Catholics and Non Catholics

[Jac3510]

I can say a Catholic isn't saved because he has not believed the saving message.

That is why I said above that the question isn't "do you believe?" We ALL believe something. The question is, "What do you believe?" Catholics believe that perseverence is necessary to go to heaven. When I say to them, "No. It isn't. Salvation comes by faith alone," they say, "No, that isn't true." Therefore, they deny the validity of the Gospel. They have rejected the Gospel. If I say to them, "Do you believe that by simply trusting in Jesus for everlasting life, then you have it?" and they say, "No, it takes . . . " then they have denied the Gospel.

When I say that salvation is through faith alone, I am not saying that salvation only comes through faith. Yes, that is a very true statement. But, more than that, I am saying that salvation ONLY comes through faith alone. That why my sig says, "Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." If a person believes that repentance is necessary, which is, after all, what this ultimately boils down to, then they have not believed the simple Gospel.

Now, someone may say, "You are making the Gospel to complicated!" The reality is that I am making it VERY simple. If you want to be saved, this is what you must believe: Jesus Christ offers you everlasting life as a completely free gift. Will, then, you take it that way? If you think that in order to acquire this life, you must repent or keep on believing or what have you, then you have not accepted the simple terms of the Gospel. Further, if you think that Jesus is offering temporary salvation so long as you keep on believing in Him, then you are believing in Him for something that He does not offer. Jesus makes ONE offer: everlasting life. There is ONE way to get it: freely receiving it. Anything and everything else is false and, thus, damnable.

Let me say, though, that this has gotten away from my original point. Originally, I was pointing out that the belief in the final perseverance of the saints is watered down Catholicism. There are many on these boards who hold to such a belief . . . that true Christians necessarily persevere in faith until the end. That's just Catholicism, albeit watered down.

As to your edit:

FG is all about assurance. You have to completely and totally separate works from salvation. There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever. You can have complete assurance of your salvation because you know that you believed the Gospel. You don't have to understand it all. You just have to believe it. The Gospel is John 3:16 . . . all who believe in Jesus for everlasting life have it. It is John 6:47. All who believe in evrlasting life for Jesus have it. But, the key is receiving it by faith alone. Jesus offers life freely. If you think there is a cost, then you haven't believed the message.

Does a child doubt that he owns a particular thing when his parents give it to him? No! Neither should you doubt that you own salvation when Christ has given it to you. But, as with the child, you have to receive it. No parent would give his child a gift in exchange for his child's hard earned money. He would pull the gift away and say, "No . . . this is free, because I love you. Take it!" So long as the child insisted on paying for it, he will not receive it. We don't pay for salvation by repentance. We receive it by faith. Thus, we KNOW that we are saved because that is what salvation is!

Did your father or pastor believe in Jesus for salvation, or did they believe that they had to do something to be saved? If the former, then praise God, they are saved. If they latter, then we hope that at some point they trusted Christ alone.

[Jac3510]

BUT, in your further insistance that ONLY the proper understanding of free grace is necessary for salvation, what you've done is robbed my assurance for everyone else. Did my grandfather put too much emphasis on doing good? My pastor just preached a sermon on repentance; does my pastor really believe in true FG?

I wanted to actually deal with this by itself . . .

This is both the great joy and great danger of free grace. I can have 100% assurance of a persons' salvation only if I know what they have believed. If you pastor preached that repentance from sin is necessary for salvation, then he does not presently believe the Gospel. If he has never believed the Gospel, then he is not saved. It is more likely that he did simply believe in his younger days, and then came to this position as he studied. Fair enough. That is what happened to me. The good news about FG is that you don't have to maintain belief to be saved . . . it's a one time deal.

Now, this is infinitely better, though, than anything anyone else is offering. A Catholic can't know anyone is saved. I could fall away tomorrow. An Arminian is in the same boat, and God help the Calvinist. He can't even know if HE is saved. We all know people who have been deeply commited and fallen away . . . well, the for Calvinist, he is only preserved by God if he is one of the elect. If he is not one of the elect, he will someday fall away. He may be pretty darn sure that he is elect, but he can't really know that. You certainly can't know that I'm elect, no matter what kind of fruit I produce. After all, Charles Templeton produces some fruit for some time . . . no one would have thought that he would have fallen away.

I do appreciate, honestly, the desire to open the door to salvation wider. We want to widen "belief" to simply acknowledging Jesus . . . but what does it mean to believe in Him? Does it mean that we just have to believe that He existed? Of course not. We have to believe in Him for everlasting life. We have to believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God. We have to believe that He offers us life, unconditionally, and on those terms we receive it. If a person believes that he must do something to be saved, then he has called Jesus a liar. Salvation is only by faith in Christ.

[FFC]

I agree with much of what you write, Jac, you know that, you do keep the salvation message simple and that is good. But don't forget that God looks at the heart of the one who is coming to Him. Yes, it is true that repentance doesn't save anyone, but what about the person who does believe that Christ is the only way to eternal life...but adds "God have mercy on me a sinner"? Did he make his belief in Christ null and void because he spoke from His heart.

This does not negate the grace message does it? Is saying your sorry for your sins as you look to Christ for salvation heresy? I don't think so. Maybe it's not necessary but it is certainly not a false gospel. God knows our hearts even if all of our ducks are not in the proper theological row.

[Jac3510]

I would agree more than disagree FFC. Repentance, like works, have no bearing on salvation, so if a person repents at that moment, then good for them. The problem is if they think that, in order to be saved, they first must repent. I don't know too many people that get that far into theology before they trust Christ. Most people hear the story of Jesus and how He died in their place, they heard John 3:!6, and they believe that, and that's enough.

But, what about the person who hears the story of Jesus and then is told, "Now, do you want to be saved? If so, turn from your sins and submit your life to Jesus Christ!" Here, now, is a person who hasn't heard the genuine gospel, which is salvation is by faith.

I'm not saying we have to be theologians or understand all the inner-workings of salvation. What I am saying is that we have to understand 1) who we are receiving salvation from, 2) what salvation is, and 3) the condition on which it is offered. The answers, and indeed the only answers, to those questions, are Jesus Christ, eternal life, and faith. A child can understand that

God bless

[Byblos]

For the vast majority of LSer's, I can very much image their conversion experience going something like this. Witness: "Jesus was God's Son and was sinless, and he died and paid the price for your sin. If you believe this then through him you will have everlasting life. Do you believe this? Will you accept Jesus as your saviour?" New Christian: "Yes I do." at this point, everyone will agree that if the person answered honestly he IS saved. Witness: "Ok then, now you have received the Holy Spirit and must begin to live like God commands."

You see, regardless of what happens in part B, Jac would have to agree that the person is saved. And most would agree with Jac on that. After that, we can leave the only place for disagreement up to God, and that place is: "If the New Christian does absolutely NO good, then does it show that he didn't answer honestly?" LSers would say yes, FG's would say no. I would reconcile the two by saying "only God can know the person's sincerity, and only God can judge whether his future actions were good, relative to their unregenerate state." This is the mystery of which Canuckster speaks.

Felgar, having already read all the subsequent posts, I'd just like to comment on the above, which I do agree with wholeheartedly. I am very surprised that Jac said he does agree with all of it as well (including the mystery part). The reason for my surprise is that we all know by now that Jac advocates total, irrevocable and absolute assurance of salvation. The problem with introducing 'mystery' to it is that salvation a la Jac is no longer absolute. Mystery means there's a possibility one way or the other and therefore, absolute assurance goes out the window. In the absence of absolute assurance (given the mystery), what are we left with then? A moral assurance with staying the course to make sure absolute assurance is end result.

On another subject, in your view, does not that kind of salvation rob me of my right to change my mind? I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that? If yes, then again, absolute assurance goes out the window. If no, then is not God robbing us of our free will to choose him or not? Are we not slaves to a decision we no longer believe in? Are we not forcing God's hand into honoring a contract which we've sincerely rejected and repeatedly broken?

[FFC]

I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that?

Hey, Byblos, let me throw my opinion in here. Someone who would say something like that falls into the category that John spoke of in his first epistle:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

However someone like Charles Templeton who went from Billy Grahams right hand man to atheist/skeptic makes one think. He saw the suffering in the world and couldn't reconcile it with a God of love. Was he just really backslidden and deluded by satan but still saved? Or was he one who went pretty far with God on a faulty premise only to finally and ultimately collapse because he never had the firm foundation? God only knows.

[Byblos]

I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that?

Hey, Byblos, let me throw my opinion in here. Someone who would say something like that falls into the category that John spoke of in his first epistle:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

However someone like Charles Templeton who went from Billy Grahams right hand man to atheist/skeptic makes one think. He saw the suffering in the world and couldn't reconcile it with a God of love. Was he just really backslidden and deluded by satan but still saved? Or was he one who went pretty far with God on a faulty premise only to finally and ultimately collapse because he never had the firm foundation? God only knows.

I agree with what you're saying totally. The entire point I am trying to make is that if 'God only knows' is allowed, then absolute assurance is not so absolute. Ergo, My need for works of charity and love to keep me close to Christ lest I discover too late that I was not counted among the 'not of us'. In other terms, it's not questioning Christ's offer of salvation; it is reconciling it with my all too human insecurities.

[Gman]

Looks like eveyone here just coughed up the Encyclopedia Britannica or something. So I leave you guys and for a few minutes and now I have to clean this up... Well maybe I can't do much on this one. Not even clorox would work...

On another subject, in your view, does not that kind of salvation rob me of my right to change my mind? I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that? If yes, then again, absolute assurance goes out the window. If no, then is not God robbing us of our free will to choose him or not? Are we not slaves to a decision we no longer believe in? Are we not forcing God's hand into honoring a contract which we've sincerely rejected and repeatedly broken?

In defense of Byblos, I guess one could argue that this is the very thing Satan and the fallen angles did unless you would want to call it fate. Hebrews 6:4-6 is also a tricky one unless you believe it is presenting a “hypothetical” situation. But then it could be argued that someone could knowingly reject God rather than accidentally rejecting God. But then again God knows ours hearts better than we do right?

I had also heard, (I can't remember where it's written) that anyone who was exposed to fullness of God wouldn't want reject him. Kind of like a deer caught in the headlights I guess and therefore couldn't loose their salvation..

To say that any group has it down pat is questionable... Perhaps it is a mystery....

The Anglican church is for you my friend. You should definately check one out. A much too simplified description of them (pardon me Byblos) is that Anglicans are Protestants who behave like Catholics. Very Happy (edit: right down to the robes and funny-looking hats Wink)

LOL... Felgar you got me laughing on this one. Ok, maybe I'll try it out.

G -

[Felgar]

I am very surprised that Jac said he does agree with all of it as well (including the mystery part). The reason for my surprise is that we all know by now that Jac advocates total, irrevocable and absolute assurance of salvation. The problem with introducing 'mystery' to it is that salvation a la Jac is no longer absolute.

Don't want to speak for Jac but I can answer for myself and I expect he'll agree. The 100% assurance is for oneself, not for others. The mystery is that we cannot know what a person truly believes. But the person can know themselves and their assurance is based on that.

On another subject, in your view, does not that kind of salvation rob me of my right to change my mind? I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that?

I would say "no" and I have no problem with that. It's by God's irrevocable word (his promise) that he saves us when we believe - it's not a contract. God's word is physically real, and unchangeable... it just IS. In fact Jesus himself is the Word and all of creation exists through it. So too does our guarantee of salvation. And I'm ok with a believer who later decides he's angry at God not being 'allowed' to reject him... He'll see the light when his knees bow and his tongue once again confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord... Naturally, at that moment (at the latest) he'll abandon the foolishness that he fell into in this life. Considering the alternative is no real assurance, I'll take the scenario just described.

[Canuckster1127]

I can say a Catholic isn't saved because he has not believed the saving message.

Saving message?

I understand what you are saying but, to be technical, it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates and saves us based upon the finished work of Christ, isn't it?

Aren't we possibly in danger of attributing more to the intellectual belief of the one being saved then upon the actual work of Christ through the spirit?

What is the minimal belief that you believe the Scripture teaches that must intellectually grasped in order for salvation to occur?

[Felgar]

For your assurance points I completely agree about having assurance for ourselves. I think the resulting lack of assurance for anyone around us shows that you are taking it too far though... I agree that lack of good works does not prove the absense of salvation, but do you agree that the presence of good works can be the proof of the presence of salvation? Paul states that true love comes only from God; would not true love be a sure sign of salvation?

Catholics believe that perseverence is necessary to go to heaven. When I say to them, "No. It isn't. Salvation comes by faith alone," they say, "No, that isn't true." Therefore, they deny the validity of the Gospel. They have rejected the Gospel. If I say to them, "Do you believe that by simply trusting in Jesus for everlasting life, then you have it?" and they say, "No, it takes . . . " then they have denied the Gospel.

...

If you think that in order to acquire this life, you must repent or keep on believing or what have you, then you have not accepted the simple terms of the Gospel.

K, on the first point, I've reworded the first sentance and if you can get someone to say yes to this statement: "You will be saved only if you continue following God's commandments until you die" then I will agree that they have a "faith plus" doctrine and I'll stop the charrade. I don't think they'll say that though, because I don't think they believe their doctrine is saying that. In fact, I think I can prove my point by phrasing a question of salvation in such a way that you cannot deny it, while at the same time most of them will agree with it. If I can do this it will have bridged the gap, and shown how at some point your conclusions about what their doctrine says differs from their own. Attempt #1:

[edit: slightly tweaked version] "Do you trust that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that his sacrifice on the cross redeems you of your sin, thereby securing your eternity with God?"

Think that would fly with you Jac? Would an honest "yes" show the faith that the Gospel requires? I think maybe but if not I'll try again.

(what I'm getting at here is that even those who place great importance on repentance STILL ultimately believe that God's grace through Jesus Christ is their salvation - because it's right there in the Bible over and over again! You disagree that they believe that, but that's a matter of interpreting their doctrine, and I claim they interpret it differently than you)

[bizzt]

I can say a Catholic isn't saved because he has not believed the saving message.

Saving message?

I understand what you are saying but, to be technical, it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates and saves us based upon the finished work of Christ, isn't it?

Aren't we possibly in danger of attributing more to the intellectual belief of the one being saved then upon the actual work of Christ through the spirit?

What is the minimal belief that you believe the Scripture teaches that must intellectually grasped in order for salvation to occur?

:UP:

EDIT: Sorry guys but this is more thrown at the Original comment of Jacs then Canuckster.

I have to say you have quite a bit of assurance that a Catholic is not saved. Are you able to Judge Hearts and Know the Hearts of Men? Is this not an Attribute of God?

Felgar did you not post before in the Mormon Thread on how one is saved and is known as a Christian?

My 2 cents

[Felgar]

Yeah I did bizzt. I referenced it (or reposted it) in the thread where I was discussing Jesus with a Scientologist also. Was like 3 Q's I think... But getting it down to 1 legitimate question will be worthwhile I think; not only for this discussion but also for life in general.

[Byblos]

I am very surprised that Jac said he does agree with all of it as well (including the mystery part). The reason for my surprise is that we all know by now that Jac advocates total, irrevocable and absolute assurance of salvation. The problem with introducing 'mystery' to it is that salvation a la Jac is no longer absolute.

Don't want to speak for Jac but I can answer for myself and I expect he'll agree. The 100% assurance is for oneself, not for others. The mystery is that we cannot know what a person truly believes. But the person can know themselves and their assurance is based on that.

On another subject, in your view, does not that kind of salvation rob me of my right to change my mind? I mean, forget about being saved and turning out not to have been saved to begin with. If I was truly saved at some point, do I not have the absolute right to change my mind and say to God 'I do not believe in you or your son anymore, I want to go to hell'. Can a person do that?

I would say "no" and I have no problem with that. It's by God's irrevocable word (his promise) that he saves us when we believe - it's not a contract. God's word is physically real, and unchangeable... it just IS. In fact Jesus himself is the Word and all of creation exists through it. So too does our guarantee of salvation. And I'm ok with a believer who later decides he's angry at God not being 'allowed' to reject him... He'll see the light when his knees bow and his tongue once again confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord... Naturally, at that moment (at the latest) he'll abandon the foolishness that he fell into in this life. Considering the alternative is no real assurance, I'll take the scenario just described.

Understood on both counts, thanks for the clarification. I can honestly say right here and right now that I do have 100% assurance of my salvation. I guess what it boils down to is that I am always reminded that I'm also human, a sinner by nature and full of doubts. Like I said before, my doubts are not that I am not assured of Christ's offer of salvation nor the fact that it has occured and is irrevocable. It is rather due to my own insecurities that I will always believe that. Hence my need to stay close to Christ any which way I can. Perhaps this explains my position better (or any other catholic for that matter). Does that make sense to anyone else?

From a later post:

I think I can prove my point by phrasing a question of salvation in such a way that you cannot deny it, while at the same time most of them will agree with it. If I can do this it will have bridged the gap, and shown how at some point your conclusions about what their doctrine says differs from their own. Attempt #1:

[edit: slightly tweaked version] "Do you trust that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that his sacrifice on the cross redeems you of your sin, thereby securing your eternity with God?"

I can also quite honestly tell you my answer is a resounding, unequivocal YES.

[bizzt]

Yeah I did bizzt. I referenced it (or reposted it) in the thread where I was discussing Jesus with a Scientologist also. Was like 3 Q's I think... But getting it down to 1 legitimate question will be worthwhile I think; not only for this discussion but also for life in general.

Ooopps I see it now