraph I agree with and is line in Catholic teaching. But the second threw me off. It almost sounds like some Protestant explanations I have heard. Where they “well they never had salvation in the first place”.
Which is another way of saying once saved always saved or if your conversion was true and sincere then you really cant lose it. Do I have that right?~Victor
[quote:112y90tf][quote:112y90tf]Well, Orthodox soteriology is a little different to the RCC’s teaching, but nothing like that of the Protestants. Our doctrine of salvation is called theosis and it is a synergy of God and man working together to make man like God by grace.
We do not believe in once saved always saved, but nor would we ever talk of someone losing salvation. As we would never say that someone who is still alive is already saved, how could we say that they had lost what they had never attained? A process of ever-greater perfection can never be finished – certainly not in this life.
James[/quote:112y90tf]
The first paragraph I agree with and is line in Catholic teaching. But the second threw me off. It almost sounds like some Protestant explanations I have heard. Where they “well they never had salvation in the first place”.
Which is another way of saying once saved always saved or if your conversion was true and sincere then you really cant lose it. Do I have that right?~Victor[/quote:112y90tf]
No, not at all. We do not see salvation as a state but as a process which, if you agreed with my first paragraph, you must too. How can you say you have a process? You can say you are [i:112y90tf]in[/i:112y90tf] a process, but that’s different. Of course you can fall by the wayside and fail to reach salvation, but salvation is not attainable before death. We, therefore, believe (practically at least) the same as you do – we would just never phrase it as ‘losing salvation’, as though that was something a living person could possess. Put it this way, even if a great saint, like say Seraphim of Sarov, who is evidently holy is still alive can we say they are saved? Once they are dead, yes, but before? What if tomorrow they were going to go off the rails and start a genocidal campaign against innocents? Once they have passed on they can be saved – in this life [i:112y90tf]nobody[/i:112y90tf] can be sure of salvation. [i:112y90tf]This[/i:112y90tf] is the failing of the do nothing, sola fide, OSAS brigade.
James
Well I happen to believe Jesus’ word – The Bible
Ephesians 1:13,14 tells us “[b:1ovold67]In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. “[/b:1ovold67]
There are the Scripture verses also that tell us [b:1ovold67]”John 10:29 – My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. “[/b:1ovold67]
Also I’d like to point out what the Bible says about our Salvation – It without works of ours (Read Romans 4:5 ) but works are a result of faith just as Ephesians 2:10 follows right behind verses 2:8-9. (see also Romans 3:27-28)
Any questions?
Doesn’t James 2:17 teach that faith without works is dead?
~Victor
Victor, Please read my note again – I agree – but works is a result of one’s saving faith, not as a means to salvation but as a result of saving faith. Abraham was saved without works (Romans 4:5) not by works.
If it was by works, then it couldn’t be grace (Romans 11:6)
Ron,
Abraham was saved by his works: “Was not Abraham our father [u:1b4aa26h]justified by works[/u:1b4aa26h], offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? … Do you see that [u:1b4aa26h]by works a man is justified[/u:1b4aa26h], and not by faith only?”
You are misreading Scripture.
Benedict;
‘
how does this say it?Rom 3:27-28 – Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (KJV)
Rom 4:5-6 – But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Gal 2:16 – Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Where do works come in? Ephesians 2:10 continues – For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Also see Titus 2:13-14 – “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Furthermore Romans 11:6 says – And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Benedict did you ever see Romans 9:31-32? “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
and then we see Romans 10:2-3 “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”
Now where or what were you saying Benedict?
[quote:2jez1o4l]Now where or what were you saying Benedict?[/quote:2jez1o4l]
I was saying that you were misreading Scripture. And you continue to do so.Let us start with the plain words of Scripture that I already posted:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? … Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?”
St. James tells us explicitly and specifically: by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
So we find that in the first place, you are misreading Scripture by ignoring those verses that you would rather not see. You tell us “faith alone,” but the Bible explicitly says “not by faith only.”
In addition to misreading Scripture by ignoring difficult verses, you then turn around and misread Scripture by ignoring context.
St. Paul writes against the Judaizer heresy that afflicted the early Church. The Judaizers taught that Christ alone was not sufficient to save; rather, Christians would also need to fulfill Mosaic law and the Abrahamic covenant through circumcision. The influence of this sect is easily demonstrated by examining the issues that St. Peter and the Council addressed in Acts. It is also obvious throughout St. Paul’s writings, in which he invariably preaches the futility of Christians seeking salvation through the works [u:2jez1o4l]of the law[/u:2jez1o4l].
Peace be with all,
Well stated Benedict! I would add, if you do not mind:
The “Law” and Scripture St. Paul refers to is Mosaic Law and the Pentateuch. The first writing that became know as the New Testament did not occur until the 2nd Century. The Bible as we know it did not exist until the 1st Century.
God Bless!
Fred
Benedict you are joking right? You say –
[b:u5tfhz59]I was saying that you were misreading Scripture. And you continue to do so.Let us start with the plain words of Scripture that I already posted:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? … Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?”
St. James tells us explicitly and specifically: by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
So we find that in the first place, you are misreading Scripture by ignoring those verses that you would rather not see. You tell us “faith alone,” but the Bible explicitly says “not by faith only.”
In addition to misreading Scripture by ignoring difficult verses, you then turn around and misread Scripture by ignoring context.[/b:u5tfhz59]
How do you figure that I am misreading or ignoring verses? I showed you how works fit the faith alone verses in Ephesians 2:8+9 is then followed by verse 10 and in Titus 2:13 is followed by verse 14. But how did you treat Romans 11:6? You simply ignored it as well as Romans 3:27-28 and
4:5+6. Did the thief next to Jesus do any good works? Yet the Lord saved him. Would you like to try that again?Fred, You said [b:u5tfhz59]”The Bible as we know it did not exist until the 1st Century. “[/b:u5tfhz59]
Now you claim to be so superior in knowledge yet the authors of the Bible were dead – most by the year 95 AD. Yet they wrote the various chapters, never as Catholics I might add. So regardless of your claim, the Bible was around already just not in a book yet. Even Jesus said ” It is written….” a number of times and “search the Scriptures” in another spot – So don’t try to give credit to your church.
At least the Old Testament part was, and the New testament was soon to follow in the letters to the churches.
Peace be with you Ron,
[quote:2zssvu12]Now you claim to be so superior in knowledge yet the authors of the Bible were dead – most by the year 95 AD.[/quote:2zssvu12]
A typo, and I apologize, 1st Century is when all Original Greek Manuscripts were completed.
[quote:2zssvu12]Yet they wrote the various chapters, never as Catholics I might add. So regardless of your claim, the Bible was around already just not in a book yet.[/quote:2zssvu12]
I curious where in any of my post did I make that claim? So since you brought it up we will have a brief history lesson:
33 The Holy Spirit descends upon the Apostles, 1st Christian Pentecost, St. Stephen Martyred, St. Peter is called the Prince of the Apostles and his Papacy begins.
64 – 67 St. Peter is Martyred in Rome during the Neronain persecution, he had already established his Holy See in Rome and Antioch, he had also presided the Council of Jerusalem.
67 – 76 St. Linus 2nd Pope (after the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy.)
70 Jerusalem fell
76 -88 St. Anacletus Papacy
88 -97 Clement I Papacy
100 Death of St. John
So yes they were the Fathers of the Catholic Church, the Church of Rome. There is plenty of historical documents that prove these facts. They were not call Catholics by title, but the entire lineage from St. Peter to the Church, as we know it, is fully in tact, unbroken and supported by thousands of historical documents. Of course you will deny this based on the word Catholic and ignore 2000 years of research and writings.
[quote:2zssvu12]Even Jesus said ” It is written….” a number of times and “search the Scriptures” in another spot – So don’t try to give credit to your church.[/quote:2zssvu12]
Again Christ was referring to Mosaic Law and the Pentateuch. Most Theologians accept this simple fact as well.
God Bless!
Fred
[quote:268rbnie]How do you figure that I am misreading or ignoring verses? I showed you how works fit the faith alone[/quote:268rbnie]
Right at this point is where you err. You continue to assert that we are justified by faith alone and that works are only an after-effect. St. James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone.[quote:268rbnie]But how did you treat Romans 11:6? You simply ignored it as well as Romans 3:27-28 and 4:5+6.[/quote:268rbnie]
I addressed it in the half of my post that you did not quote. I shall do so for you:[quote:268rbnie]St. Paul writes against the Judaizer heresy that afflicted the early Church. The Judaizers taught that Christ alone was not sufficient to save; rather, Christians would also need to fulfill Mosaic law and the Abrahamic covenant through circumcision. The influence of this sect is easily demonstrated by examining the issues that St. Peter and the Council addressed in Acts. It is also obvious throughout St. Paul’s writings, in which he invariably preaches the futility of Christians seeking salvation through the works of the law.[/quote:268rbnie]
Of all St. Paul’s letters, the book of Romans deals with the Judaizer heresy the most.If you want to see how St. Paul views works of faith, rather than the works of the law, read Philippians 2.
[quote:268rbnie]Did the thief next to Jesus do any good works? Yet the Lord saved him. Would you like to try that again?[/quote:268rbnie]
The thief rebuked a blasphemer and bore witness to Christ’s innocence and His kingdom.And if for some reason you do not consider that a good work: God can do whatever He wills. The thief was saved despite his lack of works, as he had no opportunity to “work out his salvation with fear and trembling.” God is merciful and just. He does not look at what we could not do but what we could and what we did.
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? … So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Faith without works is dead. Therefore, faith alone does not save.
Benedict
When Jesus died on the cross, Before He died He said “It is Finished”
What was it that He meant by “It is Finished?”
Peace be with you Ron,
[quote:1xvebv02]When Jesus died on the cross, Before He died He said “It is Finished” What was it that He meant by “It is Finished?”[/quote:1xvebv02]
Christ is referring to the Pascal Sacrifice and the 4th Cup of the Passover meal. The following is a excerpt from Dr. Scott Hahn’s lecture entitled The fourth Cup[/url:1xvebv02]:
[quote:1xvebv02] That’s the Old Testament background. What it all meant was that this was the covenant event. In other words, what God was interested in doing was to restore the family purity and the family communion of His children, the people of Israel. The Passover was the bonding agent that brought it about, through the blood of the lamb, that sacrifice. And so it was celebrated for thousands of years, and still is by Jews, as the sign of the Mosaic covenant. Now remember, a covenant is a sacred family bond; it’s more than just a contract. And remember also that firstborn sons were marked for destruction. In other words, Egypt offered up a sacrifice and so did Israel. Egypt’s sacrifice was unwilling: their firstborn sons. Israel’s sacrifice was voluntary: the unblemished lamb. All of this is key, I believe, to understand the New Testament context of the Last Supper and our own Holy Eucharist, because when Christ institutes the Eucharist, as I said, it takes place in the upper room at the Last Supper. And what are they doing but celebrating the Passover? Luke 22:15: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you.” So likewise in Mark chapter 14: “His disciples said to him, ‘Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’ And he gave them instructions and the disciples set out and entered the city and found it as he had told them and they prepared the Passover.”
Why did he (Jesus) skip the fourth cup?
And you know the circumstances and details surrounding the Last Supper. I won’t recount all of them, but let’s just go over the more salient features. In Mark 14:22ff we read, “And as they were eating he took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, ‘Take; this is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks (the Greek word for that is eucharisto) he gave it to them and they all drank of it, and he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many.'” And then he adds a kind of unusual statement: “Truly I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” And then, when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the night to the Mount of Olives. Now that might not seem very significant to you but to scholars who study the gospel accounts of the Passover in the upper room, there’s a big problem. Why? Because we know the way the Passover has been celebrated for centuries, for millenia; it’s a very ancient liturgy, it’s well known, it’s no secret. Jews still celebrate it according to the same structure. There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it’s the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there’s the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.Now what’s the problem? The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” And it says, “Then they sang the psalms.” Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover. But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went out into the night.
I’m sure this doesn’t seem like a big problem and for a long time it didn’t seem big to me, but it had led many scholars to question whether he was celebrating a Passover at all because you just don’t blow apart the liturgy that way. You don’t just sidestep the most important part. It would be like saying the Mass and skipping the Eucharist, forgetting the words of consecration. So why did Jesus do it? Other scholars say, well back then there must not have been a fourth cup. But ancient revered traditions like that don’t just spring up overnight and then cover the globe like the Passover liturgy has, with all four cups. And so it seems likely that there might be a better explanation. But where? Why did he skip the fourth cup? After all, he was raised a Jew, he’d been celebrating the Passover every year of his life since he was a little boy according to the strictest laws of Moses. Well, maybe there’s a psychological reason. Maybe he was so anxious, so uptight about what he knew he was going to do, he – for instance, we read in Mark 14:32, “They went out to a place called Gethsemane and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I pray.’ He took with him Peter, James and John and began to be greatly distressed and troubled, and he said to them, ‘My soul is very sorrowful even unto death.'”[/quote:1xvebv02]
For the entire text of Dr. Hahn’s lecture you can click here[/url:1xvebv02].
As many think this passage is not a reference that Christ’s work here on Earth for our salvation was complete. For Old Testament prophecy has not been fulfilled until Christ’s resurrection.
God Bless!
Fred
” title=”Smile” />
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.