They are. However, so we can speak on the same level, at times I will refer to salvation as that one-time event when we first receive Christ. Knowing that we can lose our inheritance, though, this salvation is not necessarily permanent. As such, neither is justification - the currently wicked are not jusified.
If you meant that the assurance of justification was potentially temporary, i.e., one could "take off" the mind of Christ and lose his justification, then I think that would match what Alex was saying. (Of course in that case, "assurance" would have no meaning of worth.) If true, then I would take it that you both do think of the concept of election as being a permanent status? I think of all three as being permanent.
I don't think Catholics think of "assurance" in the same way you do. We don't see salvation/justification as a legal issue, but a familial one. While it does have components of being legal, our relationship with God is described as between a Father and a child. There are legal issues in such a relationship, but these matters are very much secondary in our daily lives. Thus, we are told to persevere in our Father's love.
As to election, I think it is fair to say that we see it from the future looking back upon our past as we stand in front of Christ at judgment time and He says to us "well done, good and faithful servant, enter into my presence". Only at that time will we KNOW we are of the elect. I think we can say with relative certitude that we are of the elect when we look at our current actions and behavior, but this is not absolute certitude - we ALL can potentially fail. Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.
The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:
He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?
1 Cor 3:14-15 : 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven! First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved? Second of all, we have already discussed the Scriptures regarding rewards in heaven or loss of them. The Bible doesn't speak that way. Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.
Besides, if you want to have a verse-off on whether Paul taught, preached, lived, slept and ate assurance of salvation/election, I would be more than happy to. I am CERTAIN of the outcome of THAT. :)
I don't do "verse-off's" anymore because that rarely settles any issues. That is the problem with Bible alone. It doesn't solve much of anything because people can always dig up and twist Scriptures to suit their needs. I would prefer to look at what the first Christians thought on the matter, since they heard with their own ears the ORAL AND WRITTEN teachings given by them. Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.
Anyone can read the Bible and understand the basics of my views, but to believe them is only by an act of God. To come away with Catholicism from the Bible I think would take an act of God in both understanding and belief.
I disagree, because I didn't come out that way. I was one of those unbiased persons who wanted to come to Christ and I didn't find the Protestant view satisfactory - I found it contradictory in many places, esp. sola scripture and sola fide. When I read the first Christians, I noticed they didn't believe what you claim was taught by the Apostles. If I believe the Apostles' witness, if I believe they were guided by God, I cannot fathom the Protestant viewpoint. While I don't fully understand everything Catholic, I trust that it is the fullness of God's Church on earth. Knowing God transcends our understanding, I have accepted that some things will not be fully understood by me.
Your argument is invalid because it presumes that the Eucharist was a better developed and accepted idea than the identity of Christ Himself. Therefore you are saying that some or many were completely wrong about Christ, but had the Eucharist just right.
No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK? Again, if you want to know how the first Christians read the bible and understood the Apostles, you'll have to begin reading the Fathers of the first 2 centuries. That is how I became Catholic - by seeing that the Christian church was Catholic in beliefs and understanding of the Scriptures.
The point is that anyone can simply SAY that in order to justify any change they want. "Evolving" to a greater consistent truth is all in the eye of the beholder. I thought that you would reject that. I put that into the same category of saying that we have a "living" Constitution.
Ah, but if something is taught by the universal Church "everywhere, by everyone, for all time", then it is considered an Apostolic Teaching and NOT subject to change. God protects this teaching. Thus, Rome CANNOT change such teachings. You will NEVER find the Church teaching contraception because it has been determined to be Apostolic in teaching and coming from God. The Spirit has guided the Church for 2000 years on this issue - and thus, CANNOT be changed.
Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion.
No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.
Mary clearly didn't "get it" at that point, or do you argue against that?
I think this is what makes Mary's faith in God so great. While some theologians may say that Mary's knowledge exceeded all else about Christ (which may very well be true), I think, by the way God works, that He prefers to place us in opportunities where we must TRUST in Him. That is how we grow in Christ - not by instant, freely given knowledge, but by experience Christ through the difficult and often dry moments in our lives. I think Mary's act of faith would be more meritorious and pleasing in God's eyes had she NOT knew everything and merely trusted that God would do what He promised. Paul also struggled throughout - I don't think he knew everything. And his faith in God was that much more meritorious.
The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)
I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement? As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God. I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...
Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary. There are some Protestants who give Mary some honor - as Martin Luther did. But most do not. Sadly, they are missing the profound link between Mary and the Church.
I see what you are saying. I think there is a much greater difference in how my side views justification vs. salvation. We see justification as being only and purely legal. We have no real involvement or participation of any kind. Salvation is more familial, since our love for Him is involved and participates (within the Reformed view, of course :).
Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.
OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.
[Re: 1 Cor. 9] FK: "The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:"
He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?
Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:
Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
It is clear to me that Paul believed he had already completed this requirement when he made his statement. He doesn't say "you 'might' be saved". See also verse 13.
Eph 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Surely Paul already believed this also applied to him. Finally:
2 Thess 2:13 : 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Again, Paul would obviously include himself in this. There can be no doubt of any kind that PAUL knew he was saved and of the elect according to the Bible. The only question that can be asked is whether he was right, since Tradition disagrees with Paul.
Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven!
Well, then it's a verse-off between 15 and 17. I see no reasonable way to interpret around 15. While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation. That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.
First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved?
You are right that my position is that no one is just barely saved, he either is or he is not. I do not see this concept anywhere in our passage. 15 says that if a man's works are lesser, then his Heavenly reward will be lesser, but nonetheless, he will still be just as saved as before. Here, the comparison is to being alive. Whether one has burned edges or not, alive is alive. I think that is the point.
Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.
Yes, I have read the story. :) While I think your reading is perfectly reasonable, I also think there is another, equally reasonable reading. That is, if this parable was about the type of rewards in Heaven that I am talking about, then it is still useful for teaching. For example, let's say that you and I both became Christians today with equal faiths and zeal for God. We both strike forth eagerly to do good things for God. Well, one month from now, I am run over by a bus. You miss me terribly, but you soldier on and do many many wonderful and great things for God for the next 40 years. Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.
And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.
Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.
That's OK because my tradition is not an authority to me. :)
No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK?
Part of my point was that your first sentence here CANNOT be right. By definition. :) Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.
FK: "Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion."
No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.
Knowing Christ's identity and having everything figured out are two COMPLETELY different things. I think it was on this thread that I had to revise an earlier statement to acknowledge that Paul did indeed grow in faith after his conversion. However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.
FK: "The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)"
I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?
I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:
On Matthew 8:10 : [I have not found so great faith] The word "faith," here, means "confidence" or belief that Christ had power to heal his servant. It does not of "necessity" imply that he had saving faith; though, from the connection and the spirit manifested, it seems probable that he had. If this was so, then he was the first Gentile convert to Christianity, and was a very early illustration of what was more clearly revealed afterward-that the pagan were to be brought to the knowledge of the truth. (from Barnes' Notes)
And this is from Matthew Henry:
[2.] He applauded him in what he said to them that followed. All believers shall be, in the other world, but some believers are, in this world, confessed and acknowledged by Christ before men, in his eminent appearances for them and with them. Verily, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Now this speaks, First, Honour to the centurion; who, though not a son of Abraham's loins, was an heir of Abraham's faith, and Christ found it so. Note, The thing that Christ seeks is faith, and wherever it is, he finds it, though but as a grain of mustard-seed. He had not found so great faith, all things considered, and in proportion to the means; as the poor widow is said to cast in more than they all, Luke 21:3. Though the centurion was a Gentile, yet he was thus commended. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) (emphasis added)
And these were the first two places I checked. I didn't think it would be any problem to find support for that the centurion was converted. The text tells us. He knew without seeing. From a Gentile at that time, it just screams true faith to me.
As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God.
I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.
I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...
Jesus appreciates truth, which is given to us in His word. His word does not describe a perfect, sinless Mary. It describes a loving mother, Mary. It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her. If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"
Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary.
We honor her humanity as well as her deeds. I wonder what she would think if she knew that hundreds of millions of people would effectively take away her humanity by elevating her above it. If it is meant to be, I look forward to seeing her in Heaven, and I will have a clear conscience.