The sacraments are the pre-eminent means of receiving God's graces, although they certainly are not the only means. Catholic spiritual writers constantly vouch for the effectiveness of the Sacraments in one's walk to become more virtuous. Considering that we must become Christ-like, to become Holy as God is Holy, the sacraments are "required" normatively, but not absolutely. It is through the Eucharist where we recognize and partake in the work of Christ most fully. I am not introducing a new means of salvation - it is quite old! Christ commissioned His Apostles with the power to forgive sins and to visibly connect the faithful to that heavenly offering of Christ's sacrifice to His Father eternally.
We believe that salvation is completely achieved by the acceptance by the believer of Christ as Savior and Lord into his or her heart.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but is your definition of salvation focusing on a past event? We call that first event (we - Baptism, you - Sinner's Prayer) "initial justification". In a sense, we are "saved", but as in anything else in life, we can become "unhealed" (to save means to heal). Because we have been healed once doesn't preclude another onslaught of disease or sickness. I believe the Scriptures bears this out when it discusses perseverance, fighting to the end, running the race, etc.
The ongoing process of sanctification, I believe we agree with. However, we also understand that during our walk, we may turn away from God through deadly sin. Thus, we believe we require a "rejustification". In other words, we must be made righteous in God's eyes again. This doesn't mean that the mark the Spirit left on us after Baptism has left us. But we must reconcile with our Father, just as the Prodigal Son did.
And finally, when Catholics say "we are saved", they are normally refering to that moment when we "stand" before the Throne of God and are judged based on how we responded to God's grace, much like Matthew 25:31-45. As a sidebar, our response is a cooperation with God - we can do nothing good without Christ abiding within us. Thus, our good deeds are actually mine AND Christ's - sort of like an amalgamation of two persons. Thus, we can say we cannot boast and that they are not our works alone that save.
Regarding the "books", the OT books are probably more refering to books of life as you mention. Psalm 69 discusses these books, as well. However, most Bible scholars believe that there is a spiritual connection in the OT between the Promised Land (dirt) and the Promised Land (heaven), as well as death (our body) and death (the second death) in the NT. The OT speaks of typology that foreshadows a deeper meaning in the New. At any rate, there are other verses that discuss how we can lose "salvation", such as:
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb 10:26-27)
There are enough verses along these lines that would make the concept of losing salvation difficult to "explain away" so often. It is a re-occuring theme.
There is nothing in our beliefs that involves resting on our laurels because we already have a "ticket". We also do not believe that we can be sure because we declare it so. We just honestly believe that there are many promises in the Bible that lead to surety. Our approach, when clearly appropriate, is to take a plain meaning of the promise and then to rest in joy and thanksgiving.
I admit that I find that a bit of a contradiction. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding comes from our different definitions of what it means to be saved. Has God's grace become effective on the person who has faith to move mountains but has not love? Paul says that faith is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). Is worthless faith going to achieve eternal heaven for us? Would you say that God expects that His gifts are used by our display of love for our neighbor? James is not impressed with such "faith", either, nor is John. And Jesus, well, Matthew 7:21 tells us we must DO the will of the Father. Our faith should lead us to do good, otherwise, it is worthless faith. If it doesn't, then what?
This is where I am lost by the "once saved - always saved" doctrine. Paul admits that faith alone DOESN'T save, but requires LOVE. Even ALL FAITH, he says, can be worthless.
I agree that the battle is not over once, in my view, salvation is achieved.
Ah. What battle is left to fight then? NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, correct? But ourselves... I believe that God's promise should give us full confidence that Satan can not pry us out of God's Hands. But I do believe WE can turn away - perhaps a gradual falling away, or maybe one particular extreme event. But if we continue to fight a battle and cannot fail, what is the battle's purpose?
We believe the Bible is simple enough for a child to understand
Yikes! Then why so many different opinions on even KEY elements of the faith? The very basic message is not difficult to understand, but the Scriptures themselves require some understanding of past interpretations. I think it is a mistake to "re-invent the wheel". I think it is too easy to take for granted what our pastors and priests teach us.
With the new help of the Spirit, many of the mysteries of the Bible can be discovered, and we will lead better, more Godly, and happier lives while on earth
Certainly, as long as we have a humble heart ourselves. Being humble requires that we also take into account the Church's interpretation on Scripture. We realize that the Spirit has been operative in the past Church members, and the same Spirit is operative in us today. Thus, if our prayers lead us to interpret something that is out of line with what the Spirit has taught the Church throughout history, as we being humble? Is the same Spirit going to lead us to different, diametrically opposed understandings of the same verses? The Spirit of Truth works within us, but not to lead us astray from what He tells everyone else.
Brother in Christ
I would say that 'yes', the focus is on the sinner's prayer. And, as I have learned on this thread, perseverance is also required and will happen through God's power. We would say that the elect will not become "unhealed" because God keeps His own and will not forsake us.
And finally, when Catholics say "we are saved", they are normally referring to that moment when we "stand" before the Throne of God and are judged based on how we responded to God's grace, much like Matthew 25:31-45.
I was wondering about the actual moment, thanks for clarifying.
At any rate, there are other verses that discuss how we can lose "salvation", such as:
"For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb 10:26-27)
I would counter by saying that anyone who so defiantly sins against God was never saved in the first place. God would not let His elect fall into that level of sin after salvation.
Perhaps part of the misunderstanding comes from our different definitions of what it means to be saved. Has God's grace become effective on the person who has faith to move mountains but has not love? Paul says that faith is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). Is worthless faith going to achieve eternal heaven for us? Would you say that God expects that His gifts are used by our display of love for our neighbor? James is not impressed with such "faith", either, nor is John. And Jesus, well, Matthew 7:21 tells us we must DO the will of the Father. Our faith should lead us to do good, otherwise, it is worthless faith. If it doesn't, then what?
No, worthless faith will not achieve eternal heaven for us. (I know, you're shocked :) I think that the love you speak of is an included component of God's true grace and faith. I WOULD say that God expects that His gifts are to be used by our display of love for our neighbor. It's included. Our true faith will lead us to do good. I see Paul's opening statements in 1 Cor. 13 as meaning that talk is cheap. God covers His elect by granting the ability to truly love, and it will be exercised by the elect.
This is where I am lost by the "once saved - always saved" doctrine.
I now admit that this doctrine suffers greatly under scriptural scrutiny. That's why I have adopted "Perseverance of the Saints", which holds that perseverance is necessary and that man could fail. However, that won't happen for the elect because God will not allow it. God keeps His own, and the love we have been discussing will be evident in the believer's life because of the nature of the gift and God's plan.
Me: I agree that the battle is not over once, in my view, salvation is achieved.
Ah. What battle is left to fight then? NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, correct? ... But if we continue to fight a battle and cannot fail, what is the battle's purpose?
Even after salvation we will still battle against remnants or memories of the old sin nature, even though it has been replaced with a new nature. Satan will continue to attack us in spiritual warfare. Even if I know I'm going to win at the end, I still don't want to get stabbed 50 times. :) So, we battle, and through this battle we are sanctified and become stronger for Christ on this earth. We are happier as strong Christians rather than weak ones. There is purpose.
The very basic message is not difficult to understand, but the Scriptures themselves require some understanding of past interpretations.
That's all I was referring to. I just meant that the gospel of salvation is simple enough that a child could understand it and be saved.
Being humble requires that we also take into account the Church's interpretation on Scripture.
I don't mind taking it into account, the problem is my lack of recognition of authority. The only authority for me is God.
Thus, if our prayers lead us to interpret something that is out of line with what the Spirit has taught the Church throughout history, are we being humble?
Well, if your prayers lead you, then what does that say? Jesus was all humility and yet He frequently disagreed with the teachings of the day.