Talk:Salvation/Archive 1

Note

a note: 'it can be argued however that faith in Christ itself incorporates a will to follow his ways and thus attempt to do good works'. this could be incoporated into the bit about 'faith alone' vs 'faith + works'. sorry about not doing this properly, still new to this - AC

Talk from 2003

This talk page has been merged with articles previously at Romans road and biblical salvation.

Romans road and biblical salvation. These were essentially religious tracts posted by a new user. I took the text from Romans road and added it to salvation, attempted to state it somewhat more neutrally, and wikified it. Biblical salvation is a sub-stub. These pages are now redundant, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. I took most of the pure evangelism out of Biblical salvation and what is left does not justify a page. Romans road is tract material. silsor 02:48, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. We already have a salvation article, so both can be deleted, I think. I suggest merging the content into salvation or Talk:salvation first. Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires attributing contributions to authors. You can't use the material unless you preserve the attribution. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Many Christian denominations view the process of salvation as being systematical in approach based on scripture. See also Romans road.

To whoever described this as weird; This is actually a fairly standard approach among Evangelical Christians for describing the process of becomeing a Christian. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, then is written in a weird (non objective) way... Muriel Gottrop

I suspect that these pages ought to be rewritten so as to be encyclopedia material, rather than sermons (I know, it's sometimes hard) and then incorporated into a general article on salvation, perhaps under a subheading about Biblical texts on salvation. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Many Christian denominations view the process of salvation as being systematical in approach based on scripture. also see Romans road

First in this consideration is self reflection and considering ones state both morally and mortally, as follows.

Salvation means to be rescued from sin and the eventual consequences of sin.

  Why do you need salvation?

Because the Bible say’s “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”(Heb. 9:27) Some day we will all stand before God to give account of ourselves.. Most people might say to that “I’m good, or my good deeds out weigh my bad deeds or my church affiliation will get me into heaven etc.” The Bible says nothing about good deeds outweighing bad deeds, The Bible say’s “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans3:23) According to the Bible none of us are good enough to get to Heaven. How then can we go to Heaven?

This preceding is the problem, being our moral dilemma and the solution is shown Biblically.

The Bible says that there is only one way to Heaven ! Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”(John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(acts 4:12) (If there were any other way to Heaven Jesus would not have to come pay the price for our sins with his blood) God Loves you and wants to save you from eternal punishment for sin. (Hell) But first you must realize that you are a sinner and that good works will not save you. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Do you trust God or your own goodness ? Secondly you must realize that there is a price to pay for sin. “for the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) GOD loved you so much that he sent his Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ to pay the price for your sins. “but God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners. Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) You must be willing to turn from sin and repent. Jesus said: “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish”(Luke 13:5) Will you ask Jesus to be your Lord and Saviour? “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”(Romans 10:13)

Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried, and rose from the dead.. “for God so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”(John 3:16) “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”(Romans 10:9)

In prayer, ask JESUS to come into your life. Ask him to be your Saviour. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10)

A suggested prayer (Dear Lord, I know I am a sinner, in need of your forgiveness, I believe Jesus Christ shed his precious Blood on the cross and died for my sin. I wish to turn from my sin and now invite Jesus Christ to come into my heart and life to be my Lord and personal Saviour.) Amen

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new”(2 Corinthians 5:17) Read your Bible daily, apply what it says to your life, Pray daily, and find fellowship with other believers whom have accepted Christ as Saviour by faith. Also see John 3:3, Acts 4:12, and John 1:12

also see Romans road

"Christians' View"

I found it odd that "Christians' View" occurred after 4 paragraphs, 3 of which were about the view of Christians. That is, almost the entire article seems to be the view of Christians, with the sole exception of the 4th paragraph in the section preceding the "Christians' View" heading.

Indeed, the opening paragraph seems to define salvation as a topic of interest chiefly to Christians. Not sure what the corresponding terms or concepts are in Judaism, Islam, or other comparable faiths, or whether they have a doctrine of "salvation" that is congruent to the Christian notion of it. If someone wishes to supply that, the heading may be needful. As it stands now, it seems redundant, but harmless. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:54, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Does RCC follow John Calvin, or Jacobus Arminius, or elsewise ?

It appears to me that the article says that the West is split into two camps, one following Augustine and John Calvin, and one following Jacobus Arminius. I suppose the largest branch of the Church in the West is the Catholic Church; which does it follow ? (I find it surprising if it follows Calvin, frankly; I don't actually know who the Dutch person is.)

I wouldn't say that protestants "follow" either, but most mainstream protestants, I suppose, would be pretty well grouped into either Calvinist or Arminian in their view of salvation. Roman Catholic Soteriology does not strictly conform to either. It would outright reject Calvinism due to its view of Perseverance of the Saints, a concept somewhat shared by many Arminians, but that the Articles of Remonstrance, a historical statement of Arminianism, notes that it is not taking a side on that issue. Their view on justification separates their beliefs on salvation from protestant arminians altogether, but that is a different issue of salvation than the one Calvinism and Arminianism differ on.

But enough of my aimless babbling. The RCC cannot be considered Arminian strictly, but that is a better description than Calvinistic. The Thomists (think Thomas Aquinas) within Roman Catholicism adhere to a system resembling Calvinism in many ways. The Molinists have a very interesting system, one that tends to be popular with more theologically inclined Roman Catholics, and is also popular among many protestants. There is also a sect within Roman Catholicism which calls itself “Augustinian,” but I have never seen a clear explanation to what they mean by that.

As far as relations to the individuals you name, Roman Catholicism would in general reject the teachings of Calvin (a reformer) and Arminius (a Calvinist, speaking ecclesiological, he was a student of Calvin), and pay high respect to Augustine, who they view as one of their church fathers.

IMHO, this article could use a lot of work to really get it where it needs to be. Hopefully I'll be able to give some time to it to help it in the a elements I think it could use work.

Mike Graham Notthe9 03:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean: "In Christianity, salvation is arguably the most important spiritual concept," - does that mean some sects argue that point of view? Which ones?

Martin Luther called Justification "the article on which the church stands or falls," and that is only one element of salvation. Salvation is certain a key doctrine of Christianity, though I really think that sentence could be better said.

Several Answers

There is really no relationship between Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Roman Catholic Church. Both of the individuals are protestants. It is important to note that the essential message of the two theologians is not, in fact opposed, but the conclusions we draw from those positions may be. All of Calvinistic theology (actually, Calvinism is in many respects more typified by Martin Luther) is driven by the principal of the Soverignty of God; that is, that God is ultimately in control of everything. Arminianism has as it's central focus the responsibility of Man; that is, that Man's sin is his own fault. The two seem to conflict on the surface, and so the split in the Protestant church. The RCC does not seem to come down on either side of this particular debate.

Evangelical Christians

Among evangelical Christians, salvation means that all have sinned and atonement or reconciliation with God is possible for anyone through Jesus Christ by 1.) confession of sin and 2.) acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. The consequence of salvation: the sinner's sins are forgiven and he/she is "born again" as a new person, Christian, a believer, a child of God, and is sealed with the Holy Spirit. For some who do not understand this ideology, may abuse this priviledge by thinking if sin is forgiven, the process of salvation can be repeated over and over again. In practice it does not work. "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation" (the Book of Mark 3.29). Paradigmbuff 23:24, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This part was not incorporated into this article because it really falls under a separate topic:

The transformation from Salvation is unbelievable and miraculous. The "helper" referenced in the new testament is the Holy Spirit. When someone accepts Christ and becomes a born again Christian, that means one battle was won. In the book of Ephesians, chapter 6 verse 12 it says that we as Christians "do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (i.e., the devil). Paradigmbuff 23:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Something here ought to discuss the different views of permanent salvation regardless of future acts vs salvation that can be lost through post-salvation sin. It's a pretty big issue with the evangelical Christians and Lutherans/Catholics that I know.

....Everlasting Life.... Evangelical Christians believe "once saved, always saved". The only exception would be the unforgiveable sin or eternal sin.

21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)~GOD HAS NO ABORTED CHILDREN21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Bob ruth 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 The God of the Bible is the one who makes the gift of salvation available

to ALL and it is He alone who can save any man who will call upon Him.

The Calvinist belives in Election. that is that only the Elect are salvable

or savable and that the rest are all hopelessly damned. But God says: {Romans 10:13 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

In fact the God who saves a man who then becomes His child will not allow any to perish. God says:

John 10:27-30 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

I am a man who is not able to pluck myself out of my Fathers hand.
But on the same note this is not a liscense to sin. God will correct His children.

Bob ruthif I can do a bad work to lose my salvation; I can do a good work to gain my salvation. If I can work good works to offset my bad works and therby gain heaven then God is a debtor and owes me Heaven. Then could I boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9  8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Um... wouldn't that be "Calvinism" that teaches that??...172.208.59.6 03:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; "once saved, always saved" is not evangelical...it is Calvinist. Many evangelicals (Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) don't believe it...in fact, "mainstream" Calvinists deny it as well (see Perseverance of the saints and its talk page). KHM03 03:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify something: Yes, Calvinists believe only the elect can be saved. BUT It must be noted that the elect consist of those who God knew would "call upon the name of the Lord." The doctrine of predestination excludes none of those who come to trust in him. It is only the "un-elect," those whom God determined and foresaw would not come to him, who are, in the words of User Bob Ruth, "hopelessly damned." Xcountry99 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Removal of NPOV"

I just noticed that User:KHM03 did some considerable deletions on two pages, which he described as "removed NPOV".

Predestination: removed Types of religious predestination and other links;
Salvation: removed Reformed Soteriology and other links;

Our interests only overlap marginally, so I can't say anything about the general validity of his edits. Could someone interested in Christian religious topics please take a look at his edits (and possibly his earlier edits as well)? — Sebastian 02:19, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I removed the link to Reformed Soteriology simply because that page itself is extremely messy and primarily edited by two users (The DataRat and 68.227.224.123...who may be the same user under different names) who have professed animosity to the wiki system of NPOV edits, and their work demonstrates this concern. The Reformed Soteriology page needs a lot of work and I just felt it not ready to stand as a link until it looks much better, NPOV, and more informative...basically, until it's worth linking to. I think removing Types of religious predestination was an error on my part; I did edit several links to a somewhat inflammatory site by The DataRat. I certainly would not have any problem restoring the Types of religious predestination link, unless there's an objection. In both cases, I am happy to defer to the community. KHM03 12:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't restoring the Reformed Soteriology link make that page more likely to get the help it needs? --Corvun 21:31, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Salvation from what?

I added the word "condemnation" in the opening paragraph as pertains to Christianity. How in the world can Christian salvation be discussed without the words "hell" or "condemnation" being found anywhere?

Jim Ellis 13:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Restoration Movement??

User:Pspadaro added words regarding the "Restoration Movement." I have a couple of questions:

(1) My thought is that this is a somewhat obscure term which is really just a reference to the "Churches of Christ". Why not just say "Churches of Christ"?

(2) Regarding their doctrine, I am under the impression that the things you list as "needs" (repentance, baptism, and continuing obedience) are more properly termed "conditions" which man must fulfill.

I invite comments. Jim Ellis 18:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Restoration Movement

Responding to Jim Ellis questions. Good questions! Q: (1) My thought is that this is a somewhat obscure term which is really just a reference to the "Churches of Christ". Why not just say "Churches of Christ"? A: The Restoration Movement also includes some Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ and the ICOC which are distinctive from the Churches of Christ. Perhaps listing them individually would clarify. I did not want to burden the entry with too much detail. I am not opposed to using Churches of Christ. Q: (2) Regarding their doctrine, I am under the impression that the things you list as "needs" (repentance, baptism, and continuing obedience) are more properly termed "conditions" which man must fulfill. A: You are correct, I will make the necessary edit. Thanks. 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Pspadaro

Please see my addition of (e.g. Churches of Christ). I think this is helpful without over-burdening the article. Thanks for the dialogue. Jim Ellis 22:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Paid the Penalty / Atoned

I changed (in the NT passages section) the phrase "paid the penalty" to "atoned", for NPOV purposes. The idea of "paying our penalty" or "debt" is consistent with Anselm as well as Calvinist thought but is not consistent with other Christian views of atonement/salvation, notably the governmental view, as well as others. KHM03 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salvation in other systems of worship

In particular, I think a discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints would be instructive. What does Hindu theology have to say about salvation?

Say, there's an interesting quote here: "Catholics view the process of salvation as a joint effort of Jesus Christ's death/resurrection and the believer's own works. Protestants deny man's ability to save himself and view "works" as a "result of their salvation". The New Testament Book of Romans speaks clearly about this issue." If Romans 'speaks clearly on this issue' then why not stick in a quote? The article seems to say that the bible settles that argument, but doesn't say in which direction. ^_^

Reply: The Dichotomy of Salvation, and the Mormon / LDS Perspective

Salvation by grace alone is supported by Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1:5-6, Galatians 2:16, Romans 11:6 and Ephesians 2:4-5. It is spoken against by James 2:14-18, ("Show me your faith by your words, and I'll show you mine by my works." "Faith without works is dead.") Other scriptures, such as Matt 7:15-20, Titus 3:8, Titus 1:16 and Matthew 7:21-22 ask us to maintain good works. Matthew 25:35-40(When saw we thee a stranger...) discussed our "good" judgment for our "good" works, while Luke 12:47-48 ("few stripes, many stripes") discussed "punishment" for small and large sins. Both John 5:28-29 and Rev. 22:11 discuss judgment for both good and bad works.

Admonitions against "falling from grace" are found in Hebrews 10:26 and 12:15 and 2 Peter 2:20.

The LDS view of salvation takes all of these into account, and then adds a few more. Their view is that

  a) there are two types of salvation:  salvation from death

(which everyone gets through the resurrection of Christ) and salvation from spiritual death, or separation with our Heavenly Father.

  b) judgment is individual, based upon what the person did with what they were given;

and

  c) our salvation is only given from God by Grace, through the

atonement of Christ. But this doesn't give us a free ride after accepting Christ as our Savior (Matthew 7:21-22). We have the responsibility to continue in the "strait gate, and narrow way," and to "endure to the end." In the Book of Mormon this is constantly repeated, from Lehi's admonition to "hold to the iron rod" in First Nephi Ch.8 to Moroni's admonition (Moroni 10:32) to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness."

The LDS view of salvation takes nothing from grace of God, but is also gives the individual no free ride. In essence, we need to meet God part-way by going as far as we can to follow His path in this life. He will provide grace sufficient to take us the other 99.985% of the way to salvation. Says Nephi (2 Nephi 2:23,26): "We labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."

Or, as 1 John 3:2 would say, "when He doth appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." This lifelong quest to follow our Heavenly Father and learn to do what Jesus taught, is fulfilling both in the short- and the long run. See also Philippians 2:12, James 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:7-9.

For Hindu and other Eastern concepts of salvation, see the Soteriology article. 70.114.217.19 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Protestants deny man's ability to save himself"

Um - so do Catholics. The Catholic Church condemns that as a heresy called Pelagianism. So I changed that sentence to: "Protestants deny that works contribute to salvation"

Is that OK with everyone?

Add concept of Salvation in Jewish Thought

I was beginning to prepare a section to describe Salvation as it is approached in Judaism when I noticed that the topic is dealt with, and well, in the following article: Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity.

Is the correct editing method to link to the article or to copy it (with or without attribution)?

It's better to acknowledge it (perhaps paraphrasing the significant portions) and link to it.70.114.217.19 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once Saved Always Saved Controversy

I reverted to the last version by Codex regarding "once saved, always saved". That philosophy is found in certain strains of Calvinism, and even many Calvinists denounce it. It is certainly not representative of evangelicalism as a whole; I, as a Wesleyan evangelical, absolutely reject it. See here for more about it. The notion of "backsliding" is also a prominent evangelical concept, which is the antithesis of "OS, AS", but I would never claim it as normative for evangelicalism. Before reverting again, please voice your concerns at Talk:Salvation, so we could arrive at a consensus. Thanks! KHM03 18:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS - There's also some good discussion at Talk:Perseverance of the saints, by myself (the lone Arminian/Wesleyan) and three fine Calvinist editors, which you may find interesting. KHM03 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am surprised to see so many different interpretations of a Christian. Jesus’s great commission (Mathew 28.19)….“go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is the Christian movement.

The word of God suggests eternal life is everlasting. I have not found where the Holy Bible suggests salvation as being temporary. Have you? When an individual is sealed by the Holy Spirit,,,all that is good are from Him (including God’s forgiveness of sin)....Ariele 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, this and/or this. The "OS, AS" view is a minority position in Christianity and has been for 2000 years. Salvation is not "temporary", but many (probably most) Christians believe that there is sufficient Scriptural warrant to suggest that one has the free will to withdraw from God's grace and thus experience damnation. Your citation of the Great Commission is fine, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the "OS, AS" issue. Hope this helps...KHM03 03:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: where did you ever hear that "once saved, always saved" is normative for Christians? Just curious. KHM03 03:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly written in scripture...,,,this one is world famous, book of John chapter 3, versus 16 thru 21.,,,,,and eternal sin as being the exception inclusive, but deleted because of controversy. ,,,, Ariele 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue this point because there's no real justification for it.,,,ciao,,,, Ariele 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; no need to argue...but I (and many millions of others) are convinced that "OS, AS" is completely unbiblical. It's OK to disagree, but let's not make "opinion" seem like accepted "fact" on Wikipedia. Blessings...KHM03 03:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your input and suggestions, we are aware that both Judas and Lucifer are perfect examples that disproves the OS, AS ideology. But their eternal damnation resulted from their denial of God, as the one and only true God or deity. That's an entirely different topic called eternal sin.,,,,,<><...Ariele 15:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one was saved before the day of Pentecost. God fearing people existed like Moses and John the Baptist who presumably will be saved, but they had no assurance of salvation. Thus, the application of Judas is unfounded. There is no record of angels being saved even after Christ's death, but Lucifer exemplifies the need for salvation, as he lived righteously for some time, but then one day iniquity was found in him.

Salvation without "OS, AS" is an empty concept. I might be saved like Old Testament people without being saved now. After I receive the good news of salvation and accept salvation, critics tell me it is no news at all, because it only means that I might be saved. If salvation is conditional, then critics are saying that the righteous might spend a million years in heaven, and then suddenly turn to iniquity like Lucifer. --Danras 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again...I don't quite understand what "OS, AS" has to do with the "eternal sin"? KHM03 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I have not found where the Holy Bible suggests salvation as being temporary. Have you?" -- How about what Jesus said in Mt. 8:12? ፈቃደ 15:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This verse Mathew 8:12 is an excerpt from Jesus's lecture on faith - those who truly believe and those who don't. In its entirety: A Roman centurion went to Jesus pleading for Him to heal his ailing servant. Jesus said to the centurion "I will come and heal him". The centurion responded "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed." Jesus said, "Assuredly, I (Jesus) say to you, I have not found such great faith not even in israel. And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth...Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." "And his servant was healed that same hour." (REF: Mathew chapter 8, versus 5 thru 13 the New King James version). Sorry for taking so long to respond.,,,,,Ariele 04:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - the "sons of the kingdom" - those who thought they were automatically "pre-saved" by innate distinction (ie, born of Abraham's seed) and therefore, God loved them so much better than everyone else that they could throw the Golden Rule out the window, because they understood it so darn well, that they didn't even have to practice it - they are the ones who "will be cast into outer darkness". ፈቃደ 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: Please be advise that not all requests are granted with the same results. There seems to be a lesson learned from each experience. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss further.,,,,. Ariele 04:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the external links posted by another Wikipedian. I am not a Methodist; therefore, I don't consider myself to be an expert on the controversy. I was not raised a Catholic and therefore, I don't consider myself a Catholic. I am however, affiliated with a Southern Baptist church and have spent a couple of years as a non-denominational Christian. I don't call myself strictly a Baptist or non-denominational or Presbyterian or Catholic - although I've attended their religious services. So, my point is, I suspect the OS, AS controversy can be explained better if we stick to what the Holy Bible says about salvation, faith, sin, and so on and so on....,,,,[it's really getting late,,,ZZZZZZZZZ],,,,Ariele 05:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Arminian section seems totally biased toward Calvinism. And who got the idea that Arminianism teaches that a person can lose his salvation through evil works? Arminians hold that a person can indeed lose their salvation, which is based on faith, if and only if they lose their FAITH. Works have nothing to do with it. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that since God has "predestined" some to election, and saving grace is "irrestistable", one who is saved cannot turn his back on God. I would, however, like to differentiate between "backsliding" and losing salvation. From my understanding as an Evangelical, backsliding refers to a Christian forsaking the divine will of God and acting in accordance with his own pleasure. These carnal believers are in poor spiritual condition, but their position in Christ is secure, and they are still justified by His blood. I do not believe the Arminian section reflects the Arminian position. It appears to be inconsistent with the Armianianism article and the article on Conditional Preservation of the Saints, which state that loss of salvation is due only to loss of faith, not evil deeds. Wesley taught that backsliding could inevitably lead to loss of faith, and consequently salvation, if left uncorrected, but he never argued that bad works could separate a spirit from God once it had been washed in the shed blood of Christ. ~ Jared

I wrote the Arminian section and will attempt to rewrite it in the next day or two to reflect your emphasis. --Danras 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the P in TULIP, perseverance of the saints. once you are truly saved, then you can't go back. its from

ESV Hebrews 6:4-7 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.

and from

ESV 1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

So if you turn away from salvation, you never were saved. Wyatt 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic view of Salvation

In the 2nd bullet point in the Catholic view of salvation, there seems to be an opinion as to the translation of the Greek word "sōzō" in 1 Corinthians 1:18. I do not doubt that there is a sincere disagreement with this position, however, it seems to be an editorial comment on the misinterpretation of Protestants. It should be said something like,

"Catholics hold to the view that the Greek "sōzō" should be translated in the present tense instead of in the aorist or present passive participle that many protestants and anabaptists adhere to."

This actually gives more creedance to the Catholic position in the NPOV since it is not seen as an editorialization. BTW, I am not a Catholic and disagree with their interpretation. Although there is room for debate, I do believe it should be translated as a present passive participle. I also adhere to the hermaneutical view that this is much more appropriate in light of the difficulties of biblical consistency (ie - Eph 2:8-9 and Rom 11:6). Would love others comments.

Sorry for not signing earlier.Markepp 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Headers

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in official wikipedia policy that links in headers are discouraged, and I agree that there's something tacky about it... Could this be fixed? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the book?

Tacky was my impression, too. The obvious way to handle it would be to dewikify them all. A less intrusive alternative might be to at least wikify whole phrases in the headers rather than leaving them two-tone, i.e. change "New Testament passages" to "New Testament passages." Projection70 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of Salvation in Jewish Thought

I expanded the stub with some discussion on the idea of having "a share in the world to come" (the nearest Jewish equivalent to "being saved") in classical Rabbinic Judaism. Regarding the suggestion above to link to the comparison of the views of Judaism and Christianity on the afterlife, I think that section needs some corrections (factual and NPOV work) before linking to it.Davidhof 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible states that God hates sin and that sinners must repent

Lima just actually misquoted the Bible s if it said that "God loves sinners". The Bible does not state that Gods loves sinners on any page or in any verse; if I am mistaken, show me where. Don't misquote the Bible with your own pov interpretation. That is the Big Lie that is being pushed that the Bible doesn't really say. It says in numerous places the very oppositeL: That God hates sin AND KNOW ASSUREDLY THAT HE WILL AND DOES PUNISH SIN WHERESOEVER IT IS FOUND; Since we are all sinners, we must repent first to find forgiveness. It says in plain language that God loves the world SO much - how much? So much that he saves everyone? No, not that much. Only so much that he saves Whosoever believes in him. Please do not distort the entire basis of the faith. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, sinners must repent. Yet God's love for us does not begin from the moment of our repentance, cf. Rm 5:8. "He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses" (Ep 2:4-5). Thank God for that. God may doubtless be said to hate sin, but can it be said that God hates any human being? God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust" (Mt 5:45). Again, thank God for that.

Now back to the France-Portugal match, and then to bed. Good night, Codex Sinaiticus.

Lima 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not going to like this, but yes, in the Bible, it is said that God hates some human beings. The whole point of the sun and rain quote is that these things might come for all mankind, but clearly salvation does not come for all mankind. It is very annoying when you turn my edits upside down as soon as I make them because of your own pov that is at variance with what can actually be quoted. You seem to be interpreting John 3:16 as if it said "God so loved the world that everyone might be saved". But that's not what it says. It distinguishes only "whosoever believes in him" as those who might be saved. Like it or not, that's what it says, and taking Paul out of context is easy to do, but it does not undo the Gospel. If it is said that God loves them only enough to send them sun and rain, but yet he doesn't love them enough to save them for eternal life... well, as Mark says, what does it profit a person if he gains the entire world and yet loses his soul? That was said for a reason. For wikipedia, we must stick to what John 3:16 actually says, and not try to color it or reinterpret it to say the opposite according to your own theology. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is best recognized as a matter of controversy among different Christian sects. A few believe in universal salvation, while others believe only in salvation of the believers, or of the baptized, or of those baptized into their own particular sect, or of a predetermined elect. Because this is a matter of controversy among believers, a Wikipedia article must not take sides in it. --FOo 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fubar Obfusco (qui tamen non obfuscat - who, in spite of his name, does not obfuscate) is right. Just give the quotations, and let the readers interpret as they will. Unless I am mistaken (possible, of course) the New Testament quotations are there precisely to illustrate different widely-held views (not just the views of some editors). I have temporarily bolded other parts of the quotations that trouble Codex Sinaiticus, merely to balance what he has done. In reality, any bolding here betrays a personal point of view, and should be eliminated. Lima 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't trouble me, because I know how to read English, and I don't pretend it says something it doesn't. A very few denominations may teach "universal salvation" (I'm not even sure which ones), but they can't pretend such a position is Biblical, by any stretch. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Codex Sinaiticus, I will now remove the bolding. Lima 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codex -- see universal reconciliation for the notion also known as "universal salvation", and also apocatastasis. It is, indeed, a minority view held by few Christian denominations ... but like so many divergent views, can find some support in the Biblical text. --FOo 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a quick read. Not a single supporting verse was given. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

Due to recent changes by the user Danras, I have put all of his/her edits under one heading. The edits appear to be considerable (and quite beneficial) additions to the article. Nevertheless, the user has also removed content he/she deems "excessively abstract", and I would like the other editors of the page to ensure that the information removed was adequately made up for by the additions. Due to the user's religious background, I'm also requesting a quick POV check, for though Danras seems to have made as much effort as possible to have a NPOV, there might be some unintentionally POV phrases used to describe differing beliefs. Once again, from what I can tell, it's a good and well needed addition to the article. 66.229.160.94 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Intro

I think most people in largely Christian nations anyway regard salvation as salvation from eternal torment in hell. Few are concerned about an undefined turmoil of the soul. I suppose the comment is an intended joke. According to the New Testament, the damned will have their bodies resurrected, so they also face bodily turmoil as well.

The use of the little known technical term soteriology does not belong in the main body of an encyclopedia article for general users. Perhaps it could be placed in the See Also section, but it does not link to anything informative. It is bad writing to place it in the introduction. The whole article is excessively abstract. --Danras 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation isn't only a Christian belief, nor did it originate as such; it is also important to remember that there are different beliefs in the Christian faith as to what salvation is. As for the term "soteriology", it needs to be mentioned as the term links to this page. 66.229.160.94 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term "largely Christian nations" was used in reference to the typical understanding of salvation at least as most English speaking Wikipedians would regard it. It was not to deny other beliefs, but to suggest that they are atypical. I have yet to hear of a religious group that has a doctrine of salvation, but does not believe in hell or something equivalent. I notice that you do not cite any, so I take it these groups are hypothetical.

Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader and are there to enhance his or her knowledge. Introducing technical terms or jargon especially in the beginning of an article scares away readers. If a term is not necessary, it should not be used at all. Individuals who seek further understanding can reference a see also section. I had the impression that soteriology is an external topic because it links to Soter from inside the salvation article. Apparently from outside it redirects to the Salvation article itself. Individuals who reference soteriology get the message "Redirected from soteriology," so they get the message that salvation and soteriology are the same.

 --Danras 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In religion, salvation refers to being saved ("deliverance") from an undesirable state or condition — typically one in which the soul of an individual is in turmoil, and hence is peril of being lost."

A state in which the soul of an individual is in turmoil is a definition of anxiety. So the writer is saying the typical definition of salvation is salvation from anxiety. The writer states that such a soul is in peril of being lost. He does not say to what, but perhaps he means to insanity. This definition of salvation does not include salvation from hell. Who holds this definition? Methodists? Episcopalians? Sunni Muslims? Hindus? If this definition is typical it should have plenty of support. Also, if one were bothered by anxiety, would not one seek salvation from the cause of the anxiety, rather than from the anxiety itself? I am changing the intro back because it is unsupported. --Danras 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is obviously false

"Christianity embraces a good news message of hope and inclusion, not a message of condemnation and exclusion."

Reply

The condemnation is not an empty message designed to cause hurt feelings. Reality is that sinners do not get along with each other and if you put them all together for eternity, life will soon become a living hell. I admit I was born a sinner, and others admit they are born sinners. Salvation from hell is for us. If you feel that you are perfect, you do not need salvation and I do not see why talk of hell rattles you.

God loves all and is not willing that any should perish, but he respects those who do not want help and is not going to force salvation on those who have an ego problem. If you do not want help, you are excluding yourself, others are not excluding you. --Danras 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism

I deleted the pre-existing section, because it is too abstract and I thought it should be specific. Admittedly, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Salvation is not much better, although it is specific in its article on the sacrament of Penance. If anyone adds to this section, please be specific. I realize Protestantism and the introductory Christian sections are also abstract, but I plan to fix those. --Danras 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to Christian Views of Salvation

I deleted the Intro because it is too abstract. In some ways, it is a diatribe against negativism. It praises the positive, but without any contrasting negatives, positives lose their meaning. One does not appreciate the need for central heating without the winter cold. Salvation without hell or social exclusion is not very meaningful. This intro suggests the writer opposes the concept of original sin/inherent depravity, an opinion that is in the minority among Christians and as such, it does not belong in an intro common to all Christian groups. --Danras 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism

I replaced much of this section because it was not focused on the subject. It included a discussion of adult vs. infant baptism and sprinkling vs. immersion without any indication that some group believed a particular type of baptism saves one. There is mention but no explanation of separate views of Calvinists and Arminians. The section seemed to touch on various points at random. The first sentence of the new revision is put together from the old. In addition, the last paragraph on universal salvation is kept as it is focused. --Danras 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Religions

I added a section on Eastern religions, specifically concerning those that believe in reincarnation. I thought the salvation or Moksha of these religions should be made more understandable to Westerners who have little familiarity with these religions. In some ways, Moksha is a different concept and deserves a separate article, which it has. However, it is similar enough to deserve mention.

I am not particularly familiar with these religions and invite comment or changes if my understanding of them is faulty. I think the sections on Hinduism and Buddhism can be deleted. However, before I delete them, I wondered if there is anything written that is worth saving. It should aid the reader in his general understanding of Moksha or the path to it. One should remember that Moksha does have a separate article for lengthy treatment of non-essential details. --Danras 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism

I eliminated wordiness on what constitues a mortal sin and reinstated purgatory and indulgences. The section is not an advertisement for Catholicism. It can include items that the Church would not emphasize. The Church teaches its members that salvation is by baptism and the avoidance and/or confession of mortal sin. Presumably, baptized members without mortal sin have faith, at least in the Church. Ignoring Mass attendance, Penance, and Holy Communion for extended periods is considered mortal sin.

How general statements of faith and works fit in with this framework is not clear. Baptized Catholics without mortal sin have no further requirements for salvation, even if additional faith and works are admirable. Catholicism does not recognize faith and/or works as leading to salvation by themselves without an individual recognizing the authority of the Church. It is not a brand of Protestantism, where belief is Jesus is what matters and where which denomination church one chooses to attend is a secondary matter.

I have eliminated the last paragraph as the first part of the article fully describes the Catholic path to salvation and whatever faith and/or works one needs is implicit in them. I will not repost my prior mention of Catholic agreement with Protestants in Augsburg as that agreement on faith is unconnected to the Catholic path as well. --Danras 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to replace the ill-informed and unsourced information that has been placed in this section. "For example, if one attends nine First Friday monthly Masses, one is guaranteed salvation." So you can commit mortal sin as freely as you wish and still be sure of salvation! The writer who suggests that this has something to do with indulgences obviously does not understand what indulgences are. And what can have given the writer the idea that "the Catholic Church does not recognize the salvation of any Protestant"! And ... Enough!

I planned to deal with this when I am back at my base (hoping that, in the meantime, someone else would correct the article, which, however, seems not to attract the attention of enough people). But I have now done the correction myself, because another editor has appealed to me personally to do so. Lima 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima, please do not replace specific Catholic teaching on salvation with generalities that advance your POV. Church teaching on venial sin, mortal sin, penance, and purgatory is essential for understanding how Catholics believe they attain salvation. The Church does not recognize the salvation of any Protestant. They do not say that there is no salvation outside the Church, either. They are silent on the issue. A Catholic who knowingly ignores weekly Mass attendance and the sacraments for a prolonged period is considered by the Church to be in mortal sin. Protestants are presumably in the same position, except that they may have the excuse of ignorance. Lima, why are you ignorant of this fact? Get real! Perhaps you wish to advertise Catholicism as form of Protestantism, but it is not.

The assurance of salvation by attending nine First Friday masses was taught when I grew up Catholic. I understood the logic of Lima's thinking even back when I attended nine First Friday masses, but the position was nevertheless taught. This teaching may not be an official indulgence. It may be a teaching of the Virgin Mary during one of her alleged appearances. I will research it. --Danras 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Catholic teaching? Your representation of "specific Catholic teaching" is ripe with errors, irrelevancies, and bias. Why do we need to know that "Most Catholics are baptized as infants, but older converts to Catholicism would be baptized as a part of their conversion process"? If mortal sins must be committed knowlingly, how is it that "Mortal sins include murder, adultery, and significant theft" automatically? Purgatory is a temporary hell? The Catholic Church does not teach this. His length of stay? "[Priests] are discouraged from discussing with any confessor his sins outside the confessional"? You really must not have been taught well when you were raised Catholic, because you have a misunderstanding of even basic Catholic practices. What would compell you to rely on what you were taught when you grew up anyway? "[Indulgences] are not well known by modern Catholics." No, indulgences are not well known by you. Indulgences do not guarantee salvation nor do they remit sins, they remit the TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT of sins, which you would know if you had ever read the indulgence article you linked to. Your last two paragraphs are completely irrelevent and POV. You accuse Lima of making generalizations and POV, but his version has the advantage of being what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Furthermore, Lima's version IS NOT generalized. I learned far more about the Catholic position on salvation from his version than from yours, which is really nothing more than a step-by-step walkthrough of the motions without any mention of the theological basis for them.--Antelucan 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the "Roman Catholicism" section under a disputed accuracy and neutrality banner.--Antelucan 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Catholics are baptized as infants, but older converts to Catholicism would be baptized as a part of their conversion process"? That statement is needed, because many Protestants view baptism as a public statement of faith that follows their acceptance of Jesus' gift of salvation. It is important to make clear that by being baptized as infants, Catholics have not personally agreed or consented to anything. You are being pedantic about mortal sins. A murder committed unknowingly would not be a mortal sin. I suppose you would bog down the narrative by adding a paragraph explaining the distinction. Most Catholics understand Purgatory as a temporary hell. Theologians would describe it using long-winded and fancier terms. Again, you are being pedantic.

You criticize me for relying on my native understanding of Catholicism. You feel that the Catholicism section should reflect the highly technical distinctions understood by a small group of Catholic theologians, even if 99% of practicing Catholics do not understand these distinctions. I disagree. You claim authority in that these technical distinctions are what the Church actually teaches. Unfortunately, readers of the Salvation article are more interested in what the majority of educated Catholics believe rather than official but ignored technical treatises. You make a further pedantic distinction regarding indulgences remitting the temporal punishment for sin, rather than sins themselves. My last paragraph distinguishes Catholic belief from Protestant belief on salvation. You say it is my POV. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no distinction?

An encyclopedia article necessarily has to summarize. You seem oblivious to this distinction. You do not seem to possess a social sense that other people think differently than you. A step-by-step walkthrough of Catholic belief regarding salvation is fine. Unlike Lima's version, it has the advantage of giving a complete picture, rather than just touching on some issues in detail and leaving the reader ignorant of the totality of Catholic belief regarding salvation. --Danras 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic? For God's sake, this is an encyclopedia! I don't care about the private beliefs of some disgruntled pseudo-Catholic, I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to salvation! Your claim that the majority of educated Catholics do not care about the official teaching of the Church is unsupported and untrue. The specifics of baptism are for the baptism article. The indulgences distinction is made in the indulgences article. Your last paragraph claims that the Catholic Church refused to agree with the Protestants over salvation. What? What "Protestant view"? There is no such thing! The Catholic Church's official teaching on salvation has not changed. The Protestants are the ones who protested the Catholic Church, hence the name. Heck, Protestants disagree with each other over salvation, as evidenced in this very article. You also launch a Protestant objection to the Catholic hierarchy, which has absolutely no place in this article. If that's not POV I don't know what is.

Of course an encyclopedia article has to summarize. You seriously think Lima's account doesn't?! There is a trove of Catholic writings on this subject, from the Apostles to the Church Fathers to the popes, bishops, and theologians throughout Church history! How does this make me oblivious? I understand that others think differently than me. That doesn't make either of us qualified to determine what the Catholic belief is on salvation, especially not based on popular opinion. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. This may be hard for you to understand. "Catholic" means universal. The teaching of the Catholic Church is the same everywhere, regardless of whether self-prescribed Catholics accept it. Again, the Catholic Church is not, IS NOT a democracy. It's official teaching should be represented here or not at all.--Antelucan 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia article section on Catholic salvation has to summarize. It should not contain the same pedantic distinctions that a multi-volume tome is able to support. I am all for an article section being as informative as possible. However, it has to cover ground quickly, and cannot fail to cover its ground because the writer has stopped to make intricate distinctions that interest him, but which will bore most readers. Lima does not cover the basics of Catholic salvation. Most readers have little idea of what mortal sin is, and Lima does not place it in context with venial sin. He does not cover what you described as a walkthrough.

No one is against official Church teaching, per se. The problem is you want to use pedantic distinctions in long Church documents to undermine any attempt at summary. You reserve the right to say, "Such and such is not Church teaching, because the Church actually says bla-bla-bla-bla-bla," a pedantic version of the same thing. No one wants to present beliefs held by a few pseudo-Catholics. Technically, there is little official Church teaching. Only the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception falls under the infallibility doctrine. The Church relies on widespread acceptance for its teachings to be official. "Vox Populi, Vox Dei." -- The voice of the people is the voice of God. The Church leadership is not as intolerant as you are. It could easily declare a widespread belief to be heresy and the belief would be banned.

As to Protestants, the Catholic Church maintains its institutional integrity, and does not fundamentally agree with Protestants, even though they agree that salvation is by faith alone. Despite this agreement, I think non-Christian readers would want to know that there is a disagreement between the two sides and the nature of it. You consider it an attack because I present the Protestant side as well as the Catholic side. --Danras 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima's account does summarize. If readers need to know what a mortal sin is, let them direct themselves to the mortal sin article. Otherwise the space is wasted on a deficient rehash of mortal sin that does not do the term justice. It's not pedantic, it's necessary theological language for a theological article.

Doctrine does not have to be infallible to be an official teaching of the church. You are mistaken. "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying, 'The voice of the people [is] the voice of God,' since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness." (Alcuin, Works, Letter 164)

The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics need not be highlighted in the Catholic section. It is self-evident in the article as a whole. When you decide to publish your how-to guide to catholic salvation you can present your impressions all you want, but until that time, please refrain from injecting them here.--Antelucan 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement is accurate and not merely my impression. I think it is important and needs to be stated somewhere in Wikipedia. It is somewhat self-evident, but need not be explicitly mentioned in the Salvation article as long as the agreement with Protestants that salvation is by faith is also not mentioned. I will take it out both the agreement and disagreement. --Danras 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, what remains is still POV and inaccurate. Why have you linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia index? Is this an attempt to provide a source for your claims? If so, I am absolutely astounded at the level of scholarship you are promoting. You continue to accuse Lima of "vandalizing" the article when you have yet to reference your own statements. I find this all incredibly disingenuous. Understand that I am new to wikipedia. I had no designs to get involved until I saw this article. I sincerely hope my experience here so far is not the paradigm at wikipedia.--Antelucan 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "inaccurate" you mean it does not contain the highly pedantic distinctions that you mentioned earlier, like listing murder as a mortal sin, but not explaining that murder has to be committed knowingly to be an actual mortal sin. You described my version as a walkthrough, so basically you are in agreement that it is correct. From what I understand, Catholics are not allowed to read any book on religion, unless the book contains a bishop's Imprintur in the title pages. Like such banned books, my version of Catholic salvation is apparently not "kosher," as it does directly quote Church council Such-and-such. My version does not sound as though it necessarily comes directly from Rome. My major problem with the type of sources cited is that they are not concise. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia in the external links. That Encyclopedia has lengthy articles on Catholicism and does cite Church councils for interested readers.

The typical reader of the Catholic salvation subsection does not share your interest that half the article content be devoted to proving the other half. The subsection is not supposed to be original work or overtly be perceived as "scholarship." You seem to be smart in making pedantic distinctions, but you are ignorant in gauging who the readers are and how to best inform them without requiring too much of their time. The adjective "nerdy" and the noun phrase "idiot savant" come to mind. You can be "absolutely astounded" at readers for not sharing your interests, but that is the way there are. Even if I read an article on say, Hinduism, I just want an informative summary. I do not want to read for a long time and still have little idea what it is about. An article is of little use if it is not going to be read. --Danras 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danras still cannot produce for even one of his statements a citation to prove that his ideas about what the Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to what some ill-informed Catholics imagine to be the Church's teaching) are any more accurate than his idea that I claim never to have been a Catholic. An encyclopedia must be accurate, rather than entertaining. Readers who want entertaining though inaccurate information can turn to books like the Da Vinci Code - or perhaps to what Danras writes. (From today, I will be out of touch for some two weeks.) Lima 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Danras can provide trustworthy citations for Danras's affirmations on what is Catholic teaching on salvation, only then will it be right for Danras to replace the sourced statements that were in this article before Danras messed it up, and that I am now restoring. "Specific teaching" is precisely what should be here, not Danras's ill-informed notions. Also, since Antelucan's well-founded objections are to Danras's account, not to what is now being restored, I am removing the banner Antelucan added to the section. If Danras thinks the banner should be there, let Danras replace it.

What Danras says about the Nine First Fridays is an example of how ill-informed Danras is. "It was taught," Danras says. By whom? It certainly was not a teaching in Danras's catechism. The notion is based on Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque's account of her vision of Jesus showing her his heart. Was Danras never told that "private revelations" hold for the person involved, not for the Church? The article should give the teaching of the Catholic Church, not that of an imaginary Church in which that French nun would be a thirteenth apostle. Lima 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "sourced statements," Lima apparently means pedantic technical writings of theologians that the majority of Catholics would not understand. Lima can look at the article on Penance in the online Catholic Encyclopedia for reference. Apparently Lima claims never to have been a Catholic, and thus cannot agree that Catholics hold any specific beliefs without firm sources. "Specific teaching" is not the focus here, but Catholic belief. Most Catholics do not understand pedantic theological distinctions, so including such distinctions creates a false impression that such distinctions are widely held. An encyclopedia article should summarize the totality of Catholic belief on salvation, so there really is no room for Lima to put on a show of his ability to make minute distinctions.

The Nine First Fridays assurance of salvation is apparently not an official indulgence, so mention of it will be removed. This "private revelation" does have official recognition in that the nun involved was canonized a saint, and, at least in the United States, there are numerous Catholic churches named "Sacred Heart" in honor of this nun's supposed vision. One of these was next to the parish I grew up in. It sure looked real to me, but Lima suggests such a church is "imaginary." --Danras 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, if Danras wishes to make acceptable contributions to the section on Catholic teaching, let Danras quote, for those contributions, verifiable sources of Catholic teaching (declarations of councils and popes, catechisms ...), instead of just giving personal impressions. Lima 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima, I am not going to interrupt the narrative with external citations or quotes. The article section is going to remain reader-friendly. It is not a PhD dissertation. You do not seem to grasp that the purpose of the article is to quickly inform the reader. You are free to add a link in the external links section. I referred you to a reference in the above discussion. --Danras 05:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Danras prefers a narrative quickly informing the reader of Danras's own ideas, rather than an account of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Well then, he should add a new section, parallel to that on Catholicism and Protestantism. Call it Danrasism.

References are not interruptions. They show that the statements in the article are well-founded, not just someone's own ideas. For that very reason Danras cannot produce them. Lima 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation through baptism and the avoidance and confession of mortal sin are my own ideas. I invented them. They are not what the Catholic Church actually teaches. At least that is what Lima states in his profound ignorance. Lima feels readers should be subjected to his vague content, which ignores the basics. Instead of trying to justify his content, Lima engages in personal attacks. References are interruptions and need to be placed in external links section. Lima thinks the article should be an advertisement for references and external links. He has repeatedly attempted the wholesale overwriting of pre-existing material that no one had an objection to. --Danras 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who objected to your version. Lima has not been replacing your version, he has simply been restoring the version that was here before you replaced it.

Also, baptism and mortal sin are both addressed in Lima's account. The references Lima uses are footnotes, so they are unobtrusive. Lima's version is sourced and it explains salvation using the same theological language the Catholic Church uses. This technical language is necessary and cannot be ignored (grace, faith, righteousness, repentence, the past-present-future dichotomy, merit, the relationship between faith and works, etc.), but its use must be addressed in the article. Your version explains the motions but fails to address the supernatural reality as the Church teaches it. You are free to build upon the version that was here before you replaced it with yours, but you cannot engage in this (as you call it) "wholesale overwriting." You said you deleted Lima's version because it is "too abstract and [you] thought it should be more specific" (on July 24). This is not a sufficient reason to simply delete a section. Build upon it if you want, but you have yet to justify a complete rewrite of the section, especially one that has no references.--Antelucan 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antelucan, you talk about Lima's version being sourced. Documentation may be a concern for those who have content that match the subject, but Lima has not gotten to that point. Lima's version does not answer the basic question, "How is one saved in Catholicism?" Lima apparently does not know the answer, for nowhere in his version is that answer specified. Protestants know how they are saved, but Lima, whose scholarship you exalt is befuddled by the issue of how Catholics are saved. Some Protestants regard Catholics as stupid, and Lima does not do much to counter that assertion.

Lima's version looks like he did a web search of articles containing the word "salvation," then pasted together paragraphs that he found. It is like a collection of quotes containing the word salvation. A web robot could have put it together. It fails to address the subject of salvation. Quotes or paragraphs about aspects of salvation do not constitute the subject. You claim to be "absolutely astounded" that someone would be so unscholarly as to object to an article that completely misses the subject. --Danras 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This merely suggests that you have not read Lima's version, as the answer to the "How is one saved?" question is the focus of the section, in three bullet points. If you believe the article misses the subject, specify how it does so in detail, so that we may discuss its improvement. This still does not justify a complete rewrite of the section, particularly without references. All content must be verifiable and contain no original research. These are non-negotiable policies at wikipedia that must be adhered to.--Antelucan 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I joined a new religion, I would want to know how I can be saved. What steps do I have to take? Lima's version completely fails to address the subject for Catholics. He presumably does not care himself, whether he is saved or not. Lima mentions the Church teaches salvation is by faith, but faith in what? Jesus? The Catholic hierarchy? Faith in one's own works. His description of salvation having past, present, and future aspects provides no detail as to how one is personally saved. Writing an article requires a little thought on Lima's part to address the subject. He has completely failed.

I find it difficult to believe that you do not understand that Catholic salvation is commonly understood by many millions of Catholics. There is an external link to the Catholic encyclopedia. Your claim that my version is undocumented is an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Lima has failed to address the subject.

In the future, if Lima wants to post material to a Wikipedia article, I would suggest he know something about the subject. Most everyone knows how to copy and paste, but few attempt to write or overwrite articles without understanding the subject of the article. I think, Antelucan, that you should be embarrassed at having spent so much time and effort defending a product of ignorance. --Danras 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church certainly does not teach that one is saved by faith in one's own works. This is an outrageous claim.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not support your populist view of Catholic salvation. However, the link was not included in your edit anyway (nor should it be, unless you agree to link to a specific page of the encyclopedia).

I thought we agreed the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics was to be removed?

And again, you refuse to read the section you insist upon removing: Faith in what? "Man can accept the gift [of salvation] God gives through faith in Jesus Christ and through baptism."

You demonstrate a common fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on salvation, in that you are requesting a step-by-step program. Salvation in Catholic teaching cannot be explained properly from this perspective.

I have edited Lima's version so that addresses purgatory and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, amongst other issues you have raised here. Purgatory plays a minor role in salvation but indulgences are a subset of even that and have no place in this article. If you still object to this version, I would like a detailed explanation.--Antelucan 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line-by-line critique of Danras' version of the Catholic section

"Catholics see salvation as achievable by following moral law and through the use of the Church's sacraments."

Catholics do not see salvation as "achievable" in the sense that it is an accomplishment apart from the grace of God. This is misleading and, consequently, POV.

"Most Catholics are baptized as infants, but older converts to Catholicism would be baptized as a part of their conversion process."

This is extraneous information.

"Mortal sins include murder, adultery, and significant theft."

Mortal sins do not automatically include these; they must be grave sins done in full knowledge. [Seems to me that all of the examples are grave sins done in full knowledge.]

"If he dies with unconfessed venial sins on his soul, he will go to purgatory, which is a temporary hell. His length of stay in purgatory depends on the multitude and severity of the venial sins."

Purgatory is not a temporary hell. "This final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1030 [1]). POV must be removed.

"The priest then forgives him in the name of God, by the authority of the Church, and assigns him a token penance, usually some prayers to say such as three "Our Father's." Forgiveness includes sins the confessing sinner has forgotten to tell. Priests in large congregations generally would not know most who confess to them. Even if they did, they are discouraged from discussing with any confessor his sins outside the confessional."

All of this belongs in the Sacrament of Reconciliation article and is extraneous to the issue of salvation.

"The Church also offers indulgences for various practices or good works. These are not well known by modern Catholics. A typical indulgence might be a remission of sin for making a pilgrimage to the grave of a particular Saint. Indulgences were more widespread in the past. During the time of the Protestant Reformation, priests used indulgences to raise money. For example, by paying a sum of money, one could get one's deceased relatives freed from purgatory. Such priests had a slogan, "When the coin if the coffer clings, the soul from purgatory springs." The Church soon renounced the selling of indulgences."

All of this belongs in the indulgences article and contributes nothing to the discussion of salvation. In Catholic teaching, indulgences decrease the amount of time endured in purgatory, but those in purgatory are already assured of their salvation.

"During the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church would not agree with Protestants that salvation is by faith alone. However, in 1999, in Augsburg, Germany, it agreed with Protestants, that salvation was by faith alone and is not the result of works. Some Catholics emphasize the importance of works following salvation as indicative of it, but so do many Protestants. Such agreement suggests Catholics and Protestants agree on salvation, but the two groups are far apart on one issue."

This exhibits a Protestant POV. You agreed to remove it.

"The Catholic Church does not recognize the salvation of any Protestant."

The Catholic Church recognizes the salvation of the Saints only. This is a Protestant POV and does not belong in the article.

"The Church claims that its bishops are the successors to the Jesus' apostles and that the Pope, as the bishop of Rome, is the successor of the head apostle, St. Peter. Individuals who knowingly ignore the authority of such successors are in mortal sin. Protestants argue that succession claims are undocumented, and that the bishop of Rome had no special status in early church councils."

This is poorly articulated. Mortal sin must be grave sin committed in full knowledge. By virtue of their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants would very rarely meet this requirement. Regardless, this section is about the Catholic teaching of salvation, not the Protestant rejection of Catholic authority. POV must be removed.

"However, even if such claims are true, succession does not convey any moral authority. The high priest, Caiaphas, who ordered the execution of Jesus, was the apparent successor to Aaron, the brother of Moses. Few would recognize Caiaphas' moral authority even though Aaron was clearly appointed by God."

There is a rebuttle for this, but it has no place in the article to begin with and consequently must be removed regardless.

"Protestants recognize that some Catholics, and even priests, accept Jesus' gift of salvation."

This section is about the Catholic view of salvation not the Protestant view. The POV here is intolerable.

Danras has attempted to ascribe a legalistic understanding of salvation to the Catholic Church as in many Protestant sects, but this is simply not how the Catholic Church approaches the issue of salvation.--Antelucan 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I think you are way outside the Catholic mainstream and should not be writing an article on anything having to do with Catholicism (or Protestantism either). You are out of touch with social reality. You just do not possess common sense. It seems obvious that you have never been an ordinary Catholic. I know you have read things in catechisms on the Internet but most of what is written is just sentiment. The Church operates on what might be called a machinery of guilt. If Catholics believed the way you think, there would be nothing to stop them from wandering off and joining other churches.

I hope you will recognize your ignorance and not continue your attempts to repost. You do not even seem to care about your material. Readers should not be denied a correct understanding of salvation within Catholicism because of your ego. I am sorry if I accidentally reposted the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. --Danras 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Roman Catholicism Section

This is a dispute between two versions of the Roman Catholicism section of this article. 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I contend that Danras's version of this section currently in place[2] contains POV and unsourced statements and inaccuracies. Lima first made substantial contributions to the section on 8 September 2005[3] to replace placeholder text that directed to the Salvation in Catholicism article (which is derived from the Catholic Encyclopedia). A series of edits made by user 12.110.178.56 on 18 July 2006 reduced this contribution to two small paragraphs[4]. Danras removed these remaining paragraphs five days later, claiming they were "too abstract"[5], and replaced them with his new version[6], the majority of which is still in place right now. On 9 August 2006, at my request, Lima restored his original contributions (the removal of which were never discussed) with some additions[7], deeming Danras's contribution to be "ill-informed and unsourced". The following day, Danras objected to the new version and reverted to his own[8], and a revert war ensued involving Danras and Lima, then Danras and myself. I convinced Danras to remove the last two paragraphs of his account, to which he complied, but he still refused to remove the rest of his POV and inaccurate statements, claiming the article should represent "what Catholics really believe" rather than the official teaching of the Catholic Church. I most recently made a good-faith effort to address some of Danras's objections to Lima's version (Lima is now on a two-week hiatus), incorporating Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation and purgatory [9], but Danras once again reverted to his version without explanation. His most recent reply to my line-by-line critique of his version[10] addressed none of my points, but rather personally attacked me and the Catholic Church. I am new to wikipedia (this predicament constitutes almost the entirety of my involvement), so I am not familiar with the standards and protocol involved in settling disputes here. But my experience so far has been very negative, and I am more than ready to entrust the resolution of this dispute to someone else.--Antelucan 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When in doubt, cite a source. This section is devoid of citations. IMHO, that is a significant cause of the problem. Without citations, disputes become a question of what Editor A thinks is true vs. what Editor B thinks is true. Wikipedia is NOT about what is true. Wikipedia is about what reliable sources assert is true. When there is controversy, our job is NOT to resolve the controversy for the reader but to present the controversy and let the reader decide for himself using referenced sources for further reading if he/she so wishes. Obviously, two reliable sources may disagree and that should be documented. We do not give a flying doughnut about what User:Lima, User:Antelucan, User:Danras or User:richardshusr think. That is unacceptable Original Research. Period. End of story. Cite your sources. --Richard 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When writing text about controversial or disputed topics, say "Source A states that X is true." That leaves room for someone else to say "Source B states that X is not true." Of course, you have to make some judgment as to whether Source A and Source B are equally credible sources or if one is the majority opinion and the other is the minority opinion. Ideally, even this judgment would rest on a citation but that is not always possible.
Now, as for this dispute in particular, it seems that there may be room for compromise if one side wrote "the Catholic Church teaches...." with a citation to prove it and the other side wrote "However, many practicing Catholics believe...." with a citation to prove it.

Hope this helps. --Richard 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC thoughts

It seems to me that while the section SHOULD contain the official teaching of the Catholic Church, it does not need to quote so extensively from the Catechism and the Bible: one quote from the Catechism is fine. It also seems utterly besides the point to wander off into two paragraphs on indulgences, a passing mention and link seems adequate. I agree with Richard above, in that if Catholics on the ground believe differently to the actual stance of the church, both should be mentioned and referenced. This a case where both sides are right, you just need to work together to create a good section. Don't revert, refine. Good luck. Dev920 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Dev 920 and Richard. I think I need to clarify the crux of this dispute. The issue here is not whether to include differences in opinion among the rank-and-file Catholics concerning salvation (no evidence has been given that any exist), but whether to include Danras's impression of Catholic salvation (which reflects a secular POV inconsistent with the rest of the article and contains no citations or references whatsoever)[11] to the exclusion of Lima's version (which predates Danras's and contains citations from official Church documents and the Bible)[12]. If it is a question of citations, it seems the latter version would be preferable because it is the only version that has any. On a different note, I am not sure that it quotes too extensively from the Catechism as there are only two citations from the Catechism and these are actually paraphrases.--Antelucan 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danras Thoughts

I have no problem referencing the Catechism if such a reference is relevant. I would have no problem with Antelucan or anyone else accurately describing salvation within Catholicism in the article. I think I figured out, however, what Antelucan's dispute is about.

The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of original sin. It also teaches that individuals commit actual sin. Antelucan apparently does not like any article version that mentions sin in any major way. He may even personally disagree with Catholic doctrines on sin. Despite being dirty and perhaps offensive to Antelucan, salvation is not comprehensible except in terms of sin. If everyone is sinless and possesses original virtue, there is no need for salvation. Sin and other negatives like hell are necessary in an article subsection about salvation within Catholicism. I think the subsection needs to have a balance of negatives and positives. Antelucan supports a version that has little that is negative in it. His claim that such a version is what the Catholic Church actually teaches, ignores the fact that his material and quotes are selected to exclude material he does not like. --Danras 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Catholic teaching salvation is a positive experience. The focus should not be on what we are saved from, but what we are saved for. That is how the Catholic Church approaches the question. However, I do not understand how you can accuse me of excluding sin from the section since both versions speak of sin, mortal sin, purgatory, and confession. I am the one who added them to Lima's version. What both versions do not contain is an explanation of the function of grace, faith, justification, merit, the past-present-future dichotomy, and references to support these. Please, I beg of you to read the version you insist upon deleting. If you had, you would not make these accusations that I am excluding sin from the section.--Antelucan 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation by definition refers to a negative from which one is saved. It does not refer to a positive. If someone pushes you out of the street, away from the path of a fast moving car, that person does not save you to the sidewalk, he saves you from being hit or killed by the car. Technically, being "saved to" something is off topic although a positive may be worthy of mention due to close connection. Going to heaven is worthy of mention in connection with salvation from hell. Some Catholic writings you have encountered may use a "saved to" approach, but that fact does not imply that this approach is doctrine. The Church does recognize salvation from hell.

I recognized that Lima's version mentioned mortal sin, when I wrote my previous "thoughts." I was not accusing anyone of completely excluding sin. I was not aware that you added to it, but now I see that you had added more about sin. I noticed some early writers to the Salvation article had a strong aversion to the mention of hell or of original sin/inherent depravity. I thought maybe you had a less extreme aversion and such an aversion was the basis of your dispute. I admit now your aversion, if any, is not especially strong.

Your version begins with, "The Catholic Church teaches," but it should start with "Catholics believe," as readers are interested in actual belief. I realize you are trying to be pedantically accurate, but you should write for the reader as best that you know. You write about "salvation to eternal life," when salvation is technically from eternal damnation.

The Church provides a set of rules regarding sin for determining whether one is saved or not. In some ways they are a model of simplicity. You write about them as clarifying add-ons in your first paragraph, but you should remember that most readers are not Catholic and have little familiarity with mortal sin and purgatory. You write about faith as being necessary for salvation. Protestants would likely interpret that to mean personal faith. The Church teaches that baptized Catholics who die without mortal sin are saved. Therefore, personal faith is not required. One only has to be a member of the group to be saved, one who has not lost communion with the group through mortal sin. Salvation is therefore gained collectively in Catholicism, and is not viewed personally. You fail to point out the distinction. --Danras 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions About Catholic Doctrine

I have questions about Catholic doctrine directed to anyone who knows the answers. The Catholic Church teaches that purgatory only remits the temporal punishment for venial sins. What happens if a Catholic dies with unconfessed venial sins? Are not these sins remitted in purgatory, along with the temporal punishment due them? Or would such a Catholic go to hell? What if a Catholic confesses mortal sins? Do these sins carry a temporal punishment that must be remitted in purgatory? If not, then assuming that they are later confessed, is it better to commit mortal sins then venial sins? In that way, one would presumably avoid temporal punishment. --Danras 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indulgences and prayers for the dead can remit temporal punishment endured in purgatory. Only Reconciliation and Contrition remit eternal punishment (hell). There is no eternal punishment attached to venial sins, because they do not cut us off from God, but there is temporal punishment. If someone dies with unreconciled venial sins, he or she will endure purgatory. If someone commits a mortal sin, but reconciles, he or she will be saved (from eternal punishment), but still must endure temporal punishment in purgatory. Eternal punishment and temporal punishment both involve separation from God, because the stain of sin cannot enter heaven, but temporal punishment is temporary while eternal punishment is eternal. Those in purgatory belong to the elect; they are saved. Thus, purgatory is not some lesser form of hell. Rather, it is a purification process.--Antelucan 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of doctrine is the same as mine when I wrote the questions. The Church distinguishes between venial sins and the temporal punishment due them. If purgatory remits both venial sins and the temporal punishment due them, then there is no reason to state in the article that purgatory remits the temporal punishment due venial sins. One can just state that purgatory remits venial sins, as such sins include any temporal punishment due them. If our understanding is correct, then the Church has made an artificial distinction, and there is no benefit to confessing venial sins in the sacrament of Reconciliation. --Danras 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our responsibility is to report what the Catholic Church teaches, using its own distinctions. However, the point is moot since the article does not say that purgatory remits the temporal punishment due to venial sins, but that INDULGENCES remit the temporal punishment of ANY sin that has already been forgiven. It also says that purgatory is a temporary hell, but this is false.--Antelucan 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church teaches Purgatory is the place of punishment like hell. It is also temporary. --Danras 11:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. The Church teaches that the punishment of hell and the punishment of purgatory are fundamentally different in kind. The paragraph you added contains text that you agreed to leave out, and the rest of it is unsupported original research. The Church most certainly does not teach that faith is not necessary for salvation. I have added the appropriate Original Research banner.--Antelucan 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both purgatory and hell are places of punishment to expiate the punishment due sin. One may be like a country club prison while the other like a rat and roach infested prison that most regard as a place of horror, but both serve a similar function and do not differ in kind. I am not aware of any extra-biblical revelation that gives a first-hand account of differences between the two. One would not want purgatory to be too pleasant a place, as too light a punishment would prolong the amount of time needed to expiate the punishment due sin.

The Catholic Church teaches that all who are baptized in the Church and remain in communion with it by avoiding and/or confessing mortal sin are saved. Some faith or agreement with the Church is necessary to remain in communion with it. If one did not believe most Church doctrine, one would not likely remain in communion with it. If one were so faithless as to espouse heresy, such espousal would probably be a mortal sin. Therefore, some implicit faith is required.

However, the Catholic Church does not teach that any explicit personal faith is necessary for salvation. If I am a baptized Catholic and remain without mortal sin, the Church does not teach that I must exercise some form of personal faith in addition to that. The Church does not teach, as many Protestants do, that to be saved I must personally accept Jesus' gift of salvation. Antelucan is the one who is asserting that the Church requires some apparently personal expression of faith on the part of the individual. The burden is on him to show this teaching.

My main concern is not faith, per se, but of misrepresenting Catholicism as a religion of personal belief rather than of collective agreement.

Please do not remove the banner until you provide citations for the claims you are making. The information in this section must be verifiable:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

The burden is on you and others who favor the current state of the article.--Antelucan 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that hell and purgatory are very different. It is not just about one being eternal and the other being temporary. Purgatory is not necessarily even punishment. It's primarily about purification. We can debate whether there is a painful and penal aspect to that purification but the bottom line is that you are coming closer to God. (OK, this is personal opinion and I am open to being corrected.)

Hell is sort of about punishment but the pain of hell is about separation from God.

Think of it this way. A kid commits an offense and apologizes to his parent. However, "sorry isn't enough", some consequence must be paid for the offense (fixing a broken item, whatever). That's purgatory.

A kid runs away from home and says "I am no longer part of this family!". He cab no longer experience the love that his parents have for him. His parents still love him and wish he would come back but he refuses to. That is hell. Whether there is fire and brimstone or devils with whips is a side issue. Probably those are just ways of portraying the suffering that hell entails. The bottom line is that hell is a permanent separation of God caused by an individual rejecting God's love for him. (Again personal opinion and I'm open to being corrected.)

Now that you've heard Richard Shu's opinion, you might consider a more authoritative source

Catholic Answers

Specifically, consider these pages

Are Catholics Born Again?

Assrance of Salvation?

--Richard 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catechism reference is abstract?

User Danras removed the following addition: In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the term salvation is often associated with God's plan. It is also called the economy of salvation. Catechism of the Catholic Church #54 states that, "God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. And furthermore, wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning. He invited them to intimate communion with himself and clothed them with resplendent grace and justice." The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through life in Chirst. #1949 states that, "Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him:"

User said: Danras (Talk | contribs) (→Roman Catholicism - Deleted paragraph that is simply too abstract) A personal view of what is abstract is a POV and violates WP:NOR. This addition cites using WP:CITE in the statement Catechism of the Catholic Church #54 and #1949. (Simonapro 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Danrasism

I have had to write a more technical presentation than I would have wished, in order to make it clear that what is now presented really is Catholic teaching on salvation, and not just some individual's ideas about Catholic teaching. I hope I do not have to add yet more to it, as I may have to, if Danras continues to present his ideas as those of the Catholic Church. What he presents is not Catholicism but Danrasism.

Danrasism completely ignores Jesus Christ. Something inadmissible in an exposition of Catholic teaching. Danrasism seems to be allied to Pelagianism: for it, "salvation is achievable by following moral law and through the use of the Church's sacraments." In the lopsided Danrasist vision, use of the Church's sacraments (only two are mentioned) serves simply to overcome the problems of original sin (by Baptism) and actual sin (by Penance), and thus to avoid hell for all eternity and the temporary hell of purgatory. The latter sacrament is so important that a detailed description of its external aspects has to be given. Danrasism also gives extraordinary importance to indulgences, thus making freedom from "temporal penalty due to sin already forgiven" one of the most important elements in the Danrasist picture of salvation. Indulgences were once granted for almsgiving, as they still are for practices such as reading Sacred Scripture or taking part in a Eucharistic procession; this former practice has been abandoned precisely because Protestants and, it seems, Danrasists (rather, the one Danrasist in existence) interpret it as a "sale" of indulgences.

It is not enough for Danras to claim that Danrasism is Catholicism. He must show that his claims are verifiable. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," he sees at the foot of the editing page every time he puts his own ideas back in the article. Yet he continues to ignore it. He can cite no source other than himself for what he writes. And, as far as I can see on this Talk page, no one supports him. Does Danras really think everyone else is out of step but himself?

Lima 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I have either not read or forgotten parts of this thread but I think the essence of it is that Danras claims that salvation can be achieved through works or, at least, that many Catholics believe this. Conversely, Lima argues (correctly IMO) that the Catholic church does not teach this and that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is conferred solely through the grace of God (which we do not deserve and cannot earn) through his gift of our savior Jesus Christ. Faith is the acceptance of that gift. I'm not quite sure what the Catholic Church teaches about how much free will we have in the act of faith that accepts the gift. One extreme view is that even the act of believing is a gift of grace from God. This would be the Calvinist view. The Arminian view would be that we do exercise free will in accepting the gift. Let's put this issue aside for the moment.

What Danras is arguing is that many or most Catholics believe that salvation is achievable through works (going to Mass, saying the Rosary, acts of charity, following the commandments/Law) etc. Protestants would argue that this is an invalid "salvation through works" theology. I think the reconciliation is that salvation is not through works but salvation is not permanent upon baptism. You can lose your salvation by committing a mortal sin and not reconciling it with God. You can commit the sin of apostasy. How do you avoid these moral dangers? You live the life of the faithful. All the acts of faith condition your soul to follow the straight and narrow path of faith and improve the likelihood that you will avoid the danger of mortal sin. If you commit no moral sin, then you need not fear dying in the state of unreconciled mortal sin.

Now, I do agree with Danras that it becomes easy for the lay Catholic to miss the theological distinction between "salvation through works" vs. "keeping one's soul on the straight and narrow through works which incline the soul toward God". If you get really extremist about it, you could argue that all the works in the world will not save you from mortal sin if your soul is so inclined. However, that doesn't detract from the real value that these works have for the vast majority of Catholics who do get real spiritual benefit from them.

As I've said before, I think it's worthwhile to explain what the Catholic Church teaches and how this teaching is actually practiced by the laity. If there is a difference, it's worthwhile to point it out and to explain what causes the difference.

If you agree with the above, then I think this is worth explaining in the article. (I admit that I haven't read the article in a few days so it may be the case that the above is already covered in the article).

--Richard 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia indicating Catholic teaching on a subject will explain "what the Catholic Church teaches", rather than the perhaps inaccurate ideas of individuals. If these ideas are mentioned, it will be only after the accurate presentation of the Catholic teaching. They must also be verifiably shown to be fairly widespread, not to be just idiosyncratic notions of a few.

Richardhusr's idea about salvation seems compatible with the Catholic idea, based on the New Testament, and previously explained in this article, that the salvation of an individual who is still in this life can with absolute truth be spoken of using both past, present and future tenses of the verb "to save". It was in consideration of Danras, who for some personal reason strongly opposed that explanation, that I have omitted it this time. Perhaps it would be well to insert it again.

Lima 19:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Church sacraments are works of God, not of our own. In terms of the works of the Catholic laity, faith in Jesus Christ without good works is a dead faith. To sum it up, Catholics believe for their salvation they are to have faith in Jesus Christ AND do what he asks them to do. When Protestants talk about savlation by faith alone, and nothing else, they are expressing a form of Sola fide which is debatable over on that article. (Simonapro 07:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding Sola fide, it is worthwhile to consider what Catholic Answers] has to say about mortal sin and the possibility of losing salvation. If we agree that we can lose salvation through mortal sin which separates us from God, then we should seek ways to stay close to God so as to avoid mortal sin. How do we do this? Through various religious practices such as receiving the Sacraments, praying, doing charitable works, etc. We ask God to continue to send us His grace so that we may not be "led into temptation". When we see a sinner, we should say "But for the grace of God, there go I".

Moreover, while venial sins may not keep us from Heaven, they still distance us from God. Purgatory is a purification process during which we come closer to God. Because we love God and want to be close to Him, we should seek to avoid even venial sins. How do we do this? Through religious practices (per above paragraph).

We are not saved by any of these religioius practices (works). We are saved by the grace of God who gives us religious practices as a tool to hold on to the gift of salvation. It is not our virtue that gives us our desire to do these works and nor is it any thing we do that gives these religious practices their efficacy in keeping us looking toward God. Even these (desire and efficacy) are gifts from God (To paraphrase User:Simonapro, "the sacraments are works of God, not of man")

It is reasonable to believe that many Catholics get this wrong, that they believe that the works are the result of their virtue or that the works guarantee their salvation. Blame this error on the hubris of man. Blame it also on a church which may teach religious practice more than theology. (I know, I know, this is a gross generalization) However, as User:Lima asserted, if we are to say that many average lay Catholics get this wrong, then we need to be able to document this assertion to a reliable source.

--Richard 08:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV scripture references for faith-alone salvation

Faith-alone salvation is not supported by either the Catholic church that canonized the Bible or the bible without bias selection of verses with the exclusion of others. That POV section has been removed. (Simonapro 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's going to be replaced until there is consensus to delete it. These are all Bible quotes relevant to Salvation and regardless of what any one Church teaches, they are 100% relevant to the topic, not POV. Please wait for consensus here on the talk page before edit-warring such a sweeping change. Also, it is considered good form to reproduce the contested parts here on the talk page if you delete a massive block of text. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a consesus to include it first. Nobody is saying the Bible is not important or what verses are not important but this has been presented elsewhere in context. See the section below. (Simonapro 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fact tags and section dispute Christian views of salvation

The section Christian views of salvation contains uncited POVs that violate WP:NOR. Christians look principally to the New Testament as the prime source of their understanding of salvation. Many relevant texts are found in the Epistle to the Romans, which contains the most comprehensive theological statement by Saint Paul of Tarsus on the question.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Because of this, some Protestant Christian denominations have called these texts the Romans road‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}.

There was no consensus to include this. I don't have a problem with a reference to Sola fide instead and probably Sola scriptura. For this reason I propose the new article inclusion of

Christianity and salvation

The New Testament contains approx. 138 versus (salvation 45, saved 52, save 41) that make reference to the word salvation. The Holy Bible contains no mandate as the only deposit for Christian faith. Belief that the Holy Bible is the only deposit of faith is called Sola scriptura. Accepting this, as most Protestants do, versus are used to present a case for the Sola scriptura doctrine of faith-alone salvation, called Sola Fide. The Roman Catholic Church who authorized the Holy Bible canon do not believe that the Holy Bible is the only deposit for Christian faith and so also incorporate traditions. Every denomination expresses variations in their own personal interpretations of Bible verse readings. The Roman Catholic Church makes statements on salvation through the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

All the Bible verses should be removed and agreement reached before proceeding. Thanks. (11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

The Catholic Church made the same statements on salvation before and after the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and neither before nor after contradicted the teaching of Scripture. To me the Bible verses seem highly relevant. Lima 11:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the articles Sola fide and Sola scriptura are neutral presentations of scripture concerning salvation, however please note that the personal interpretation of some verses contradict faith-alone salvation and nothing else. The topic is dealt with in those articles fairly but not here because the contradictions have not been presented as they have been in the noted two articles. For example the following verse says women can be saved by having children.

Salvation through child bearing: - 1Ti 2:15 DRV Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

I understand your position that the RCC covered its teachings from scripture but also notes that some scripture is contradictory if interpreted the wrong way such as Sola fide. These facts are presented on the pages with the two articles. There was no consensus to add this new section and it is better presented elsewhere. Please remove it. (Simonapro 12:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's hardly a "new section", it's been there a year at least. Scripture is highly relevant to this topic, perhaps more so than anything else, and should certainly not be suppressed. Even if you were correct that Scripture is irrelevant to Roman Catholics, it is still relevant to all the other Churches, and it is not going to be scrapped on behalf of one denomination.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed text reads... Christians look principally to the New Testament for their understanding of salvation. Many of these texts are found in the Epistle to the Romans, largely because that Epistle contains the most comprehensive theological statement by Saint Paul of Tarsus. Because of this, some Protestant Christian denominations have called these texts the Romans road. This statement appears to be brand new and added at [13] by Lima. It has no citations and is a violation of WP:NPOV as it stands now.
The bias slant to the book of Romans for salvation is also called dispensationalism which is rejected by the early church that canonized the Bible and the modern church. The Catholic church is not a denomination. It is not denominated from anything. (Simonapro 07:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Simonapro is indeed disingenuous in attributing the text to me. All I did was to make some changes in the light of Simonapro's observations, and I am now making another change for the same reason. The mention of the New Testament passages is in the article since 8 November 2003, almost three full years ago! If consensus is called for, it concerns removing the mention. Simonapro would do better to amend the present text in line with the truth, instead of calling for excision of the text on the basis of arguments that I personally think will convince nobody. Surely Simonapro does not think that the Catholic Church rejects any part of the New Testament. Lima 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your replies.
I call for WP:CITE style to be used. More likely is I will edit that section to put it back where it belongs near the end, then delete the WP:POV violation replacing it with my own suggestion with citation which is much clearer and balanced. I have put up dispute tags at the start of the section to show I want to see ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} being used. (Simonapro 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your last edit misunderstands the section. It is controversy over teaching methods and not the Bible. (Simonapro 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"The Holy Bible contains no mandate as the only deposit for Christian faith" is not acceptable to Lutherans. Simonapro and I may agree with this statement, but it is still a point-of-view statement.

"The Roman Catholic Church makes statements on salvation through the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church." Of course it does. But of course also it makes statements on salvation through many other books and documents, as well as orally. In the context of denial of "sola Scriptura", this phrase sounds like proposing a doctrine of "solus Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae"! Lima 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have changed those two parts to read better with better references. (Simonapro 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think it is time for someone else to take over, for a while, the task of defending this article from Simonapro's edits. Lima 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey cool if you are using talk. I agree with your edits. Any other comments pls add. I think the article is much fairer now and very neutral also representing points of view very well. It is a great article. Nice work. (Simonapro 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Zoroastrianism

In translation of the Gathas, Oriental Studies journal, and elsewhere I have seen discussion of a Zoroastrian concept called "Sava" that is translated as "Salvation". Do you all think that this should be mentioned here? I think so. Also, if so, should it receive its own section or be placed under Eastern Religions (by logic of branching off from the Indo-Iranian belief system along with Hinduism)? I wonder about this latter part since "Eastern Religions" often signifies the more specific "Dharmic Religions", which does not include Zoroastrianism in any established manner.

quotes and references in intro

Robert Daoust has added a request for citations in the intro while remove those quotes and some of the links that were there. Often when something is inadequate it is better to add to it rather than just remove it what little is there. But I'm not clear of what his aim was. Robert can you enlighten us?--Just nigel 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add Falun Dafa

Does not seem there is too much activity on this page right now. I am just adding Falun Dafa for now, and I will also put in a small section in the near future.--Asdfg12345 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption

Is there any compelling theological reason why redemption and salvation are being conflated here? In Judaism, as far as I can tell, the concept of "redemption" has three distinct meanings; and in Christianity, salvation is the end state achieved through the act of redemption. Am I wrong? Fishhead64 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fishhead64. The word translated Redemption, as used in the New Testament (primary Christian document), is not an inherently religious word. The lutron/lutrosis word-group was used in the common market to refer to either the price paid to free someone from bondage (usually an unpaid debt), or the act of doing so. It's usage in the New Testament refers to a person being bought by Christ (the Christian redeemer and savior) out of bonds to sin and sold to instead God. The process renders the redeemed person free, and thus, in effect, saved from their previous slavery. The state in which a person is rendered by both redemption and salvation is functionally equivalent, but the terms are not identical.Raymondofrish 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Soteriology article with Salvation a Bad Idea

It's one thing to be seeking answers for salvation itself--even a discussion or debate is a good idea. But people who look at Soteriology are merely trying to figure out what this word means. Like I was when I found it. To learn that it has different meanings and connotations in different cultures, and to get a taste of each one, is enough. If a student wishes to search further, or a philosopher wishes to delve further, they can study the doctrines of Salvation in each particular culture religion. Am I wrong? 70.114.217.19 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)D.Jeffery[reply]

If they are just looking for a definition, they should be in Wiktionary. The link would be Soteriology, simple enough in the format: [[Wiktionary:Soteriology|Soteriology]]. There is no need to repeat the article in two places. Any extra substantive content under Soteriology, that doesn't already exist in Salvation, would be merged into Salvation. --Bejnar 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not with you, Bejnar. Soteriology as a concept and a study is not merely about definitions, but about application. One doesn't need an entire treatise (like this Salvation WikiProject), but merely a taste of different sides of the debate, plus an overall perspective. I think the Soteriology article would be even better if we figured out who coined the term, how it got to be a study in itself, and who the current experts are for this niche. Again, NOT so in-depth or descriptive as the full article, but more than just a definition or two. If I hadn't found it the way it was, as a 1-2 page article with headers, I would have never stopped to take the time to learn more about it. :-) D.Jeffery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.217.19 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree this is a bad idea. Merging Soteriology with Salvation would be like merging Geography with Earth... one is a concept, the other is a field of study – close, but not exactly the same thing. Thanatosimii 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it is a bad idea for similar reasons. WikiJonathanpeter 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge notice from the article since the majority opinion is not to merge it. WikiJonathanpeter 10:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Need review, first listed requires password/blog; latest has leading phrase off subject and if one follows that lead at the bottom of the page on the website, the Matthew 24 quote contains numerous typos. Others may be single viewpoint self-promoting web pages. Theopedia adds little and is poorly organized, rather sparse. - Athrash | ^Talk 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last link addition is certainly spam. Somebody stuck that link on several pages all in one go very recently. Will have a look at the others. WikiJonathanpeter 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and hell

Why is there no talk of the Christian notion that salvation means being saved from hell? Can't you guys agree on some wording that includes that meaning or doctrine? The Salvation Related Passages in Christian Scriptures section makes it look like you have no idea what salvation means in regard to Christianity, so you are going to just list the references and let the reader try to figure it out. Chick tracts, the Redemption page, even those guys on the street corner are quite specific that you need to acquire salvation in order to go to heaven rather than go to hell. - JethroElfman 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic view

I think this article needs other point of views than purely religious ones, e.g. an agnostic point of view. There one such point of view:

==Agnosticism==

The true meaning of life is uncertain, but it is very probable that it is associated with mankind. Therefore, if mankind is benefited, then the true meaning of life is also benefited, whatever it is. However, this method doesn't promise any place in any heaven, because not only is love and support given away to others to receive a possible salvation, but even that possible salvation is therefore passed forward to others.

More information is found here. However, since I've participated in the contribution to it, it would be "original research" if I wrote anything about it. Nevertheless, what do you think about it? Is it worth mentioning? Mikael Häggström 09:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the section on RC misses quite a lot.

New comment I think that the section on RC misses quite a lot. Did anyone consult the constitution of the church? It specifically states that non-Christians can be saved. See below.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.[18] There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel[20] and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions.

I found the above on the internet with no problem--DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - LUMEN GENTIUM Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. It confirms what I was taught that the RC church does not require baptism or faith in Christ to be saved. Please correct the entry. Here is the url: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html time.Guyoutthere 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]