Soteriology: Catholic vs. Evangelical

[Aymn27]

Gosh I love this stuff...though I do believe he is rather weak on the Catholic argument - especially in terms of Biblical "proof"...

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2777/


thoughts?

[karen freeinchristman]

Looks like a great article - but it's way too long for me to read before breakfast... :sorry:
I like what he says here: My hope is not to resolve our differences, but to clearly and charitably set them out in hope that, at the very least, we will be able to discuss our respective positions with mutual love and respect.

[Aymn27]

Looks like a great article - but it's way too long for me to read before breakfast... :sorry:
I like what he says here:
oh yea...waaay too long for pre-breakfast...this is a slow digester! :P

[Simon_Templar]

My brother and I have been having a go around about baptism and it has revolved a great deal around similar issues to this article.

The conversation with my brother lead me to an idea that I thought I'd get all your opinions on.

We were discussing salvation in regards to baptism. My brother was arguing that salvation turns on faith, and baptism can only follow faith. In other words, a person believes internally, and at that moment they are born again, washed clean etc "saved", then baptism follows after that. Thus baptism is not a necessary part of being saved, even though it may be required after being saved.

I suggested that faith may not be composed of ONLY internal 'belief'. In other words.. you come to a decision to believe in your mind, but you don't actually truly have faith until the moment that you act on your belief. Basicly the idea is that true faith must be composed of both internal assent, and external action.

What do you all think?


he supported his position with the reference from acts 18 which says that Crispus and his house believed and were baptized. It says specificly "all who had faith were baptized". He argues that in this example faith came before baptism.

I haven't gotten around to responding yet, but I was going to point out that James says "faith without works is dead" and also point out that although his quote from acts sounds like it supports his view, when it is examined it really doesn't.

In the statement "all who had faith were baptized" it sounds like faith and baptism are separate and that faith came first. However, if you examine it, you find that the logical converse is "all who were not baptized, did not have faith". So, logically the statement doesn't really treat them as separate. It can be argued that the verse shows baptism and faith to be inseparable.


So anyway, enough rambling, comments??

[erin74]

Was the guy on the cross next to Jesus baptised? Yet he was promised he would be in the kingdom.

I think we are chosen, predestined from before creation. When we come into realisation of our chosen nature is another thing entirely.

It is not our faith which saves us - that too is a gift from God. It is God who chooses that saves us. Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but we ought to do it.

[norbie]

Was the guy on the cross next to Jesus baptised? Yet he was promised he would be in the kingdom.

I think we are chosen, predestined from before creation. When we come into realisation of our chosen nature is another thing entirely.

It is not our faith which saves us - that too is a gift from God. It is God who chooses that saves us. Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but we ought to do it.
Here we have a little learning to do. There are a few form of Baptism, and in your case on the Cross it is called 'Baptism of Fire'.
Baptism not always have to be with Water. There are also emergency Baptismen.
The main Procedure is the sign of the Cross, in like 'I baptise you in the name of the father, Son and Hl.Gost.'
If this is done the Child or Person is saved. A Hl.Sacrament of Baptism can be celebrated later on, with the Oil and the Candle.
Norbie

[norbie]

Was the guy on the cross next to Jesus baptised? Yet he was promised he would be in the kingdom.

I think we are chosen, predestined from before creation. When we come into realisation of our chosen nature is another thing entirely.

It is not our faith which saves us - that too is a gift from God. It is God who chooses that saves us. Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but we ought to do it.
Now to the next Point, Jesus himself got baptist by John. It is nessesary to be baptist to became a Disciple of God.
And sorry I do not agree with your Statement that Faith is a Gift of God. Only Grace is the Gift of God, we have a free Will given by God and this will make up for our Faith.
Remember the follow up: Grace - Faith - Hope.
You forget about our Free Will in everything. No, it's not God who chooses to save us - it's our free Will to accept His offer. (This is only a friendly discussion - I don't want to ofend you my Dear Lady!)
Norbie

[artrx]

I think we are chosen, predestined from before creation. When we come into realisation of our chosen nature is another thing entirely.



:thumbsup: ...all of us.

[gtsecc]

Catholic vs. Evangelical are 2 sides of the same coin - Western Soteriology.
I believe the Orthodox say it all better in what they call recapitulation.
Wiki will cover it all better than I can.

[erin74]

Now to the next Point, Jesus himself got baptist by John. It is nessesary to be baptist to became a Disciple of God.
And sorry I do not agree with your Statement that Faith is a Gift of God. Only Grace is the Gift of God, we have a free Will given by God and this will make up for our Faith.
Remember the follow up: Grace - Faith - Hope.
You forget about our Free Will in everything. No, it's not God who chooses to save us - it's our free Will to accept His offer. (This is only a friendly discussion - I don't want to ofend you my Dear Lady!)
Norbie
What do you make of Eph 2:8-9 then?
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Don't worry - I won't be offended by a discussion on theology.

Have you got any references about emergency baptism and baptism of fire? I've never heard anyone say that the thief on the cross was baptised.
I do realise Christ was baptised, and am not trying to do away with the importance of baptism. But I do not believe that it is something we do for salvation. I would say it would be disobedient to not do it, but I wouldn't say that we must for salvation - salvation is from God, not from us.

[Simon_Templar]

There were three types of baptism generally recognized by the early church.

Literal water baptism

"baptism of desire"

"baptism of blood"

Baptism of blood was occured in the case of martyrs. It was held that since their blood was shed for the name of Christ it served as baptism into Christ even if they weren't baptized in water.

Baptism of desire was recognized in the case of person who was converted, but was prevented from receiving baptism by circumstance (such as the theif on the cross).

[Simon_Templar]

In going back to the OP,

As I understand it, the two sides are focusing on different aspects of salvation.

There is the forensic aspect when we are declared righteous, by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Then there is the aspect of the infused righteousness, where the person is actually transformed by the righteousness of Christ and the person actually conforms to the likeness of Christ and begins to become righteous.

As I see it, both are necessary. Salvation begins by declaring us righteous through imputation, and then it continues its work by infusing us with life and righteousness.

The protestant will look at that and say, yes I agree... but today the emphasis has been so placed on the first part that the second has been demoted in a sense. The first part is validated by the second. If there is no infusing, the imputing is essentially null and void.

its the catch-22 of faith vs. works. Faith is what saves, not works... yet faith isn't real unless it is completed by being expressed in action.

So if a person believes, and then at some later point their faith takes action, their faith saved them from the moment they believed... but if that same person never lived on without taking action.. their faith was never real.

Its kind of vaguely like the uncertainty principle of physics.. I think :)

[karen freeinchristman]

In going back to the OP,

As I understand it, the two sides are focusing on different aspects of salvation.

There is the forensic aspect when we are declared righteous, by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Then there is the aspect of the infused righteousness, where the person is actually transformed by the righteousness of Christ and the person actually conforms to the likeness of Christ and begins to become righteous.

As I see it, both are necessary. Salvation begins by declaring us righteous through imputation, and then it continues its work by infusing us with life and righteousness.

The protestant will look at that and say, yes I agree... but today the emphasis has been so placed on the first part that the second has been demoted in a sense. The first part is validated by the second. If there is no infusing, the imputing is essentially null and void.

its the catch-22 of faith vs. works. Faith is what saves, not works... yet faith isn't real unless it is completed by being expressed in action.

So if a person believes, and then at some later point their faith takes action, their faith saved them from the moment they believed... but if that same person never lived on without taking action.. their faith was never real.

Its kind of vaguely like the uncertainty principle of physics.. I think :)
An extreme situation: what if someone comes to faith who is unable to 'take action'? Someone who is paralysed, for example. Is their faith not real because they have not any works?

[Iosias]

A true faith is demonstrated or proovenby works but works are in no way a part of faith. The context of James is key;

"In this chapter the apostle dissuades from a respect of persons, on account of outward circumstances; shows that the law is to be fulfilled, and that mercy is to be exercised, as well as justice done; and exposes the folly of such who boast of faith without works: he dissuades the saints from all partiality to the rich and poor, from their relation to one another, as brethren, and from their common faith, of which Christ, the Lord of glory, is the object, Jam_2:1 supposes an instance of it, either in a court of judicature, or a religious assembly, Jam_2:2 and then makes an appeal unto them, and expostulates with them about it, Jam_2:4 and makes use of an argument against it, taken from the divine conduct, and an instance of his grace in the choice of persons to eternal life, Jam_2:5 a conduct very different from some persons here blamed, Jam_2:6, and other arguments follow, dissuading from a respect of persons, taken from the characters of rich men, as oppressors of the poor, litigious and quarrelsome with their neighbours, and blasphemers of the name of God, Jam_2:7 and from the law of God, which requires the love of the neighbour, and which to fulfil is to do well, Jam_2:8 and from the breach of it, by having respect to persons, whereby its penalty is incurred, Jam_2:9 for which a reason is given; because whoever offends in one point of the law, is guilty of the whole, Jam_2:10 as is a clear case, since the same lawgiver that forbids one sin, forbids another; so that he that is guilty of either of them is a transgressor of the law, Jam_2:11 wherefore it is right both to speak and act according to it, since men will be judged by it, Jam_2:12 and he will have no mercy shown him that has shown none to the poor, but merciful ones will escape damnation, Jam_2:13 and then the apostle argues from the unprofitableness of faith itself without works, Jam_2:14 and which he exemplifies in the case of a poor brother or sister who are wished well, but nothing given them; which good words, without deeds, are of no profit, Jam_2:15 so in like manner, faith without works is a dead faith, Jam_2:17 nor indeed can it be made out that a man has faith, if he has not works, Jam_2:18 at least such a faith as has justification and salvation connected with it; his faith, at most, is no better than that of the devils, who are damned, Jam_2:19 and that such a faith is a dead faith, Jam_2:2 and that true faith is attended with, and evidenced by works, the apostle proves by two instances; the one is that of Abraham, whose faith appeared to be genuine, and he to be a justified person, by the works he did; particularly by offering up his son Isaac; in which way his faith operated, and showed itself to be sincere and hearty; and the Scripture was fulfilled that Abraham was a believer; and had righteousness imputed to him, and was a friend of God, and a justified person, Jam_2:21 and the other instance is that of Rahab, whose faith was also shown by her works, and so a justified person, by receiving the spies with peace, and dismissing them with safety, Jam_2:25, and then the apostle explains what he means, by saying more than once, that faith without works is dead; which he illustrates by the simile of a man's body being dead, without the spirit or soul in it, Jam_2:26." (J. Gill)

[Simon_Templar]

An extreme situation: what if someone comes to faith who is unable to 'take action'? Someone who is paralysed, for example. Is their faith not real because they have not any works?
Such rhetoricals are always a problem simply because they are beyond our ability to know. Anything that we could say would be merely guess work.

In the end, God can save whomever he wills. He, unlike we, is capable of knowing the hearts of people. In a circumstance where a person is prevented from taking action, such as by disability, or perhaps they die before they are able etc, God is capable of knowing what would have happened had they been able. Thus he is capable of judging them.

My point is not to make a legalistic definition or doctrine. In cases like this such things rarely do any good simply because the subject is beyond us. We are children playing at being wise.
I want to make the point that the internal can not be divorced from the external. Just as the spiritual can not be divorced from the physical.

The spiritual is the foundation of the physical, the physical could be described as an expression of the spiritual etc, but the point is even though one may be more important, one may come first, both are connected irrevocably and both affect the other.

So it is in this case as well. Internal faith is the foundation, it comes first, but it is largely meaningless unless it is validated, or joined by the external aspects of faith.

The bible routinely uses the example of "fruit". The issue of salvation is life. Does a person have the Life of Christ, the Life of God in them? If they do, then they produce fruit. If they produce no fruit, they have no life.

That is why it is said that the tree which produces no fruit is torn up and burned. Those who work with plants know that if branches of a plant do not produce fruit, the only way to make the whole plant blossom is to cut out the branches that don't bloom. The reason is that they are leeching the plant's energy, its life, and doing nothing with it.

This is what is spoken of in the famous verse about a person who tastes of the glories of God etc, and then falls away, the are impossible to restore. This is often thought to be referrencing a person who becomes a christian and then backslides. Thats not the case. The example connected to the statement is of a field that is watered and tilled by God, and then produces thorns and brambles. It is talking about a person who claims to have faith, but does not produce fruit. They claim to have life, and it is clear in the example that they did partake of life at some point, but they produced no fruit so what faith they had, what life they had was meaningless.

[Iosias]

Such rhetoricals are always a problem simply because they are beyond our ability to know.

Thief on the cross?

[Simon_Templar]

Thief on the cross?
verbal confession is an outward act of faith.

thats the real irony of the people who don't believe in sacramental baptism. They invariably put alot of emphasis on saying the sinner's prayer or something similar. Essentially all they are doing is substituting one outward act of faith for another, making the sinner's prayer their sacrament instead of baptism.

[Iosias]

verbal confession is an outward act of faith.

thats the real irony of the people who don't believe in sacramental baptism. They invariably put alot of emphasis on saying the sinner's prayer or something similar. Essentially all they are doing is substituting one outward act of faith for another, making the sinner's prayer their sacrament instead of baptism.

But what good works did he do to prove his faith.

FWIW I despise the "sinner's prayer" and the "altar call". :)

[Simon_Templar]

But what good works did he do to prove his faith.

FWIW I despise the "sinner's prayer" and the "altar call". :)
we're getting a little confusion from semantics here I think... I am talking about outward actions of faith.. which include verbal confession.

Technically even a verbal confession could be considered a 'work' and I have seen some who argue such.

Some of the confusion on this issue, I think, arises from the fact that there are works without faith, but there is no faith without works. So the works which are the actions of faith are not truly works of men, despite the fact that they are outward manifestations. They are the work of God through faith, manifested in man.

[karen freeinchristman]

But what good works did he do to prove his faith.

I would think that the thief's 'witnessing' to the other criminal qualifies as a good work.


39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

[erin74]

An extreme situation: what if someone comes to faith who is unable to 'take action'? Someone who is paralysed, for example. Is their faith not real because they have not any works?
I am sure someone who was paralysed could still pray and have a more godly attitude in life. We may not see it - but God could. And that's what counts.

Paul and James were on about the same thing - a true and living faith.

[Simon_Templar]

I don't usually think of this stuff in the terms of "good works" probably because of my background, "works" is always ascociated with trying to earn something.

In my mind, I just think of it as showing what you're made of. Letting what is inside you become visible on the outside. If what you reveal about yourself doesn't match what you want to be, or think you should be, then you seek change, not to earn anything, but simply to change who and what you are.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't usually think of this stuff in the terms of "good works" probably because of my background, "works" is always ascociated with trying to earn something.

In my mind, I just think of it as showing what you're made of. Letting what is inside you become visible on the outside. If what you reveal about yourself doesn't match what you want to be, or think you should be, then you seek change, not to earn anything, but simply to change who and what you are.
Yes, i agree with you and with Erin. If we qualify 'works' any further than that, we run into problems, IMO.

[norbie]

Yes, i agree with you and with Erin. If we qualify 'works' any further than that, we run into problems, IMO.
I also think we should not call it "works". I believe that Faith leads to "Apostolic Action" and this can be anything from Prayer to building a Church.
Norbie

[norbie]

What do you make of Eph 2:8-9 then?
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Don't worry - I won't be offended by a discussion on theology.

Have you got any references about emergency baptism and baptism of fire? I've never heard anyone say that the thief on the cross was baptised.
I do realise Christ was baptised, and am not trying to do away with the importance of baptism. But I do not believe that it is something we do for salvation. I would say it would be disobedient to not do it, but I wouldn't say that we must for salvation - salvation is from God, not from us.
I also may come back to Dear Erins Post, which clearly state 'not a result of work' (9), but chapter 8, I understand like this, by Grace you have been saved and THEN with Gods Grace comes our Faith. So Grace is always the first and Gods gift, from then on we have to do something.
I also strongly believe that we ARE saved in being baptist. We are born with the original Sin which will be washed away in Baptism.
Just my thoughts,
Norbie

[karen freeinchristman]

I also think we should not call it "works". I believe that Faith leads to "Apostolic Action" and this can be anything from Prayer to building a Church.
Norbie
I like that term, Apostolic Action! :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Again - those are 2 different sides of the same coin.
Most of you are barking up the wrong tree.

[norbie]

Again - those are 2 different sides of the same coin.
Most of you are barking up the wrong tree.
And why? Can you tell us what you think?
Norbie

[gtsecc]

And why? Can you tell us what you think?
Norbie

I will personally secure permission from Father Breck next time I see him.

September 2006, Article # 1
God's "Righteousness"
Written by the Very Rev. John Breck Lead-in: How are we saved? By accumulating “good works,” or by receiving “imputed righteousness” in response to our faith? Maybe this traditional question, so often seen as dividing Catholics and Protestants, is the wrong one to ask.

A Roman Catholic friend (and a good theologian) recently asked me whether the Greek Fathers of the Church understand the term “righteousness” in a forensic sense. He was referring to a Protestant doctrine that holds that God does not “make” us righteous; He “declares” or “counts” us righteous. That is, God imputes righteousness to us, while we remain in a state of sinfulness. Simul iustus et peccator, Luther would say: at once justified and sinful. Reading, for example, St Paul’s letter to the Romans, my friend asked, do the Eastern Fathers also read the notion of “righteousness” forensically? Well no, I thought. But then I had to formulate something of the reason why. After a lot of stumbling, this is what I passed on to him.

The Protestant notion of “imputation,” (as I understand it) grew out of the conviction that we are inherently (by nature) incapable of making ourselves righteous; we cannot become truly just on the basis of our own good deeds or merits. Insofar as the qualities of justice and righteousness are attributable to us, we should understand that God imputes them to us as an expression of His mercy. This God does so that we can re-enter the realm of His righteousness, His holiness, and thus be saved from the consequences of sin, which is (eternal) death. This interpretation, however, as many people have pointed out, means that our righteousness is little more than a legal fiction. God treats us as if we were just or righteous, although He (like us) knows full well that we are not.1.

The difference between this notion and the Orthodox perspective is well illustrated by our respective interpretations of Romans 5:12. In the West, at least in the popular mind, the debate was long polarized between Catholic emphasis on salvation through “works-righteousness,” and Protestant insistence on “justification by faith (alone!).” The presupposition underlying both views is that we inherit Adam’s guilt, which resulted from his sinful disobedience to the divine commandment.2. St Augustine seemed convinced that the guilt resulting from Adam's sin is transmitted through the sexual act, from generation to generation, like some deleterious gene. This “original sin” must be removed if we are to be saved from death, to share in eternal life. The question as to how this is accomplished has received many different answers. Medieval Catholic piety held that this occurs through infused grace, which confers upon us the power to perform righteous deeds and thereby actually to become or be made righteous. This enables us to build up a “treasury of merits,” the term “merit” being understood as a gift of divine grace rather than our own accomplishment (Council of Trent, 1547). The popular notion that we are saved only if our merits outweigh our sins on the scales of divine justice is usually attributed to Roman Catholics. It is shared, nevertheless, by many Orthodox, who have failed to appreciate the fullness of God’s grace, both in enabling us to perform good works and in forgiving us fully when we sincerely repent of our sins.3.

To the Greek Fathers, what we inherit from Adam is not his sin and consequent guilt, but mortality.4. From Adam (understood, really, as an archetype), we “inherit” the sting of death. Death has spread to all of humanity, as an inevitable consequence of our fallen nature; yet each of us, under the threat of death, rebels personally against God, the Author of Life. This means that our guilt is our own; we bring it upon ourselves. (A sign in our local marina declares: “You are responsible for your wake!” How true…)

Greek patristic tradition generally interprets the Pauline notion of dikaiosyne as “righteousness,” rather than as “justice” in the forensic sense. That is, the term refers first to God's own quality of righteousness, understood more as an expression of love and mercy than as one of divine justice that must be “satisfied.” Through the indwelling Holy Spirit, followers of Christ are capable of receiving that divine righteousness as a gift – one that can actually work a transformation in human life by enabling us to pray, to wage spiritual warfare against the passions, and to love both God and other people. Human nature (ousia) remains “fallen”; but the human person (hypostasis) is led by the Spirit on a pathway of sanctification.

In the Eastern perspective, there is no thought that we must accumulate merits in order to justify ourselves before God, although our faithful often seem (as evidenced in Confession) to feel that if we are to be saved, our good works must outweigh our sins. Nor, on the other hand, is there a denial of the place and importance of good works in Christian life (Ephesians 2:8-10!). Salvation is accomplished by grace in response to faith. But that faith cannot be passive; it must express itself, not merely by confessing Jesus as “personal Lord and Savior,” but by feeding, clothing, visiting and otherwise caring for the “least” of Jesus' brethren (Mt 25).

What we are saved from is the key issue here. Rather than view salvation primarily as a forensic liberation from guilt through imputed or imparted righteousness, we should see it as incorporation, by baptism, into Christ's death and resurrection, such that we “die and rise” with Him. Thus we are saved from Death. We are freed from this ultimate consequence of sin and guilt – but only as a divinely bestowed gift of God's ineffable love, expressed in the suffering death of His Son, a gift to which we respond with faith that issues in love. That response, through the action of the indwelling Spirit, enables us finally to share in Christ's own resurrection and glorification, attaining what the Greek Fathers call theôsis or “deification” (which means existential participation in God’s life, and not ontological confusion between God and His human creatures).5.

Good works should thus be understood to be a response rather than a means to salvation. And God’s righteousness should be seen as a gift of loving, merciful, saving grace, rather than as a forensic tool, wielded in the service of divine judgment.



1. D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Inter-Varsity Press, 1981, pp. 498-504) discusses various Protestant approaches to this question, including the distinction between “imparted” and “imputed” righteousness.

2. Modern dialog between Catholics and Protestants has gone beyond this focus on inherited guilt and is concerned more with the meaning of “justification.”

3. The common view of merits as a means by which we put God in our debt (never sanctioned as dogma), together with the idea of inherited guilt, has been treated well and in detail in recent Catholic reflection. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§ 404-409), for example, makes an important distinction between original sin as a “deprivation of original holiness and justice” – which renders human nature “subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin” – and personal faults for which each of us is responsible. In this perspective, “original sin” is close to the Orthodox understanding of “fallen human nature.”

4. E.g., John Cbrysostom, In Rom., hom. X (PG 60:474-5); Maximus the Confessor, Quaest. Ad Thal. (PG 90:408). An excellent summary of this issue can be found in J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (Fordham University Press, 1974), pp. 143-146.

5. “Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates true humanity and restores it to its ‘natural’ state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt – these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel.” J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 146.

[karen freeinchristman]

Glen, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that most of us 'are barking up the wrong tree'. As far as I can tell, what you've posted (good works as a response rather than a means to salvation) is very much what most of us have been saying.