Posted on 06/17/2008 7:55:24 AM PDT by NYer
When I was in law school, I had a classmate named Barry (not his real name). At the time, I was not practicing the faith and by no means was a paragon of virtuous living. Despite my own low standards, I thought Barry’s carousing lifestyle crossed the bounds of propriety. He even confided to me that while he was home one weekend he made his girlfriend procure an abortion, because he was not willing to take responsibility for his actions.
One day, months later, Barry out of the blue told me, “It’s time for a revival.” It was only then that I learned that he was a part-time preacher who from time to time would go barnstorming through Missouri and Arkansas, inviting people to become “saved.”
I was shocked. I admitted that I had no room to talk, since in my estimation I was no longer a Catholic or even a Christian. Even so, the disparity between Barry’s faith and his ongoing debauchery confused and scandalized me. He eventually explained that I had to learn to separate faith from daily life. I told him–with less refinement and charity than I’d use today–what I thought of a religion I could test drive but not take home. My burning intuition was that a religion that did not affect who I was and how I lived was not worth my time.
An analogous situation arises today in the context of funerals. As many of us know, the dominant mindset is that the deceased is “in a better place,” and thus the funeral rite itself becomes nothing other than a mini-canonization.
Assuredly we entrust the deceased to the mercy of God, who alone judges hearts. We also must console those who are mourning, offering them solid grounds for hope that their departed loved one is indeed with the Lord. In this regard, it is entirely fitting to recall the good deeds and accomplishments of the deceased to buoy our hope in his or her resurrection.
Yet the current trend goes even further. Our contemporaries assume the deceased is in heaven, so the only real concern is helping friends and family cope with the temporal loss. This approach effectively does away with the need to pray and offer sacrifice for the deceased, which Scripture describes as a “very excellent and noble” practice (cf. 2 Mac. 12:43; Catechism, no. 1032). It also derails a teachable moment: The reality of death affords all of us the opportunity to consider our own mortality and thus seek to be in right relationship with God. An objective observer at many funerals today could easily conclude that it really doesn’t matter how one lives, because everyone’s eternal fate seems to be the same.
Both my encounter with Barry and the experience at many funerals today reflect the error of presumption, which takes many forms (cf. Catechism, no. 2092). One form of presumption is the timeless heresy of Pelagianism, which holds that happiness is attainable by merely human effort, without the necessity of grace. This is manifested today by those who place all their hope in technological progress. Another example of presumption, commonly seen at funerals, is the attitude that in the end God will forgive us irrespective of our cooperation with grace. Following this view, heaven is the inevitable and more or less universal sequel to this life.
Christian fundamentalism is yet another form of presumption. Granted, Barry’s case is an extreme example of the “once saved, always saved” mentality. Most Bible Christians would be aghast at Barry’s lifestyle. Further, they rightly affirm in the midst of our largely secular and indifferent society the centrality of our faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 3:11). Even so, the necessity of a “born again” experience is often explained in a way that leaves no room for human freedom. Once “saved,” the individual can’t “lose” his salvation, even through mortal sin. (Click here for CUF’s FAITH FACT entitled “Persevering to the End: The Biblical Reality of Mortal Sin.”)
“When will I come to the end of my pilgrimage, and enter the presence of God?” This antiphon, taken from Monday Morning Prayer, Week II in the Liturgy of the Hours, summarizes the proper attitude of the Christian in this life. This attitude can be summed up in one word: hope.
The issue here is necessity of good works alongside faith, and, of course, the necessity of prayer for the dead. Imputed righteousness vs infused righteousness is a theoretical debate, and not directly pertinent here. It is true that I know of no Protestant that says we should do bad works, so so long as the sin of presumption is avoided, good works are preached, and the dead are prayed for, we are on the same page, more or less.
However, once prayer for the dead is discarded, salvation of souls is very seriously at stake. The issue ceases to be theoretical.
We talk about works because that faith that Christ is referring to in your quotes is dead without them (James 2).
I don’t want to be antagonistic. I’ll try to word it differently from now on.
“We are not saved by faith alone, the Holy Scripture teaches”
Really? Not my Bible. No amount of works can save you it is through belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and HIS gift of Grace by that belief that saves you. Works are done in addition to as you are saved you strive to be more Christ-like.
You are Protestant? You don't have the full Bible. Look in James 2, toward the end of the chapter.
Ahh I smell whiffs of primacy... My KJV does nicely thank you.
"Subsistence" is the new, politically correct, term. Christ's Church Subsists in the Catholic Church.
So you got the Letter of James in "KJV"? Gospel of Matthew, too? Letter to Romans?
From my vantage point, the discussion is all about imputation. I know that others disagree. (Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion :>)
The bottom line, however, remains: have they or have they not persevered.
What are ways to persevere:
1. Have you sin not counted against you, so that you have a judicial righteousness and not a righteousness of your own.
2. Live a life with zero sin, so that no sin can be held against you.
3. Life a life which includes sin, but balance that sin by a more weighty portion of righteous acts that cancels out the sin.
4. Combinations of the above
As David says, “Ps 32:2 - Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.”
2 Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: 3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.(2 Peter 1)
Colossians Chapter 1 has the same idea.
That sounds like 3 to me...a mixture of sin and righteousness.
What cancels out the sin?
The sin already committed is absolved and the future sin is gradually conquered through unfused grace.
The reason I objected to (3) is because the way you put it is works salvation: a sin is canceled by good works. The sin is conquered — not merely committed and canceled — by man’s acceptance of sanctifying grace. But sin is certainly something that coexists with righteousness in a baptized person, so to that extent (3) is not incorrect.
Astounding, isn't it?
When Protestants have confidence in their salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, Catholics charge us with "the sin of presumption," and we're anathematized and damned to hell.
Yet when Catholics say the rosary for 15 minutes a day, they can be "assured of their salvation."
My husband says he fled the RCC of his childhood when he was around 18 and realized very little of what Rome taught was consistent with much of anything, not even itself.
That is the blessing of being, and, especially, remaining, Catholic.
Good many are going to get the “I don’t know you” response and be terribly shocked.
Feel the love.
So you don't see anything peculiar with believing you can be "assured of your salvation" if you recite the rosary for 15 minutes every day, yet you cannot be "assured of your salvation" by the fact that you possess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
Ludicrous and sad.
Bad theology, totally warped, but that is what they thought.
Same with the guy in the article.
Faith is more than just an intellectual pronouncement. It means that you Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. If you say you have faith, yet live your life in a manner such as described in the article, do you really have it? Few pastors or priests would say yes (and none that I know). Most of the hyper Calvinists (which is indeed a straw man), would agree. You can play Christian all you want, but that doesn't mean Jesus will claim you in the end.
If you love God, truly love Him, you will try to do his will. The great tragedy of the Fall is that we can never completely do His will on earth. For we all sin, we all fall short. We are like little kids trying to help they Dad with something. We don't really have the ability to do it at times.
But that is where Christ comes in. If we repent of our sins, we are forgiven. And this is not just a mumbled “sorry” as we swing to our next sin, but we are supposed to try to turn our lives more to God.
That is what I have been taught. And that is why I try to do “good works”. Not because I think it will gain me points with God, for my debt to Him is such that Jesus had to die to repay it, but because I love Him. And that means I want to do His will.
Most Christians, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, will say similar things. Our job is to do His will, and to be thankful for forgiveness when we fail.
1 John 3:9 and the passages surrounding it refer to habitual sin. The Greek is properly understood to mean “continuing in sin.” Even protestant commentaries recognize this. For example:
Gray’s Home Bible Commentary says this about the passage in question.
“Others interpret the word “commit” in the sense of practice (compare Galatians 5:21), (Revised Version). It is one thing to fall temporarily into sin as a consequence of sudden temptation, and another thing to practice it, i.e., to live in continual transgression. This no regenerated man does. The teaching of this verse should be balanced with that of 1:8, where the apostle is speaking to the same persons as in the present instance.”
The cited verse [1:8] for balance says:
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
Verse 9 goes on to say, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
All of this is in keeping with Catholic teaching.
If we take 1 John 3 in an over literal sense we get big problems. Verse 6 “No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.” Does that mean everyone who is in Christ doesn’t sin any longer? No.
Verses 9-10 “No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. So...everyone who is of God doesn’t sin?
10 “In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother.”
Notice in verse 10 it is those who “act in righteousness” that belong to God vs anyone “who does not love [act in righteousness] his brother.”
In verse 11-12 “For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another,
12 unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother.
Why did he slaughter him? Because his own works were evil, and those of his brother righteous. Cain as Able had the free choice of obedience vs grave sin (found in 1 John chapter 5). But notice Cain chose evil by his works and Able chose righteousness by his works. We also even after we have been given sanctifying grace, can choose by our works [actions or obedience] evil or love for baptism is our initial justification and salvation is a process.
“Salvation has many components:
1. saved by grace – Rom. 3:23,24; Titus 2:11; Eph 2:5,8
2. saved by faith – Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8; I Peter 1:9
3. saved by confession – Rom. 10:10; I John 1:9; James 5:16
4. saved by repentance – Luke 13:3; II Cor. 7:10; II Peter 3:9
5. saved by baptism – Mark 16:16; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21
6. saved by the Holy Ghost – John 3:5; Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13,14
7. saved by endurance – II Tim. 2:10; James 1:12; Heb. 3:6
Salvation is a process:
1. we have been saved, “According to his mercy he saved us” (Titus 3:5), and “{God} has saved us and called us to a holy life” (2 Tim 1:9),
2. we are being saved, “For by grace are ye saved” (Eph 2:8), and “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phi 2:12),
3. we shall be saved, “much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10) and “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (I Tim 4:16).
God only gives this final salvation if we continue in him (Rom 11:22; Col 1:23; I John 2:24,25).”
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/process.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.