Catholics and Non Catholics

[Jac3510]

Yes, in my "system" Hitler would be in heaven if he were saves as a youth. You have a problem with that?

Do you believe that baptism is necessary -- even if it is only an expression of faith -- for salvation?

Do you believe you can lose your salvation? If so, that's part of the understanding above, Byblos. Have you believed in Christ for a salvation that cannot be lost no matter what, even if your actions made Hitler's pale in comparison? What about a person who rejects Christ later on? You've made it plain that you believe a person has to free will to reject Christ and thus be "unsaved."

How is salvation maintained, Byblos?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I'm Sorry Jac, but I cannot believe that someone who truly appreciates the meaning behind the death of Jesus Christ would behave in such a manor as Hitler has.

To truly appreciate his death one will truly be humbled and do their best to live a righteous life. Selflessness and charity are signs of this.

Look deep down inside and look me straight in the eye and tell me that someone who robs and cheats or even someone who is overly judgemental really understands what Christ's death means to them.

If you claim to believe fervently and then go on to turn from him, you were really never saved. It's like a lustful relationship, it was never real. Plain and simple.

John 15:5-7
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

What fruit has Hitler bourne? Is Jesus a liar?
What does it mean to be born again if you resort back to your old ways, this is not the definition of born again.


Are you losing your salvation, or giving it back to the Lord. No one is taking away this sinner's salvation, but the sinner himself is throwing it away. No one is taking him from the fold, but he by his own volition, his own free will, he is walking away from the Lord.

James 1 14-15
but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Hebrews 3:12-14
See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

So according to you someone can accept Jesus into their lives and go on to worship satan and murder and eat people untill they die. And you will find them at the foot of God in heaven?

[Felgar]

So, what you are saying to me is that you don't have to understand WHAT you are receiving from Christ. You just have to trust Him for something.

This is the thrust of your point I think. To some extent I think it IS true that you don't have to understand. It's clear to both you and I that you have to trust Jesus for your salvation. I say it ends there. Deeper intellectual understand is not required and both you and I have made reference to an innnocent original understanding that is sufficient: myself in reference to the typical conversion experience of an LSer (way back) and yourself to your basic understanding as a child. So now, given this:

RC's believe that initial salvation, that is, justification, is by faith alone.

which is that initial sufficient understanding we have both recognized, we come down to a single remaining question, which is: Does additional (possibly flawed) understanding necessarily invalidate that original acceptance of Jesus' gift? I say no because the gift is already received, you say yes because the gift was not understood from the beginning. You take that to mean that the gift as offerred was not received, and I don't see it that way. Your examples and descriptions are sufficent to convey your understanding, but not insufficient to convince me of what you are saying.

As you pointed out about RC and some other Protestant doctrines:

It is possible to once be "saved" and then at a later time be "unsaved." It is possible to be initially justified and then lose that justification, resulting in damnation.

Regardless of whether I agree with this possibility, (which you are correct, I don't) I can't accept that everyone who does not hold to OSAS has such a flawed understanding of the Gospel as to have completely invalidated their reception of God's gift of grace. If nothing else, personal experience has shown truly saved, God-fearing, passionate people on fire for Christ, who somehow feel that a Christian can later turn from God. Not sure if you've known anyone like that, but there is something about some Christians that cannot be faked; it's the Love of God in their eyes and it is unmistakable.

EDIT:

Minus Scripture, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. The early church fathers got away from salvation by faith alone almost immediately by making things like baptism (to wash away original sin) and conformity with the bishops (Cyprian) all necessary to being saved.
...
The entire idea of OSAS didn't become popular until the Reformation, that I am aware of. Byblos may have some more info on that, but I'm pretty sure the historical position has been what I've outlined above.

As an aside, I wanted to point out the logical conclusion of what you are sayign here: That the very people who were in contact with the disciples and even more importantly that almost everyone from Christ to the Reformation was lost. Jesus was sent to save the world, not immediately allow it to succumb to a perversion of his message so severe as to render His work irrelevant... Where is God's love in that? A sure sign that you're off track is that your message and conclusions do not reflect God's love. If a theology does not reflect God's love then it's insufficient, because the very thing which seperates Christianity from all other religions is our definition of a personal, loving God. (In fact Free Grace is possibly the best reflection of God's love which is one reason I agree with it, but the further conclusions you are drawing do not, and those conclusions are where I take exception)

[Byblos]

Yes, in my "system" Hitler would be in heaven if he were saves as a youth. You have a problem with that?

Yes, I have a problem with it, but then again, I am a flawed human being and do not fully nor will I ever understand God's ways.

Do you believe that baptism is necessary -- even if it is only an expression of faith -- for salvation?

Do you believe the act of believing in Christ is necessary for salvation? No matter how you think of it you must still do something, even if it's a fleeting, split-second thought of believing. The thought must cross your mind and must be sincere enough for it to count. Who measures how sincere your thoughts are, Jac?

Do you believe you can lose your salvation? If so, that's part of the understanding above, Byblos. Have you believed in Christ for a salvation that cannot be lost no matter what, even if your actions made Hitler's pale in comparison? What about a person who rejects Christ later on? You've made it plain that you believe a person has to free will to reject Christ and thus be "unsaved."

Yes, I've made it plain that a person can reject God and be either unsaved or prove never to have been. That's how I've come to understand both our free will and God's sovereignty. I also believe that even if this understanding turns out to be wrong, it is not grounds for me not to have been saved. Lord only knows how many other things I've come to misunderstand. If I am to be judged based on that I will surely go to hell. Thank God Jesus relieved me of that burden.

How is salvation maintained, Byblos?

It's maintenance free but as I stated above, one can decide to give it back , although I couldn't imagine what fool would do so. In my mind, this is the only way I can reconcile my free will with God's sovereignty. No matter how you cut it, it's the only way they can both truly co-exist.

[FFC]

Yes, in my "system" Hitler would be in heaven if he were saves as a youth. You have a problem with that?

Are you saying Germans can be saved?!?

[Jac3510]

This is the thrust of your point I think. To some extent I think it IS true that you don't have to understand. It's clear to both you and I that you have to trust Jesus for your salvation. I say it ends there. Deeper intellectual understand is not required and both you and I have made reference to an innnocent original understanding that is sufficient: myself in reference to the typical conversion experience of an LSer (way back) and yourself to your basic understanding as a child.

Look at the part of your quote I bolded, Felgar. Remember that at the beginning of this I pointed out that we are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth. Obviously we don't have to be walking theologians to be saved. But, if two people mean two totally different things by the term "salvation," then both aren't saved because they aren't trusting Jesus for the same thing, agreed?

Let's demonstrate this way: what does Jesus offer to save us from? Answer: Hell (i.e., that is, the penalty of sin). Fair enough, so we both believe that Jesus saves us from Hell. However, someone who rejects OSAS doesn't believe that Jesus saves them from Hell, do they? Not in an actual sense. They believe that Jesus makes them safe from Hell for the time being. They aren't actually saved. They believe that Hell can still "get" them.

Again, there are three issues that, as I understand things, have to be understood in order to be saved. We have to have the right Person. Catholics have that. You have to believe in the resurrected Christ, the Son of God. Second, you have to believe His promise, which is everlasting life. By definition, that life cannot be lost, so if you believe you can lose that life, then you have not trusted Christ for everlasting life. Finally, you have to believe in the terms in which Christ offers this life, which is by faith alone. If you believe that you have to work to receive it, then you have not believed in the terms offered by Jesus. Catholics reject two of those three points. Thus, the Catholic doctrine of "salvation" is heresy.

I just keep pointing to Byblos to prove my point. I mean, look at this . . . he doesn't know for 100% fact where he will go when he dies. He knows that if he perseveres then he will go to heaven, but he doesn't know that he will do that. If he doesn't know he is saved, then he has denied the Gospel, because the Gospel is that all who believe have everlasting life. He believes that salvation can be lost, and therefore, he believes he has to work to maintain it. Therefore, he has denied the terms on which it is received. He believes that baptism and other such ordinances are necessary for salvation, and therefore, he has denied the doctrine of faith alone.

We can play word games all we like, Felgar. In the end, you can walk away from this convinced that all a person has to do is believe something about Jesus and salvation and that's enough. I believe that as you study the theology behind Free Grace you'll come to see that what I am saying is right. I say that only because I was exactly in your shoes a few months ago. But, we can't get around the fact that God saves on His terms, which is by grace, or He does not save at all. Believing something about salvation isn't enough. The Judaizers believed something about salvation. They even believed that the Resurrected Jesus offered it to them! They just believed that you had to work for it, that you had to keep the Law of Moses. Hey, they probably would have said along with Paul, "Of course it is only by faith! But, you have to be in the covenant!" See . . . believing something about salvation isn't enough. You have to believe the right thing, which is very simple to understand. Jesus offers everlasting life. Byblos doesn't believe that. Catholics don't. I ask Byblos if he believes that he can lose his salvaiton and he says yes. Therefore, does he believe in a salvation that cannot be lost? No. There, my friend, is the crux of the matter. Must we trust Christ for everlasting life, and is everlasting life defined as a life that cannot be lost? Given all of this, I would have to say yes, because that is what salvation is.

Anyway, do note my sig . . . clarity, not consensus. So long as you understand my position, that's my concern. I really do think you will come around to it as you study. I tried to avoid this conclusion for as long as possible, but I couldn't get around Jesus' saying that the gate was narrow and few find it. What makes the gate narrow? What makes it narrow is that belief alone saves, and that any addition to that amounts to a rejection of the Gospel.

As an aside, I wanted to point out the logical conclusion of what you are sayign here: That the very people who were in contact with the disciples and even more importantly that almost everyone from Christ to the Reformation was lost. Jesus was sent to save the world, not immediately allow it to succumb to a perversion of his message so severe as to render His work irrelevant... Where is God's love in that? A sure sign that you're off track is that your message and conclusions do not reflect God's love. If a theology does not reflect God's love then it's insufficient, because the very thing which seperates Christianity from all other religions is our definition of a personal, loving God. (In fact Free Grace is possibly the best reflection of God's love which is one reason I agree with it, but the further conclusions you are drawing do not, and those conclusions are where I take exception)

I wouldn't suggest using this argument. Look into what the patristic fathers believed. They would have totally rejected the Free Grace message, of that, there is NO doubt. They believed that obedience, baptism, confession, repentance, and conformity with church doctrine were all necessary to be saved. If you are going to put authority on their words, then you had better go ahead and become Catholic. As for God's love, His love has nothing to do with what an apostate church does or doesn't do. And as a further aside, it isn't God's love that sets Christianity apart. Islam says that God loves people. His chief characteristic is mercy, according to Muslim scholars. Are you aware that in that belief system, virtually no one goes to Hell? Is Allah more merciful and loving than Yahweh? No, what sets Christianity apart is the fact that it is based on historic events rather than the teachings of an individual. It is based on the Resurrection of Christ. If that event is true, Christianity is true. If that event is false, Christianity is false. End of story.

Anyway, back to the Fathers, are you surprised that the message was so quickly perverted? I'm not. Again, note that it was perverted even in the Apostles' day! How often did Paul have to defend faith alone? How many "Christian" teachers were out there denying the gospel? Also, bear in mind that the original twelve (or eleven, as it may be) were sent to the Jews primarily. Jewish Christians, though not under the Law, were still Jews. Gentiles Christians were an entirely different animal. How many of the Church Fathers were Jewish? None. So that means that all of them came from Paul's ministry. Polycarp was under John's ministry, as was Clament, but Clament is one of the reasons we have such as strong emphasis on works from the earliest days. Palestianian Christianity was just a different beast . . . the Epistle of James makes that clear. If we didn't have Paul, and all we had was James, Peter, and John, we would all believe that works were necessary!

So, considering the ongoing influence of heresies on the church, it doesn't surprise me that it got immediately away from the basic gospel message of faith alone. Were people saved before the Reformation? Of course, but people also believed in the Trinity before it was officially defined as well.

Anyway, this is long enough . . . Byblos, I do pray for you. I hope you have in the past, at some point, received the Gospel of Christ. I know it sounds condescending to say that, but that's just the way that it is. John 3:16 makes the way of salvation plain: faith alone in Christ alone brings eternal security, and that cannot be lost. You actually believe that we have to merit our salvation, as proven by your distain for the idea that Hitler could be saved. You believe that salvation could be lost, and thus you don't believe in the same salvation I do. Please prayerfully search the Scriptures on these matters. He who believes has everlasting life. If you don't believe that, then you don't have it.

God bless

[Felgar]

So long as you understand my position, that's my concern.

Again, I definately feel that I perfectly understand your position. It's just that I'm not convinced... What can you offer in terms of a convincing argument that reinforces such a narrow definition of the means of our salvation? I think the next quotes will clarify what I'm challenging...

We are saved by believing biblical truth. Obviously we don't have to be walking theologians to be saved.

Agreed on both counts.

But, if two people mean two totally different things by the term "salvation," then both aren't saved because they aren't trusting Jesus for the same thing, agreed?

Not necessarily... It would depend on how far apart each understanding is.

Let's demonstrate this way: what does Jesus offer to save us from? Answer: Hell (i.e., that is, the penalty of sin). Fair enough, so we both believe that Jesus saves us from Hell.

Agreed; I'll come back to this...

However, someone who rejects OSAS doesn't believe that Jesus saves them from Hell, do they?

Stop right here. I understand your point that it is belief in two different things, but they are very close and I believe are the very same in what matters: that people believe Jesus saves them from Hell, as you stated above.

Don't go into salvation by works because that's a whole other thing. But salvation by faith alone that can later be rejected (i.e. the requirement of staying in the faith) is the question here. What you need to convince me of, is why such a very small discrepancy in the mechanism of salvation (not even the source because both recognize that as Jesus) would be seen in God's eyes as having no faith whatsoever in Jesus. You are claiming that anyone who does adhere to OSAS has not accepted Jesus' gift, whereas I am saying that trusting Jesus to save us from hell is enough. I understand your position, but require an explanation of why you've come to it, and why we should all adopt it...

[puritan lad]

Just to clarify, having a "religious experience", or going to the altar to repeat some prayer is not salvation. One can claim Jesus as Lord, taste of the things of the Spirit of God, and even perform miracles, yet not be saved if he continues to "practice lawless" (Matthew 7:21-23). One needs to be born again, a new creation.

That said, Jesus gives His sheep "eternal life, and they shall never perish" (John 10:28). If you can lose it, then by definition, it isn't eternal life.

[Byblos]

Byblos, I do pray for you.

Thank you, and I you, Jac. I do pray that God doesn't harden your heart the way you heardened it yourself. Extremist positions are the very reason for the sad state of affairs among christians of all denominations and why non-christians tend to shy away, rather than embrace christianity.

[Byblos]

That said, Jesus gives His sheep "eternal life, and they shall never perish" (John 10:28). If you can lose it, then by definition, it isn't eternal life.

You do mean if you're one of the elect, PL, don't you? Please tell us how one has absolute assurance they are one of the elect.

[Felgar]

No, please don't PL. Let's keep this thread to the implications of OSAS on one's acceptance of Jesus as their saviour...

[Byblos]

No, please don't PL. Let's keep this thread to the implications of OSAS on one's acceptance of Jesus as their saviour...

You're right Felgar, sorry. I withdraw the request.

[Canuckster1127]

No, please don't PL. Let's keep this thread to the implications of OSAS on one's acceptance of Jesus as their saviour...

You're right Felgar, sorry. I withdraw the request.

Start another thread if you really want to explore this.

PL seems to have his hands pretty full though.

[Byblos]

Incidently, I was just looking at various sites re: OSAS (for or against) and found this site (for).

http://www.av1611.org/etern.html

At the end there's the following quote:

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SAVED?

Pray this prayer, and mean it with all your heart.

Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and unless you save me I am lost forever. I thank you for dying for me at Calvary. I come to you now, Lord the best way I know how, and ask you to save me. I now receive you as my Savior. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen.

Why is it that I believe that with all my heart and my soul (and have prayed it) and yet we're still debating?

Note that it says to come to the Lord 'the best way I know how'. If the best way I know how is to think I have enough free will to reject God and it turns out I'm wrong (and of course that is still very much a moot point), i.e. that perhaps is the sinner part in me, does anyone think God will reject me because of that? I don't think so. That would be contrary to the Gospel of Jesus.

[Canuckster1127]

Incidently, I was just looking at various sites re: OSAS (for or against) and found this site (for).

http://www.av1611.org/etern.html

At the end there's the following quote:

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SAVED?

Pray this prayer, and mean it with all your heart.

Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and unless you save me I am lost forever. I thank you for dying for me at Calvary. I come to you now, Lord the best way I know how, and ask you to save me. I now receive you as my Savior. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen.

Why is it that I believe that with all my heart and my soul (and have prayed it) and yet we're still debating?

Note that it says to come to the Lord 'the best way I know how'. If the best way I know how is to think I have enough free will to reject God and it turns out I'm wrong (and of course that is still very much a moot point), i.e. that perhaps is the sinner part in me, does anyone think God will reject me because of that? I don't think so. That would be contrary to the Gospel of Jesus.

That's my beef.

I think this hair-splitting is valuable and important to examine after we're saved.

When we begin to refine belief to so many elements and then argue that saving faith requires cognizant acceptance at each point of minutia, we've moved beyond faith and grace and are rapidly approaching a form of gnosticism, which ironically has more in common with a works based, legalistic approach to Salvation than what I find in Scripture.

That's my opinion anyway.