Salvation - Part 2

Josiah said:

It's called discussion.... this IS a discussion forum.... indeed, it's a debate forum.


A member has made very bold dogmatic claims...... over and over and over and over and over..... even in threads not about baptism......for a year. I didn't bring up any of these Anabaptist traditions but a couple of posters have (probably 90% of the time by the same poster).


This member INSISTS that all tradition be fully ignored (although all he does is perfectly echo the denominational tradition of the Anabaptists) and we must go only and exclusively by the words in the Bible - those words must clearly confirm the claim. Okay. Not sure I fully agree with that rubric, but there's his mandate and that's what we all must do (or he won't discuss this). So, is it appropriate to ask, "Where are the Scriptures for the Dogmas you proclaim - endlessly, in thread after thread, even in threads not about baptism?" Is that inappropriate?


Or does truth not matter? Does it the reality that new Dogmas that divides Christians not matter because truth doesn't matter and division doesn't matter? Is your view what Pilate said sarcastically, "What is truth?" Well.... then it applies to ALL and you'd be just as rebuking of the Anabaptists who claim they are proclaiming truth.


No, friend, I'm not "picking a fight." I'm simply holding our friend to his own standard, his own mandate; not buying his double-standard, his doing the very thing he ridicules and rejects in all others... I'm simply asking for the very thing he demands (over and over and over and voer and over) from everyone else.




.

Click to expand...

I have provided over 30 verses let's talk through them and see what the Bible says.

Josiah said:

Arsenios,


This is a DISCUSSION and debate forum...... Some think that truth actually matters and that dogmas that divide Christians matter..... I realize, some don't agree on either point...


MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following, in this thread and in countless others, over and over and over, since coming here a year ago....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion ONLY dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.



It is HE (not I) who keeps bringing up these dogmas.... endlessly.... even in threads not about baptism..... He at times brings them up as alternatives to historic views of Baptism, but it is he who keeps bringing them up (well, a couple of others too but mostly him).


It is HE (not I) who insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible Okay.... then eliminate ALL denominational tradition (including that of the Anabaptists) and go by what the words of the text say. But will he himself do that? Obviously, all he has done is perfectly, verbatim, parrot the Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots.


Friend, I'm just playing by HIS rules..... and addressing things HE insists are DOGMAS. HE keeps bringing up these 4 things - over and over and over and over - HE keeps insisting tradition be disregarded and we only go by the words in the Bible - HE has established the topic and the the rules he demands for the discussion. I'm attempting to discuss the dogmas HE keeps bringing up, with HIS mandates. I don't consider that unfair or disrespectful. It's HIS dogmas.... HIS mandates. I don't feel I'm being fundamentally disrespectful or rude to him. I disagree with these Anabaptist traditions - and have stated why - I'm just waiting for him to support them while doing what he insists - eliminating all tradition and supporting the DOGMAS with the teaching words found in the Bible.... playing by HIS rules for discussion. I disagree that I'm thus being "rude." I've giving him an opportunity to do what he demands others do (or to consider his dogmas and/or mandates).




- Josiah




.

Click to expand...

I have not done anything you claim. You have brought up those meaningless things.
I have called you to address scripture and you continually run from scripture when discussing baptism.
There are over 30 verses that I have provided for us to talk through. Anytime you are willing, Josiah. Anytime you are willing.

MennoSota said:

I have not done anything you claim. You have brought up those meaningless things.

Click to expand...

So....


You are NOW claiming that since you came here, you have NOT - not ever - supported that:


1. We are not to give baptize to those too young? You've NEVER - not once - claimed that the Bible disallows baptism to any under a certain age? You have NEVER supported the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of the Anabaptist denomination but rather SUPPORT infant baptism?


2. You have NEVER - not once - stated that FIRST one must publicly documentent their faith in Christ BEFORE being baptized; You've never once argued that the Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior, you've never supported but have repudiated the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism?


3. That you have NEVER - not once - ever indicated that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the NT, that it doesn't matter if something is illustrated as done in the NT? That you've never once indicated we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT, your position is that it doesn't matter if something is or is not illustrated as done in the NT?



4. That you have NEVER stated - not once - that baptism is invalid if not by full immersion? That you equally support baptism by other means which do not necessarily cover every cell with water? That you have not promoted the Anabaptist dogma of full immersion?


I wonder if you have read your own posts.



Yes, you have INSISTED that all ignore all denominational traditiion - but all you have done is perfectly echo the tradition of the Anabaptist tradition...

Yes, you have INSISTED that we all "go" only by the teaching words found in the Bible - but you have yet to provide even one verse for even one of the 4 things above.




.

.

Josiah said:

So....


You are NOT claiming that since you came here, you have NOT - not ever - supported that:


1. We are not to give baptize to those too young? You've never - not once - claimed that the Bible forbids baptism to any under a certain age? You have NEVER supported the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of the Anabaptist denomination but rather SUPPORT infant baptism?


2. You have NEVER - not once - stated that FIRST one must publicly documentent their faith in Christ BEFORE being baptized; You've never once argued that the Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior, you've never supported but have repudiated the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism?


3. That you have never - not once - ever indicated that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the NT, that it doesn't matter if something is illustrated as done in the NT? That you've never once indicated we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT, your position is that it doesn't matter if something is or is not illustrated as done in the NT?



4. That you have NEVER stated - not once - that baptism is invalid if not by full immersion? That you equally support baptism by other means which do not necessarily cover every cell with water? That you have not promoted the Anabaptist dogma of full immersion?


I wonder if you have read your own posts.



Yes, you have INSISTED that all ignore all denominational traditiion - but all you have done is perfectly echo the tradition of the Anabaptist tradition...

Yes, you have INSISTED that we all "go" only by the teaching words found in the Bible - but you have yet to provide even one verse for even one of the 4 things above.




.

.

Click to expand...

Will you discuss scripture? If not, don't bother us. Sola Scriptura, Josiah.

MennoSota said:

Josiah said:

So....


You are NOW claiming that since you came here, you have NOT - not ever - supported that:


1. We are not to give baptize to those too young? You've never - not once - claimed that the Bible forbids baptism to any under a certain age? You have NEVER supported the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of the Anabaptist denomination but rather SUPPORT infant baptism? You've NOT been promoting this new Anabaptist dogma but have repudiated it?


2. You have NEVER - not once - stated that FIRST one must publicly documentent their faith in Christ BEFORE being baptized; You've never once argued that the Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior, you've never supported but have repudiated the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism? You've NEVER supported this Anabaptist dogma but have repudiated it?


3. That you have never - not once - ever indicated that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the NT, that it doesn't matter if something is illustrated as done in the NT? That you've never once indicated we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT
, your position is that it doesn't matter if something is or is not illustrated as done in the NT?


4. That you have NEVER stated - not once - that baptism is invalid if not by full immersion? You've NEVER promoted immersion baptism? That you equally support baptism by other means which do not necessarily cover every cell with water? That you have not promoted the Anabaptist dogma of full immersion?


I wonder if you have read your own posts.



Yes, you have INSISTED that all ignore all denominational traditiion - but all you have done is perfectly echo the tradition of the Anabaptist tradition...

Yes, you have INSISTED that we all "go" only by the teaching words found in the Bible - but you have yet to provide even one verse for even one of the 4 things above.

Click to expand...

Will you discuss scripture? If not, don't bother us.

Click to expand...

Are you now running away from everything you've been insisting upon concerning this topic for over a year now?


Have you changed your mind (180 degrees) - which is fine, we all grow - or are you denying SO much of what you have posted for over a year now, perhaps having not read your own posts?


YOU have insisted that we ignore all denominational tradition (yet you seem to wholly, entirely, exempt one - Anabaptist denominational tradition - which you parrot perfectly, verbatim, constantly).... and that we go ONLY by what Scripture teaches (but you refuse to give even one Scripture that teaches any of the 4 things above - which I realize you NOW may be denying you've ever stated) and your whole apologetic has NOT ever been ANYTHING stated in Scripture but the rule that we cannot do anything unless it is illustrated as done in the NT - your ENDLESS, eternal, perpetual and sole apologetic - yet you not only fail to give a single Scripture to support that but obviously YOU don't accept it, you do ALL KINDS OF THINGS never once illustrated as done in the Bible, denouncing and repudiating your entire apologetic.




.

Josiah said:

Are you now running away from what you've been insisting upon for over a year now?


Have you changed your mind (180 degrees) - which is fine, we all grow - or are you denying SO much of what you have posted for over a year now, perhaps having not read your own posts?


YOU have insisted that we ignore all denominational tradition (yet you seem to wholly, entirely, exempt one - Anabaptist denominational tradition - which you parrot perfectly, verbatim, constantly).... and that we go ONLY by what Scripture teaches (but you refuse to give even one Scripture that teaches any of the 4 things above - which I realize you NOW may be denying you've ever stated.... and your whole apologetic has NOT ever been ANYTHING stated in Scripture but the rule that we cannot do anything unless it is illustrated as done in the NT - your ENDLESS, eternal, perpetual and sole apologetic - yet you not only fail to give a single Scripture to support that but obviously YOU don't accept it, you do ALL KINDS OF THINGS never once illustrated as done in the Bible, denouncing and repudiating your entire apologetic.




.

Click to expand...

Josiah, it has become very clear that you will not open up God's word. Until you open up scripture, we have nothing to say. Let me know when you are willing to sharpen your faith with the sword of the Spirit.

MennoSota said:

Josiah, it has become very clear that you will not open up God's word. Until you open up scripture, we have nothing to say. Let me know when you are willing to sharpen your faith with the sword of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

I'll submit to your insistence....

Just supply the Scripture(s) that STATE each of your points....


1. One must attain a certain age before the dogmatic prohibition from baptism is lifted.

2. One must FIRST give public proof of his faith in Christ before the dogmatic prohibition from baptism is lifted.

3. All must PROVE that something has been done in the Bible before we can do it; otherwise it's forbidden.

4. That baptism must be by full immersion.


I'll submit to your mandate that we must ignore ALL denominational tradition (including Anabaptists traditions of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion Baptism) in discussing these 4 points (as you demand)...

I'll submit to your mandate that the words of Scripture must teach the dogma in discussing these 4 points (as you demand)...

Just give the Scriptures for each of these.

Just cease to echo Anabaptist denominational denomination for any of these.

DO as YOU mandate.

Until then, you are forbidding discussion and just doing what you forbid. Just holding to a 180 degree double standard and repudiating YOUR OWN insistences and apologetics.. Noting that you are rejecting the very mandates you insist of all others. Think about that.




.

Josiah said:

I'll submit to your insistence....

Just supply the Scripture(s) that STATE each of your points....


1. One must attain a certain age before the dogmatic prohibition from baptism is lifted.

2. One must FIRST give public proof of his faith in Christ before the dogmatic prohibition from baptism is lifted.

3. All must PROVE that something has been done in the Bible before we can do it; otherwise it's forbidden.

4. That baptism must be by full immersion.


I'll submit to your mandate that we must ignore ALL denominational tradition (including Anabaptists traditions of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion Baptism) in discussing these 4 points (as you demand)...

I'll submit to your mandate that the words of Scripture must teach the dogma in discussing these 4 points (as you demand)...

Just give the Scriptures for each of these.

Just cease to echo Anabaptist denominational denomination for any of these.

DO as YOU mandate.

Until then, you are forbidding discussion and just doing what you forbid. Just holding to a 180 degree double standard and repudiating YOUR OWN insistences and apologetics.. Noting that you are rejecting the very mandates you insist of all others. Think about that.




.

Click to expand...

I submitted 30 plus verses. I never once stated the points you attribute to me.
I have made my points and provided scripture for those points. Go back and look.
Your game is old. It is very clear that you have no scriptural support for your position on baptism. This is because you cannot provide any scripture.
Everyone, including your fellow Lutherans, can see you are running from God's word. I take your unwillingness to look at scripture as your concession.

MennoSota said:

Josiah said:

So....


You are NOW claiming that since you came here, you have NOT - not ever - supported that:


1. We are not to give baptize to those too young? You've never - not once - claimed that the Bible forbids baptism to any under a certain age? You have NEVER supported the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of the Anabaptist denomination but rather SUPPORT infant baptism? You've NOT been promoting this new Anabaptist dogma but have repudiated it?


2. You have NEVER - not once - stated that FIRST one must publicly documentent their faith in Christ BEFORE being baptized; You've never once argued that the Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior, you've never supported but have repudiated the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism? You've NEVER supported this Anabaptist dogma but have repudiated it?


3. That you have never - not once - ever indicated that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the NT, that it doesn't matter if something is illustrated as done in the NT? That you've never once indicated we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT, your position is that it doesn't matter if something is or is not illustrated as done in the NT?


4. That you have NEVER stated - not once - that baptism is invalid if not by full immersion? You've NEVER promoted immersion baptism? That you equally support baptism by other means which do not necessarily cover every cell with water? That you have not promoted the Anabaptist dogma of full immersion?


I wonder if you have read your own posts.





.

Click to expand...

I never once stated the points you attribute to me.

Click to expand...

I think all who have read your posts know the reality....


Your absurd claim, your full denial of virtually everything you've dogmatically stated on this subject for over a year, is ..... well..... everyone sees.

With me, you've lost all credibility, all respect. It's very dismaying.


I hope everyone sees this post of yours.





.

Josiah said:

I think all who have read your posts know the reality....


Your absurd claim, your full denial of virtually everything you've dogmatically stated on this subject for over a year, is ..... well..... everyone sees.

With me, you've lost all credibility, all respect. It's very dismaying.


I hope everyone sees this post of yours.





.

Click to expand...

Look at the verses, Josiah.
The absurd claim is the faux claim you are making about me. I wish you would address scripture. You refuse. You are ignored.

Josiah said:

An open letter to MennoSota...


Friend,


1. First READ posts 118, 125, 135, 143. Read those BEFORE you continue.


2. You (perhaps accidentally) have raised an obvious and solid point: MUCH of Christian theology is derived from Scripture but not specifically stated (The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc.). ALL theological positions and traditions acknowledge that (including Lutherans and Calvinists who embrace Sola Scriptura). Your premise that the words of the Bible must exactly STATE such is actually not in keeping with Sola Scriptura or 2000 years of Christianity and (obviously) you yourself don't insist upon that for yourself (as you've made so obvious). But your point is valid: Traditionally, Christians HAVE embraced (even dogmatically) positions not exactly so stated in the Bible. The problem I see is your double-standard - you can "derive" but others can't, and you permit yourself to embrace tradition (you perfectly echo Anabaptist tradition) but reject ecumenical, historic, orthodox tradition: YOU think very highly of what YOU now think/feel/observe but deny others looking to what ALL Christians, together, for 1500 years, going back to the Apostles, did/do.


3. I've NEVER understood how one an be a Reformed Baptist, lol. It's like saying a Dog-Cat. They are about as directly opposite of each other as is possible. Anyway..... IF (big word there)..... IF your position were: "I think there is insufficient support for the idea that Baptism is a means of grace" AND STOPPED THERE.... you'd be in the company of some of the later-day Calvinists (Calvin himself rejected that, he affirmed Baptism as a means of grace) but of course, Calvinism was completely reinvented after Calvin and that included a non-dogmatic (sic) questioning (even at times denial) of Baptism as a means of grace. BUT (and here's the point) they passionately rejected the dogmas YOU are so obsessed with: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism... and your equal obsession with the rubric that we can't do anything unless it's illustrated in the Bible, if a group is not INCLUDED they are thus dogmatically EXCLUDED, and that baptism is invalid unless every body part is covered by an abundance of water. In other words, they rejected Anabaptism. They also rejected the synergism of the Anabaptist - the whole point that God CANNOT save a baby. Those Calvinist repudiated all the Anabaptist traditions you have so perfectly, verbatim been echoing for as long as I've known you - these later day Calvinists REJECTED and REPUDIATED every one of those inventions/traditions - the ones you are defending and parroting. ALL they did was suggest (nothing dogmatic) that Baptism AS A MEANS OF GRACE has insufficient support. I disagree with them.... but IMO it's not an unreasonable position (and they are careful to NOT say it dogmatically). They SUPPORT infant baptism (and by sprikling/pouring).... they REJECT the synergism you have been promoting.... they REJECT the silly rubrics you've been promoting (but never following).... they just won't say that God can or does use baptism as a tool to grant His free gift of faith (which is NEVER requested, NEVER sought, NEVER remotely understood until AFTER it is given). I don't agree with this reinvention of Calvins' view (Calvin himself was pretty orthodox on this) BUT I get the point: Yeah, whether we are discussing the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or ANY historic, orthodox, ecumenical belief - there CAN be (and probably will be) some who say "I think there is insufficient support to hold that dogmatically." Luther did that with the views of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. BUT that's NOT your position. You are not a new-Calvinist on this, you are perfectly, verbatim, echoing the traditions of those Anabaptists that those very same Calvinists repudiated as much as Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and others did. IF you held to the new Calvinist position - I could respectfully disagree. But your echoed Anabaptist stuff seems beneigh you and just contradicts all the monergism and sound theology you will proclaim when you get off this Anabaptist stuff you echo.


- Josiah



.

Click to expand...

Some notes:



1. I have not entered into a discussion with MennoSota or anyone on whether baptism of infants or old folks can be used by God for His purposes. I have (rarely) shared a video or quote expressing the orthodox, historic view (not noting if I agree or not) but this has not been my issue. MennoSota (and orginally some others - all of them "left" MennoSota long ago) has driven these points of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism, Immersion Baptism and the mandate that we can't do what is not illustrated as done in the NT.


2. I hesitate to go through the 4,000 posts of MennoSota (many of which are a promoting of the Anabaptist tradition dogmas on Baptism), that would be a mighty task! But I think that any here who have been paying attention AT ALL to his many, many posts on this HAVE been powerfully promoting the Anabaptists dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism (he is quite critical of infant baptism, for example) and of Credobaptism (he is very insistent that if faith doesn't previously exist, baptism is not to be given) and of Immersion. I find his denial that he has been promoting and conveying these views amazing - but if necessary, I'm sure any can find more than sufficient posts from him, often extremely radical ones.


3. I want to discuss HIS dogma.... the Anabaptist denominational tradition he is parroting, echoing (I admit, perfectly), what he is so often powerfully promoting. And it is HE (not me!) who insists on the norming: all must IGNORE all denominational tradition (a point he has made over and over and over again) and that the dogma must be stated in the words of Scripture. I have stated often that I don't really buy such a radical process but since HE so powerfully insists, I'll submit for this discussion of his points. So, I think my questions are not only apt and reasonable but mandated by HIS insistence: Where are these things he dogmatically proclaimed stated in Scripture? And we must IGNORE the tradition of Anabaptists and their arguments and apologetics. I'm NOT imposing any views on him - the Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism, Immersion Baptism and the prohibition of anything not illustrated as done in the Bible are HIS dogmas NOT MINE! And the rules that the words of Scripture must state them and we must ignore all denominational tradition are HIS demands, NOT MINE.


4. I have tried - repeatedly, in many threads over many months - to break through this, including several times in this thread - including in the post quoted above. Such efforts have ALWAYS been completely ignored.... and at times... well, people saw those posts. I have spent much time and effort to try to help and to communicate..... nearly always totally ignored and ridiculed.


5. I don't object to strong opinions - I actually rejoice in them, given our modern relativistic world. And I welcome people sharing their views. But at times, we need to HELP each other evaluate those views.... it is good to seek mutual understanding .... and sometimes it is helpful when our apologetics are flawed and especially when we contradict them or show we ourselves don't accept them. I realize.... well..... some don't care if what they dogmaticly proclaim is true or not, they are just here to shout and pronounce their denomination's spin (right or wrong). I understand that reality.... but at times, it can be hard to respect - especially when they seem to not accept their own dogmas or follow their own demands.




- Josiah




.

Sola Scriptura

MoreCoffee said:

(Greek soteria; Hebrew yeshu'ah).
Salvation has in the Scriptural language the general meaning of liberation from difficult circumstances or from other evils, and of a transition into a state of freedom and security (1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 2 Samuel 23:10; 2 Kings 13:17). At times it expresses God's help against Israel's enemies, at other times, the Divine blessing bestowed on the produce of the soil (Isaiah 45:8). As sin is the greatest evil, being the root and source of all evil, Holy Scripture uses the word "salvation" mainly in the sense of liberation of the human race or of an individual person from sin and its consequences. Salvation is used both of humanity and of individuals.

Salvation applied to humanity. There's no need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need to tell you that after God had freely determined to save the humanity, He might have done so by pardoning man's sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of human kind, and was even necessary, in the case where God claims full satisfaction for the offence shown to him by sin. Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and its just punishment, an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and corruption of human nature. There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ really fulfilled these three functions, that He therefore really saved mankind from sin and its consequences. As teacher He established the reign of truth; as king He supplied strength to His subjects; as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his offended God.

Psalms 91:1-8 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, 2 will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust." 3 For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence; 4 he will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. 5 You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, 6 nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday. 7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you. 8 You will only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked.

Click to expand...

John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

We are saved from death by becoming the new creation in Christ's Life...

Arsenios

MoreCoffee said:

The verse you've quoted deals with individual belief and individual salvation. I am pleased you raised the matter of individual salvation because it is something I can deal with in this post.

Click to expand...

Well, I was not trying to give you an easy lob shot, so I would like to give you a little more accurrate translation of that verse: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

And everyone who is living and believing into Me shall not ever die.

Hence it is a conditional activity on the part of man that assures him of Christ's Salvation... That is the New Covenant - "Man, if you are living and believing into Me, I will never forsake you - You will never die." - The Covenant of the Body and Blood of our Lord... It is one big IF...

That said, let's take a look:

Individual salvation

The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

Click to expand...

1563AD - Some 500 years after the Great Schism, and in the crisis of the birth of the Reformation from the loins of its unwilling Mother... Seeking to answer the theology of the Reformation... And seeing Salvation as release from sin through repentance in an adult...

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.

Click to expand...

Well, the Eastern Church likes to begin with Adam in the Garden, where God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of but one tree, saying: "In the day wherein you eat of that tree, you will surely die." And how it is that we in Adam are born into Adam's death, by reason of which all have sinned... eg The condition of man after the Fall of Adam from Grace into sin and death...

So that by starting with the sinner, rather than with the condition of that sinner that causes him to sin - eg That he is born into death which has rule over him causing diminished capacity to live in varying degrees according to the person living the life given him or her - By this beginning with sin in the sinner, rather than the death of Adam into which we are born wounded and weakened and darkened in mind and thought, the Latin Church begins with the fact of sin and the Judgement of God upon sin, and the guilt of man in that judgement, and then has to focus on crime and punishment, rather than woundedness and one's healing from wounds... Which then devolves into the cosmological imposition of a guilty conscience upon the person by the authority of the Church, and makes God in His Righteous Anger into the Enemy of Man the sinner...

But in God's Great Mercy, He gives man a chance to redeem himself from sin by repentance, IF man will accept this Grace of disposition of mind from doing sin... As you now go on to say:

Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.

Click to expand...

One heck of a quandry, yes?

But then something happens:

This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is where Josiah mounts his charger and levels the lance at the Latin Church, because this great Justification is done as a result of "a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner... Hence Justification is not an action given by God, but earned by the sinner through a perfect act of charity...

I must say, the Orthodox Church does not share this approach...
Our greatest Saints are merciful toward all sinners - Except themselves...
And their enemy is the death into which we are born and ruled as long as we live earthly lives...
Indeed, the term Saint is o agios - He who is not earth - a-gios..
We hold that it is God Who Justifies, not human decisions and deeds...
Yet He does Justify according to our deeds, seeing into the human heart...

Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold

• that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural;
• that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace;
• that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin;
• that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so;
• that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing,
  and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities;
• that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul,
  so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat.

Click to expand...

The last feature is not a part of the Orthodox understanding... For we hold that we are Justified by Christ when we are Baptized INTO Christ BY Christ through the human hands of Christ's Servants - And that it is AFTER Baptism that the greatest temptations occur, and that the greatest struggles take place, with falls and recoveries through the Mystery of Confession, Repentance, and sometimes Penances... Hence Justification by God simply places man in right relationship with God, that he should continue in his struggle against sin on earth, persevering to the end...

We fall, confess, and repent, and God keeps on standing us back up - Again and again and again...

What has been said applies to the salvation of adults;
Children and those permanently deprived of their use of reason
are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Click to expand...

Arsenios

MoreCoffee said:

The verse you've quoted deals with individual belief and individual salvation. I am pleased you raised the matter of individual salvation because it is something I can deal with in this post.

Individual salvation

The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.

Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.

This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.

Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold

• that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural;
• that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace;
• that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin;
• that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so;
• that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities;
• that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat.

Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance,

• the precise nature of initial grace,
• the manner in which grace and free will work together,
• the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification,
• the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace.

But these questions are treated in other articles dealing ex professo with the respective subjects. The same is true of final perseverance without which personal salvation from sin is not permanently secured.

What has been said applies to the salvation of adults; children and those permanently deprived of their use of reason are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Click to expand...

Roman dogma, with no scriptural evidence.
It is tiresome to read so many posts with no biblical merit coming from so many different posters.
I suppose it's pointless to even attempt to call people to scripture when they view it as secondary to their denominations dogma and tradition.
It reminds me of the Jewish leaders who could not accept Jesus because their traditions dictated otherwise.
Time to dust off my sandals and accept that almost no one at CH cares about God's word as the primary teacher.

MoreCoffee said:

Brother Arsenios,

"-This change happens -
_1 - either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner
_2 - or by virtue of the Sacrament
__2a - either of Baptism
__2b - or of Penance
-in according to the condition
-of the respective subject
-laden with sin."

is referring to
a perfect act of love for God
done in faith
that leads to justification

Click to expand...

Have you any first hand experience of such a perfect act of love for God done in faith leading to justification?
I mean, I know you are a well disposed sinner, OK? And that you have been baptized, and that you may well have received penances... (Me too, even if I have ended up having to impose my own penances, so odd has been my approach to this Faith) So the question then becomes, what does this "perfect act of love" actually look like? How is it discerned? How and in what circumstance(s) is it enacted? And what does this mean in terms of charity, which was one of the differentiating criteria specified? Because charity is not toward God, but instead is toward man/creation... And hence cannot be perfected... I mean, that whole formulaic is profoundly foreign to my aging ears...

And I would guess that we are up against the later Scholastic Latin Theology of the West encountering the earlier Patristic Witness of the Faith in the East... In this, your encounter with me, and I with you... Just as we are encountering our Brothers descended from your Scholastic Tradition of the 10th Century who are using it with the printed Bible to challenge the Papal Authority of the West and birthing their own individually tailored theologies... And because these are all matters of faith, we find ourselves pretty much unfruitful in these exchanges...

(This disposition to believe the gospel, having begun in repentance, is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life).

The quote needs to be read in its paragraph:

This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.​

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but I am not recognizing this voice... I still do not know what "a perfect act of charity" might be... Nor does the idea of Christ's Passion meriting my Salvation make much sense to me... Suffering, in the Holy Tradition of the Eastern Fathers, is discipled to the faithful even unto death, as they follow Christ... Willingly embraced, as did Christ Himself... Eternal Life, Salvation, entry into the Kingdom of the Heavens, is not earned - It is a Gift, given by God, by Christ-God Himself, to fallen man who desires it by living a fallen life turned from sin... This Life is normally inaugurated by the Call of God to repentance from sin, which can itself be little more than a sense of guilt for the comitting of a wrong... Some feel no such guilt... Their Call comes more strongly... Ignore it at your risk, as did Pharoah... God is longsuffering, but He is not infinitely so with finite sinners, who still are insisting on theirown evil ways... He will honor our decisions, and enable them, as He did Judas and the Legion demons of the Demoniac into the pigs...

As to these latter, the Demoniac was saved, yes? And became the Apostle to the Lovers of Swine, yes? What Perfect Act of Charity did he perform unto his justification?

"If some decide to misread the quoted paragraph and misapply it for their own theological purposes that is their fault but it is not a fault in the paragraph."

Click to expand...

"I come not to judge the world..."


Arsenios