Catholic Soteriology

[Some Darn Xian]

I suppose there is a need for some explanation.

In one of the earlier posts I refer to a guy by the handle of "Freethinker." In addition to his unending string of red herrings, he had a wonderful little habit of referring to Christians as xians. In addition, he would get heated towards certain of us who could actually hold a conversation, and then refer to us as Da_ _ xians. So, being the wonderfully calm person that I am, I adopted the handle "Some Darn Xian" as a kind of thumbing of the nose that this guy. If you also look at it, there is a paradox within the handle.

[gracebyfaith]

Thanks for explaining.  I've only been around for about a week -
it's all new, but it's been fun!

Hopefully, we can get back to the subject of the eternal Son debate.
I'm still waiting for Scripture that tells us the Son had no beginning...


God bless everyone.

[gracebyfaith]

Sounds like a power play!  I've been looking back at your posts on this
thread.  You've given nothing of substance since about post 15 when
you gave TWO Scriptures that you repeated just recently.

No one is asking that you convince anybody.  It doesn't sound like I'm
the only one who thinks you're argument is very weak.  Your responses
have been nothing but cheap shots at people's intelligence (completely
unfounded) and of no consequence to the subject being discussed. 

Two Scriptures that don't express an eternal Son (no beginning) are
hardly "enough" to hang your hat on.  Sounds like your unwillingness to
truly debate this subject is actually a forfeit, you're not exactly being
forced to ignore responses.  Conveniently, you're going to take on the
role of "sole" authority and make the rules - boy that sounds familiar...

[BuffyVmprSlyr]

But what I hear Thor, Buffy, and Acuman saying is that in order to understand the Fatherhood of God we must look outside of our human logic and reason to grasp the Oneness view of how God is a Father. Now this is not the Oneness board so I don't want to get side tracked, but it is actually you all that have gotten yourselves tied up to a "mortal concept of a man with a son" not I.  Since when is it a "mortal concept" to say that a man is a Father within Himself without progeny?

That's not really what I was saying -- my suggestion that God is not bound to the parameters or our logic was simply an example of his omnipotence.

I'm not quite used to the intensity of attention paid to each word rather than the sentiment as a means of valuing or discrediting the ideas.

-Buffy

[Some Darn Xian]

I think your post before last is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.

The difference in definitions between the RCC and the rest of Xianity is based partially on the construct of salvation, sanctification and how it relates to faith.

The RCC believes that at the time of conversion or baptism, an "irresistible grace" is enacted. This is directed at God, not man. Because a person's sins/transgressions to this point are out of a sinful condemned nature, there is some saving grace given to help erase the previous wrongs. After the "infused grace" of conversion, the believer is left to complete the remaining days of their life in the "sorrowful mystery" of the Eucharist. Mass attendance is encouraged, because at each mass, the sacrifice of Xrist is enacted again. In other words, Xrist is crucified anew. This is necessary for the believer to get additional actions of "irresistible grace" to work on God.

In the rest of Xianity, the condemned and unsaved nature of the human condition cries out for salvation, only it is not the cry that the individual makes, it is the cry that is made by the Holy Spirit convicting the individual of their condemned and unholy condition. The work of the Holy Spirit is found in the Word of God, namely the Bible, where the nature of God is revealed, as well as the Salvation and the Person in Whom that salvation is found. At the point of conversion, the individual is covered in the blood of Xrist, and when  the individual is viewed by God, the blood of His Son is what is seen, not the sins of the sinner.  The state of grace that occurs after conversion is what is known as sanctification--the act of making holy.

Where the doctrine of the RCC further diverges from that of the Bible is the belief that the person is somehow an integral part of working that salvation. Works are the evidence of a sanctified life, not the cause of it. Works are the act of a grateful heart, not one seeking a payout of salvation. The Pauline letters are quite clear on this, specifically through out the book of Galatians.

As further "evidence" of this divergence, are the words of the dying Xrist---"It is finished." These three words are not merely a statement that His being nailed on a cross is complete. It is the statement on salvation. All that has been necessary has been completed.

Paul goes into considerable detail. To quote the entire book of Galatians would be an effort that would do little to further the debate. It would only allow for El to perform the surgical word cutting he accuses others of doing. My advice is to read Galatians--not once but a couple of times. The entirety of the Xian doctrine of salvation is explained--vicarious atonement being the big issue.

To state that God simply needed to entertain us with his presence is enough to elevate humanity to a holy state is to disregard the very nature of God. God is perfect. He cannot be in the presence of anything less without the imperfect being consumed. As evidence of this, review Moses on the Mount Sinai. God had to remain in a cloud. He told Moses this, or Moses would be destroyed. Further along on the nature of this line of thinking, if God's presence was enough, then the life and death of Xrist served no other purpose but to add dramatics. While God did employ the dramatic effects of miracles to get people's attention, it would be lost on most people living at the time of Xrist for this simply to be a demonstration of love without a significant and wholly relevant and necessary reason as determined by God. This cheapening of Xrist's life and death is what I would deem offensive.

[Some Darn Xian]

Attention to detail:

That being said His mere act of love to lower Himself and become human was sufficient to bring us into Glory (technically speaking).

This is cheapening Xrist's work of Salvation.

This is ignoring the chief doctrine of vicarious atonement.

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

In order for Xrist to raise man to a more perfect condition, the mere act of walking among the people of the earth did not achieve this. If it did, then the 1st century Gnostics had it right (who incidentally were persecuted by the turn of the 3rd century by Rome).

But God wanted to express His love to the utmost act of Human sacrifice and by doing so, by laying down His life for His creation, accomplished His purpose of completely Divinizing humanity, encompassing every perfect aspect of humanity and addressing that which hinders the true dignity of man (suffering and death).

I believe this would be the counter point to would like to address.

Romans 3:22,23: 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

There is nothing in this passage that tells me that there is anything good in the human spirit. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Pretty straight forward. There isn't anything that tells me I have a snowball's chance outside of God's Grace.

Key these two passages together, and you start to get an idea of what salvation is. The condition of the human being is one of imperfection. The condition of God is perfection. How can these two be in the same place without something happening, namely the imperfect being consumed by the perfect.

Exodus 33:20: "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Now, before you accuse me of misquoting, Moses was considered to be holy in God's eyes. Why couldn't he look upon the face of God? What would the reason be if not the perfection of God consuming the imperfection of man?

As for your questions and accusing me of not knowing the RCC dogma, I will willing admit that I have never attended the CCC program. But, I have had in-depth discussions with a priest who is perhaps the most "Roman Catholic" person I have ever encountered. I have to say, if I was to be a RCC, this would be the guy to have as my priest. Clear and straight from the pontiff himself, literally(He spent time in Rome with JPII for about a year, working for him.). What I have stated may not be as clear and consice as he has stated it, but it follows the RCC dogma pretty straight along the direction of teachings.

[Some Darn Xian]

So as Catholics, we understand that every aspect of our life (sans sin) is and can be directed towards and combined with the Divine life of Jesus, and by doing this we live supernaturally and become closer to our Lord.  This is what it means to have "salvation" to live the life of Christ, through His person with our person.

Here is the difference. You view that you have an ability that is actually contrary to biblical teaching, namely that you can contribute to your own salvation. If an ordinary person could actually make themselves in some manner acceptable to God, then the whole of Xrist's life and death and resurrection would be without merit.

The psalmist states that "we all like sheep have gone astray," and St Paul states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

I don't see how a person is able to regain God's favor by doing anything.

And, add to this Xrist's statement that "No one comes to the Father but through me."
Xrist also stated that "even if a man keeps the whole law but stumbles at one point, he is guilty of breaking all of it." Not too much room for error.

What we see here is the need for Xrist to do what we cannot--live a perfect life from conception to the grave.

Again, the means and method are given to us by St Paul, "just as sin entered the world through one man and condemned us all, so too through the one man are all men saved."

To further my point, the way to view a person who is in sin, without faith in Xrist as the savior he is would be that of a person who is dead on the floor.

When was the last time you ever saw a dead person get up and treat himself or manage to get help? I've been working in EMS for almost 16 years now, and I haven't seen it yet.

To further the illustration: Xrist is the medical person that has all the gear and the tools to fix the dead. He works his skills and performs what needs to be done, and the person now is living again.

At this point the person has the choice of accepting the life that has been given them, and change their ways to avoid the things that put them on the floor in the first place, or they can jump right back into those things and end up dead on the floor again.

This is the concept of objective salvation, namely Xrist saves all, and subjective salvation, the individual must take the salvation that has been given them or reject it.

I don't buy the concept that a person who is saved can do anything to save themselves. It is all done by Xrist. To be otherwise would be to lessen the power of Xrist's salvation and God's love and grace.

[Acumen]

Darn,


When was the last time you ever saw a dead person get up and treat himself or manage to get help? I've been working in EMS for almost 16 years now, and I haven't seen it yet.

I'm not so sure that Eluminati is saying that.  I think he agrees that a man who is dead to sin cannot save himself, but there is certainly an element we contribute to the process.  In the EMS field, we don't respond to emergencies until people call us (unless we see something on our way back from a call).  I think that those who are dead to sin can contribute in ways like that.  Perhaps we emit a call for help, and like the paramedics, Christ does the rest?  However, there has to be some cooperation on our before grace by faith can work.  Have you ever tried to treat an angry drunk or a combative diabetic?  I have, and it's almost impossible.  Unless we get their cooperation, or the police to subdue them, they will go untreated.

-Acumen 

[Chiara]

Hello,

I know this is an old thread, but the subject is interesting, and it illustrates a common dispute between Catholics and non-Catholics that has been ongoing for almost 500 years, and will continue well into the future, so, I thought it is relevant.  This is my first post on this forum.  I recognize many of you from beliefnet, so I don't feel so new, just relocated.  I have already found this forum to be a much more satisfying site for discussion.

There are a few misunderstandings that I would like to address concerning "Catholic Soteriology" that may aid non-Catholics in understanding our vantage point.

First, Catholics view salvation, redemption and atonement as three different components of one desired end.  Salvation is the attainment of the Beatific Vision in the Kingdom of God fulfilled; entry into heaven.  This is the desired end of humankind as well as God's desire for each of us.  Redemption is the liberation of humankind from the "death sentance" incured as the result of Adam's sin, and atonement is the reconcilation of humankind, both personally and in community, with God through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. These are very simple and to the point definations, and they need to be expanded upon, but, one can see that they can be, and are viewed as having meanings distinct and apart from one another, as well as being three necessary components of what we generally refer to as Salvation.

I find it interesting that no body has mentioned the Kingdom, the goal and the object of salvation. 

Faith and Works:

We are saved by grace through faith.  We do not dispute this.  So, how does works fit into the Catholic concept of salvation?  The problem lies with the various interpretations of works.  Commonly seen as "something we do" if we maintain that salvation is the product of faith  by grace, it is reasonable to assume that work in itself  can do nothing to aid in our own salvation.  If faith and grace are gifts from God, then it should follow that every human being is saved. The question that follows is why do some have faith, and others do not? Catholics believe that the opportunity for salvation is offered to every human being.  Many Christians believe this, some believe in a selection process, or predestination, and there are other varying understandings. 

The very first "work" we do, is to freely, by choice, in faith, accept the gift of grace.  It is by grace that faith develops.  We believe that God infuses the gifts of faith, hope, and love in the hearts of every human being. Grace, when we accept it, brings the gift of faith to its fullness. It is by freely acepting the gift of grace that faith, and through faith, hope and love, manifests in acts of love, committed not to gain favor, or out of a sense of obligation, but as a natural progression of faith. This seems to be the same argument that many people form as their justification against works. The difference is that we Catholics view the acceptance of grace as participation in our salvation, as Elluminati has empasized.

It is through grace that we become close to God, communicate with God, grow in love for Him, and come to understand His will. Abiding in God's will can also be seen as "work".  However, it is the person of faith who hears God's will and acts accordingly in trust, love and faith.  It is love that infuses life into faith making it visible and tangible. This is what James meant by faith without works is dead.  Faith is a living entity.  It deepens and increases over time. It produces results, or fruit.  It must be constantly nourished and cultivated, or it dies.  This growth process can also be seen as "works". God continually offers His grace to us.  Grace is our spiritual nourishment.  Anything we do to keep our faith alive could be interpreted as "works"; prayer (most important), Scripture reading, and for Catholics, the sacraments.   Each of these things bring us in contact with grace which we, when faithfull, gladly and willingly choose to accept, brings us to a clearer vision of the Kingdom of God.

 
This post is getting long.  If there is interest expessed I will discuss redemption and atonement from the Catholic perspective at a later time.  Pax et Bonum!   

[deacon777]

Just a few points. I'm coming to this rather late in the game.

I noticed the debate got sidetracked on the idea of the Pre-existent Son of God.

A poster said: “Your only argument is that if the Father is eternal, then the
son must also be eternal, and I think that is illogical.”

Well, illogical maybe according to human reasoning – but quite Christian I’m afraid. If people are looking for a rational explanation of the Trinity, there are none. It is not called a "mystery" for nothing.

If there is ONE thing that all Christianity can agree with, it is the Nicene Creed. Part of that creed says:

“We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human."

There is nothing "Catholic" about this - this is Christianity 101.

[deacon777]

Language. You would think seeing how all of us speak English, we would not get so waylaid with language. But alas, we do. There are a few phrases I would like to clean up. This “irresistible grace” is called the Holy Spirit. Yes, baptism overcomes the effects of original sin. We do indeed have a fallen nature. If we didn’t, then why do we need a savior?

I really like this line - “After the "infused grace" of conversion, the believer is left to complete the remaining days of their life in the "sorrowful mystery" of the Eucharist.”

LOL. “Sorrowful mystery”? How about everyone READ John 6 and come back and we’ll discuss. Ancient Christianity, which everyone here seems to respect, worshiped in both Word AND Sacrament. They took very seriously Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me”. Read Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.

We say at every Mass – “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”. Those are not just sequential salvation events in human history – they are simultaneous realities in EVERY human life.     

Then there is this - “The work of the Holy Spirit is found in the Word of God, namely the Bible, where the nature of God is revealed, as well as the Salvation and the Person in Whom that salvation is found.”

I don’t agree. Again I have to ask all Protestants. What on earth did Christianity do before there was a printing press? That would be three quarters of the entire history of the Church.  How did God get to man BEFORE people could read or write?  Answer: By oral communication. The nature of God is revealed NOT just in the printed word but in the minds and hearts of his followers – where “The Word of God” (i.e. Jesus Christ) indwells in us through the Holy Spirit. I hate to keep repeating the words in the Mass but "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit..." is the reality that pretty much sums up "the nature of God" - unity.

And btw, the bible is The Word of God codified in writing – it is NOT “The Word of God, Jesus Christ is.   

And another puzzling observation - “At the point of conversion, the individual is covered in the blood of Xrist, and when  the individual is viewed by God, the blood of His Son is what is seen, not the sins of the sinner.”

And it is NOT just "at conversion". Catholics believe that Jesus took the cup and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be SHED for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me”.

Well – we do this in memory of him at every Mass. We DRINK the “blood of Christ”. I’m not sure we are really saying something different here. All of Christianity recognizes that salvation entails being in the company of those “who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”

This is a common view - “Where the doctrine of the RCC further diverges from that of the Bible is the belief that the person is somehow an integral part of working that salvation.”

No. The key word making this a false assertion is “integral”.  We play a secondary role in our salvation. Even Paul says in 2nd Phil “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;”

"God is perfect. He cannot be in the presence of anything less without the imperfect being consumed. As evidence of this, review Moses on the Mount Sinai. God had to remain in a cloud. He told Moses this, or Moses would be destroyed."

At the death of Jesus, the curtain separating the sacred (the Holy of Holies) from the profane (the outside world) was ripped from top to bottom. Meaning: God has gone OUT into the world. God is now completely accessible in the person of Christ. 

“…if God's presence was enough, then the life and death of Xrist served no other purpose but to add dramatics.”

Sin cannot abide in “God’s presence”. It is indeed “enough” – “My grace is sufficient”. Without Christ, there can be no Pentecost. And without Pentecost, there can be no Church. And without Church, there can be no salvation. God doesn't love us IF we change. God loves us so that we CAN change. That is "the purpose" of Christ.

[Acumen]

I don’t agree. Again I have to ask all Protestants. What on earth did Christianity do before there was a printing press?

If I'm not mistaken, the scriptures were produced before the printing press.   

How did God get to man BEFORE people could read or write?  Answer: By oral communication.

The poster you quoted isn't denying this, nor did the poster imply it.

The nature of God is revealed NOT just in the printed word but in the minds and hearts of his followers – where “The Word of God” (i.e. Jesus Christ) indwells in us through the Holy Spirit.

Again, I didn't see the poster saying this.  He/she said  “The work of the Holy Spirit is found in the Word of God, namely the Bible, where the nature of God is revealed, as well as the Salvation and the Person in Whom that salvation is found.”

I'm not sure why you disagreed.  This is technically correct.  The bible indeed chronicles the work of the Holy Spirit, reveals the nature of God, and locates both salvation and the Savior.  The bible IS the word of God in the plain sense of the word.  It's just not the logos as I believe you were pointing out initially -- that title belongs to Christ.

 

[deacon777]

Acumen

Again, I disagree. IF the Word of God is eternal, as I believe it is, then it obviously predates "the bible". Jesus Christ is commonly thought of as "The Word of God".

And the statement I took issue with:

"Then there is this - “The work of the Holy Spirit is found in the Word of God, namely the Bible, where the nature of God is revealed"

If he/she would gave said, "Then there is this - “The work of the Holy Spirit is found in the Word of God, where the nature of God is revealed"

That would be an accurate and certainly less confusing statement. What we are dealing with here is Trinitarian theology. No one is saying there isn't an inherent authority - a calling power - in the bible.

But the work of the Holy Spirit is found in Jesus Christ the Son, where the true nature of God the Father is revealed.

[WorldWarrior]

Ell--having read the whole thread I have a question for you--

If God has no gender--why do you refer to all three parts of God as male?

Thanks for clarification.

[Acumen]

Again, I disagree. IF the Word of God is eternal, as I believe it is, then it obviously predates "the bible". Jesus Christ is commonly thought of as "The Word of God".

Right, but the phrase "word of God" has multiple meanings.  The one I think your picking up on is the logos, which is eternal.  I don't think the poster you quoted is suggesting that the bible is the logos, but rather the bible is the message of God because it reveals who God is.  I don't recall him saying that nothing can be revealed outside the scriptures as that would put a serious limitation on the resurrected Christ, not to mention make a mess out of early Christianity that had to survive without the scriptures. 

[piglet]

“irresistible grace” is called the Holy Spirit.

Very good. Though some resist Him

Yes, baptism overcomes the effects of original sin. We do indeed have a fallen nature. If we didn’t, then why do we need a savior?

That is to say Christ's death, thus Christ's Spirit, overcomes sin. Though He needs to be experienced. Sin's not eradicated out of one's being by baptism

How about everyone READ John 6 and come back and we’ll discuss. Ancient Christianity, which everyone here seems to respect, worshiped in both Word AND Sacrament. They took very seriously Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me”. Read Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.

"Sacrament" ? What's that ? If anything. Do you mean "mystery"?
What's not a mystery ? Do you mean some kind of choreographed or scripted activity ?
Such dead religion's absent from the apostles' and Lord's teaching.
By your contrast to "word" do you mean a kind of mime, dear sir ?

We say at every Mass – “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”. Those are not just sequential salvation events in human history – they are simultaneous realities in EVERY human life.

 
To the contrary: faith's the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
And not every human life has faith

the bible is The Word of God codified in writing – it is NOT “The Word of God, Jesus Christ is.

 
Since the Word speaks, in fact often speaks His own Scriptures, He's not dumb. Like, say, Catholicism's idolatrous "Host"

at every Mass. We DRINK the “blood of Christ”. I’m not sure we are really saying something different here. All of Christianity recognizes that salvation entails being in the company of those “who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”

If you want, you need not wait for your Mass to do so, since Christ's blood and forgiveness aren't so limited

God is now completely accessible in the person of Christ.

And the person of Christ is completely accessible and edible as the life-giving Spirit.
1 Cor 15:45; Jn 20:22; 2 Cor 3:17; Philip 1:19; 1 Cor 6:17; Rm 8:10-11

without Church, there can be no salvation.

Maybe i don't understand this statement. The church is God's salvation