Catholics and Non Catholics

[Byblos]

Yes, it does, Byblos,

It makes sense yet you still disagree. I think the point needs further clarification, read on.

and the point I'm going to make with Felgar now ought to show that you still aren't holding the same beliefs I am talking about.

I think I can show that we're holding the same beliefs, please bear with me.

Felgar: Given your last agreement, I will use "I believe that Jesus has saved me" as shorthand for "I have trusted Christ to save me from Hell via the forgiveness of my sins, and therefore, I know that I am saved from Hell because my sins have been forgiven."

If a person says, "I believe in Jesus, but I could still go to Hell if . . . ", then they stated that they have trusted Christ to save them from Hell, but they don't know that they are saved from Hell. Thus, by our discussion, we see that such a person has not trusted Christ to save them from Hell.

This is why I said assurance, not OSAS, is the issue. A person could not formally accept OSAS - perhaps they've never heard of it - and still be saved (because you can still have absolute assurance by believing the promise to be absolutely true). However, you cannot formally reject OSAS and still believe the gospel, because this, by definition, removes assurance, thus proving you don't believe the promise.

This is why if a person does not have absolute, 100% objective assurance of their salvation, then they do not believe the Gospel. Because Catholicism, as a doctrine, teaches that we can lose our salvation, they reject objective assurance, and thus reject knowing that we actually have salvation from Hell. Thus, they have not trusted Christ to receive it.

Perhaps this is my fault in not being able to articulate quite clearly but the way I've come to understand it and the way it is explained in the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration is that catholicism does NOT teach that one can lose their God-given, irrevocable, objective salvation but rather can think they've lost salvation if they look inward (subjectively). Keep reading.

This is seen even in the quote Byblos just provided.

"We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God." As Byblos has stated multiple times, Catholocism teaches that a person must remain in the faith to be saved. We can lose our salvation via apostasy, thus, Catholocism is in the catagory of those who have never trusted, as described above.

'the faithful' is the same as 'the believers'. If you make the substitution it does not change the meaning of the phrase but it will most certainly change your understanding of it and that's because

Stating a present tense reality using a relative time based verb is not the same as an absolute time based verb.

As an aside, it is immediately obvious that there is a difference between the following two statements:

1 - I believe that Jesus has saved me.
2 - So long as I stay faithful, I believe that Jesus has saved me.

You should be able to see that (2) is not saved. Can you agree?

Let me see if I can re-phrase and ask you the same question:

1. I believe that Jesus has saved me and I believe that with a 100%, absolute, irrevocable, objective assurance based on Jesus' promise.

2. At times when I look inwardly into my life (not at Jesus' promise) I see that from a subjective perspective I don't deserve to be saved and begin to have doubts. This, however, in no way changes number 1 in any way, shape or form.

Based on that, can you agree that one can be considered saved?

[Jac3510]

Perhaps this is my fault in not being able to articulate quite clearly but the way I've come to understand it and the way it is explained in the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration is that catholicism does NOT teach that one can lose their God-given, irrevocable, objective salvation but rather can think they've lost salvation if they look inward (subjectively).

Byblos, in Catholocism, can you lose your salvation or not (including by "giving it back")? Yes or no?

'the faithful' is the same as 'the believers'. If you make the substitution it does not change the meaning of the phrase but it will most certainly change your understanding of it and that's because

"The faithful" is not a translation of "pas ho pisteuwn," is it? Of course you can believe that "the faithful" can "know" that they are saved - although, if you want to be honest, you will admit that you don't know you are saved so much as you know that you are in a "state of grace." However, if you are no longer "faithful," then the sentence doesn't apply to you anymore, does it?

Let me see if I can re-phrase and ask you the same question:

1. I believe that Jesus has saved me and I believe that with a 100%, absolute, irrevocable, objective assurance based on Jesus' promise.

2. At times when I look inwardly into my life (not at Jesus' promise) I see that from a subjective perspective I don't deserve to be saved and begin to have doubts. This, however, in no way changes number 1 in any way, shape or form.

Based on that, can you agree that one can be considered saved?

You didn't catch that (1) and (2) are diametrically opposed to one another, where as your two questions are complimentary. Felgar, I expect, will see the difference. This has nothing to do with believing that you do or don't deserve salvation. This has to do with the fact that you either believe or do not believe that you have been saved from Hell. This you said is "exactly OSAS" in an earlier reply. You don't believe that. Therefore, you don't believe that you have been saved, because you can't say, "I trust Jesus to save me from Hell, but I don't know that I'm saved from Hell."

Now, I have two personal questions for you:

1. Why are you so worried about convincing me that your beliefs can fit into mine? You've already said that if you are right, then I could well be branded a heretic. Why not stand on that? I believe that if you don't know that you are saved from Hell, then you aren't. You can't know that, because you don't know if you will maintain belief. You know that you are "safe" from Hell. You don't know that it won't get you in the end, though. So why try to harmonize what we are saying?

2. Why do you insist on rejecting the simple free grace Gospel? Which is better news, that you can believe in Christ and have eternal life, or that you have to believe in Christ and then maintain that believe in order to be/stay saved? You don't ever have to worry ever again that you might somehow end up in Hell. You don't have to worry about your perseverance in the faith. Why would you want to put yourself through that? God is offering you salvation absolutely freely. Why don't you just believe in Him for it?

[FFC]

Perhaps this is my fault in not being able to articulate quite clearly but the way I've come to understand it and the way it is explained in the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration is that catholicism does NOT teach that one can lose their God-given, irrevocable, objective salvation but rather can think they've lost salvation if they look inward (subjectively).

Byblos, in Catholicism, can you lose your salvation or not (including by "giving it back")? Yes or no?

'the faithful' is the same as 'the believers'. If you make the substitution it does not change the meaning of the phrase but it will most certainly change your understanding of it and that's because

"The faithful" is not a translation of "pas ho pisteuwn," is it? Of course you can believe that "the faithful" can "know" that they are saved - although, if you want to be honest, you will admit that you don't know you are saved so much as you know that you are in a "state of grace." However, if you are no longer "faithful," then the sentence doesn't apply to you anymore, does it?

Let me see if I can re-phrase and ask you the same question:

1. I believe that Jesus has saved me and I believe that with a 100%, absolute, irrevocable, objective assurance based on Jesus' promise.

2. At times when I look inwardly into my life (not at Jesus' promise) I see that from a subjective perspective I don't deserve to be saved and begin to have doubts. This, however, in no way changes number 1 in any way, shape or form.

Based on that, can you agree that one can be considered saved?

You didn't catch that (1) and (2) are diametrically opposed to one another, where as your two questions are complimentary. Felgar, I expect, will see the difference. This has nothing to do with believing that you do or don't deserve salvation. This has to do with the fact that you either believe or do not believe that you have been saved from Hell. This you said is "exactly OSAS" in an earlier reply. You don't believe that. Therefore, you don't believe that you have been saved, because you can't say, "I trust Jesus to save me from Hell, but I don't know that I'm saved from Hell."

Now, I have two personal questions for you:

1. Why are you so worried about convincing me that your beliefs can fit into mine? You've already said that if you are right, then I could well be branded a heretic. Why not stand on that? I believe that if you don't know that you are saved from Hell, then you aren't. You can't know that, because you don't know if you will maintain belief. You know that you are "safe" from Hell. You don't know that it won't get you in the end, though. So why try to harmonize what we are saying?

2. Why do you insist on rejecting the simple free grace Gospel? Which is better news, that you can believe in Christ and have eternal life, or that you have to believe in Christ and then maintain that believe in order to be/stay saved? You don't ever have to worry ever again that you might somehow end up in Hell. You don't have to worry about your perseverance in the faith. Why would you want to put yourself through that? God is offering you salvation absolutely freely. Why don't you just believe in Him for it?

Jac, when I look at the heart of Byblos' posts I see someone who has believed completely in Christ for salvation apart from works and someone who believes it is everlasting. Aside from sharing the fact that he has doubts, I'm getting that deep down he knows it's all God who started the work and all God who will complete it.

Haven't you ever, since you believed in Christ for everlasting life had times when you got introspective and asked yourself "did I really believe what I was supposed to believe...am I really okay with God?". If your honest you'll say yes, and having the analytical mind that you have you probably went back to square one to make sure you did, right back to the promise in God's word.

I could be wrong but I have a strong feeling that Byblos has done the same thing, catholic or not.

[Jac3510]

FFC, that's a nice sentiment, but Byblos believes that it is possible for him to end up in Hell. Just look at my concluding remarks with Felgar . . .

It is imossible to say, "I have trusted Christ to save me from Hell" and then to turn around and say, "I don't know that I am saved from Hell."

Byblos does not know that he is saved from Hell. I am not doubting that he "believes in Jesus." All Catholics "believe in Jesus." So to atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and JW's. The question is, what do you believe about Him? Byblos believes that, so long as he stays faithful, Jesus will save Him. Put another way, Byblos believes that Jesus will save him from Hell if he keeps his faith in Him. He does not KNOW that he is saved from Hell. Therefore, he has not trusted Christ to save him from Hell.

As for me, there was a time that I wondered about my belief. But, it was during the time that I believed like Byblos does now. I've not doubted for one single millisecond since I came to understand the free grace Gospel. In fact, I can tell you that if in ten years I am a devout atheist, I will STILL be able to say with 100% assurance, "Well, if my old faith was right, I'm still going to heaven!" Why? Because we are dealing with an objective promise here. Byblos does not believe that promise. He believes a different one, one that Christ has not made.

Now, I certainly hope that somewhere, sometime, before Byblos starting studying his theology that He simply believed Gd's promise to guarantee Him eternal life. Right now, though he doesn't believe it. If he did at one point, maybe as a child, then he is still saved and always will be. If he hasn't, then he's in the same boat with every other person who has not believed Jesus' promise to save them.

"But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matt. 7:14, NIV

[Felgar]

If a person says, "I believe in Jesus, but I could still go to Hell if . . . ", then they stated that they have trusted Christ to save them from Hell, but they don't know that they are saved from Hell. Thus, by our discussion, we see that such a person has not trusted Christ to save them from Hell.

Seeing your argument through to the end I must admit that I have no recourse on this line of thinking... Given all of the understandings we've agreed upon, this is the only sensible line of thinking.

BUT...

1. Why are you so worried about convincing me that your beliefs can fit into mine? You've already said that if you are right, then I could well be branded a heretic. ... So why try to harmonize what we are saying?

I have no choice but to challenge it because by the time you've lumped Catholics, Armenians, and Calvanists all into one pot, you have the vast majority of Christians throughout history. If this issue was truly absolutely irreconcilable, I think it would need to be much more obvious in scripture. This comes down to God's nature and I need to believe that everyone has a fair chance at accepting Jesus' salvation. When you split hairs so finely and then cast aside everyone on the 'wrong side' of your in-depth understanding of scripture then it strikes me that the whole concept could have been completely missed by a great many people who truly did genuinly seek God. I simply cannot reconcile this reality with a personal, loving God. (seek and you SHALL find) Furthermore...

2. Why do you insist on rejecting the simple free grace Gospel? Which is better news, that you can believe in Christ and have eternal life, or that you have to believe in Christ and then maintain that believe in order to be/stay saved?

I realize you posed the question to Byblos and not me, but I think it deserves being said once more that the simple Free Grace gospel is not what I am personally rejecting. I'm rejecting the assertion that no one else with a different understanding of the workings of God's grace can be saved. Indeed, both history and if nothing else my own personal experience have shown that there are many God-fearing born-again Christians who are on fire for the Lord yet still believe it may possible to 'give your salvation back.' The Bible states that we will know them by their works, and that's not to mention that some people are so clearly indwelled with the Holy Spirit that their being born-again is 100% undeniable. Have you known no people like this?

So... What all that tells me is that there must be something that you are overlooking that can overcome such a narrow interpretation of 'believing in Christ for salvation.' Now unfortunately, I have been unable to find it. Thus, I am forced to set aside your whole line of thinking and try to cut the legs from under it. I hope you'll have the patience to continue...

1 - I believe that Jesus has saved me.
2 - So long as I stay faithful, I believe that Jesus has saved me.

I think #2 could be rephrased as I had said earlier: "BUT, you possibly could trust Him for it now with the understand that you currently have it, and still only trust and not know that you will always have it (depending on your own understanding and interpration of grace and salvation)" If someone sees salvation as something that is not in effect until death, then one might say: "If I die today I will be saved from Hell because I believe in Jesus to have forgiven my sins. So long as I don't reject him, this will remain true." Do you think you would be able to explain why that wouldn't count as 'trusting Jesus' in God's eyes, without just looping back into that same line of thinking? Or would you say that the very same logic applies to a statement such as this also?

[Byblos]

Perhaps this is my fault in not being able to articulate quite clearly but the way I've come to understand it and the way it is explained in the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration is that catholicism does NOT teach that one can lose their God-given, irrevocable, objective salvation but rather can think they've lost salvation if they look inward (subjectively).

Byblos, in Catholicism, can you lose your salvation or not (including by "giving it back")? Yes or no?

What I've been trying to tell you is the answer is NO, even though at some point I might think I can. But by me thinking that I can lose it (and that's only due to my own doubtful self) does not in any way negate the fact that I am saved. Jac, I am emphatically agreeing with you that salvation once obtained cannot be lost. What I am also saying is that catholicism does not depart from that line of thinking as evidenced by the joint declaration in general and the statements I highlighted re assurance of salvation.

In particular the following two quotes:

3. The Common Understanding of Justification

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

4.6 Assurance of Salvation

36. With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit.

With that understanding alone, it falls in line perfectly with free grace. What this says to me is that Catholics most certainly believe they have 100% objective, unconditional, irrevocable assurance of their salvation. Now I can stop here and go no further since as per free grace, I must have that to be saved and I do. But let's go on a little further.

Let me see if I can re-phrase and ask you the same question:

1. I believe that Jesus has saved me and I believe that with a 100%, absolute, irrevocable, objective assurance based on Jesus' promise.

2. At times when I look inwardly into my life (not at Jesus' promise) I see that from a subjective perspective I don't deserve to be saved and begin to have doubts. This, however, in no way changes number 1 in any way, shape or form.

Based on that, can you agree that one can be considered saved?

You didn't catch that (1) and (2) are diametrically opposed to one another,

If you're referring to your 2 questions then yes I agree they are diametric opposites. What I do not agree with is that you think number 2 pertains to me when it doesn't as I've shown above.

where as your two questions are complimentary.

My 2 questions are not exactly complimentary but number 2 no longer depends on number 1 because number 1 as per how you define free grace has already granted me salvation since I believed that I have objective assurance. Anything that happens after that has no salvific value whatsoever including as you stated turning atheist, or even looking inward and thinking I'm not saved. Any of that does not change the fact that I am. Now for you, no further explanation is required. For me as a catholic I still have some splainin' to do. In light of what I stated above, where does that leave works? Where do works of charity and love fit in? Where do the sacraments fit in? Well as I've stated many times before, works of charity and love are the outward signs of a good faith. Are they necessary for salvation? No. Do non-believers perform them? Yes. Are they saved? Maybe, maybe not. What about the sacraments, particularly penance? Does repentance save? No. Does it help the doubter (after he's been saved of course as per above) re-align his subjective faith with the 100% objective assurance he once had? Yes. Do good works merit anything other than salvation? Yes, heavenly rewards.

Now, I have two personal questions for you:

1. Why are you so worried about convincing me that your beliefs can fit into mine? You've already said that if you are right, then I could well be branded a heretic. Why not stand on that? I believe that if you don't know that you are saved from Hell, then you aren't. You can't know that, because you don't know if you will maintain belief. You know that you are "safe" from Hell. You don't know that it won't get you in the end, though. So why try to harmonize what we are saying?

First I disagree with what you've said after the first question as I've show above. As to the question, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I do, however, have 2 motives for continuing this discourse. 1) For clarity's sake (mine more than yours or anyone else's). 2) I will leave until the conclusion of this thread (whatever that conclusion might be).

2. Why do you insist on rejecting the simple free grace Gospel? Which is better news, that you can believe in Christ and have eternal life, or that you have to believe in Christ and then maintain that believe in order to be/stay saved? You don't ever have to worry ever again that you might somehow end up in Hell. You don't have to worry about your perseverance in the faith. Why would you want to put yourself through that? God is offering you salvation absolutely freely. Why don't you just believe in Him for it?

I think I've already shown that I do not reject it nor does catholicism or arminiasim or dare I say even calvinism.

God bless,

Byblos.

[Jac3510]

What I've been trying to tell you is the answer is NO, even though at some point I might think I can.

Yet you reject OSAS. You believe you can "give salvation back." If a person believes and later rejects their faith, do they still go to heaven, Byblos? Ben Douglas, of Catholic Apologetics International, says:

The Catholic, reading [Matt. 10:22] proscriptively, will interpret it as “out of the set of justified Christians, those who persevere to the end will enter heaven, whereas those who do not will lose their salvation and go to hell.”

He goes on to say:

As should be obvious by now, to have a meros with Christ, in the book of life, etc. means to go to heaven, while to have a meros in the lake of fire means to go to hell. And, much to the Calvinist's chagrin, I'm sure, Christ tells St. Peter that if a certain contingency is not met, St. Peter will have no meros with Him, i.e. will go to hell. If eternal security were true, and St. Peter had already been saved, then nothing could have severed St. Peter from his salvation, and thus Christ would be telling a lie. Moreover, St. Peter had already made a divinely inspired confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:15-17), and thus it is not possible to maintain that he had not yet been saved.

It might be objected that Christ is not literally telling St. Peter that unless He washes his feet here and now he will be damned. But I grant that. Christ is teaching a universal spiritual truth, namely that due to our fallen nature, our tendency to turn towards sin, unless Christ sanctifies us and continues to sanctify us we will apostatize and be damned by God.

Would you disagree with him, then?

What about Mario Derksen of Catholic Insight? He wrote an article, The Myth of Eternal Security to prove that you can lose your salvation. Or, again, Jason Evert of Catholic Answers, in explaining to Catholics how to get around the OSAS claims of protestants, tells them that once they have agreed that salvation is spoken of as a future event, " . . . it's time to offer the evidence that the free gift of salvation can be just as freely forfeited."

The fact is that Catholics don't believe in eternal security. Now, as I've made very clear, you don't have to accept eternal security to be saved, but you cannot reject eternal security and be saved. Why? Because the Gospel message is this: "Jesus has saved me from Hell." You can't say that, because you believe that there is a chance you may still end up there (or, at least, that is what Catholic dogma teaches)

So, with all that said, you aren't using "objective assurance" in the same sense I am.

Felgar:

I've said a million times before that I'm not trying to CONVINCE anybody of anything. Clarity is the entire issue. If you have seen exactly what I am saying, and I think you have, you can work through these other issues easily. For the record, I don't think that you have rejected the FG gospel because you DO believe in OSAS. However, Arminians and Catholics do NOT believe the FG gospel, because they don't believe that they have been saved in an all-inclusive sense. They think it can be lost. Thus, we get into that trusting Christ for salvation from Hell but not knowing you have it deal.

Does this mean that a lot of people are in Hell who "believed in Jesus"? Yes it does. But is that God's fault? No. He made it very clear in His word that all who believe have everlasting life. They simply chose not to believe Him on that promise. Salvation comes by believing what God has said. The question is simple: On what terms does God offer salvation, and what is the salvation that He offers? Understanding those answers, do you believe them?

As to your specific question:

If someone sees salvation as something that is not in effect until death, then one might say: "If I die today I will be saved from Hell because I believe in Jesus to have forgiven my sins. So long as I don't reject him, this will remain true." Do you think you would be able to explain why that wouldn't count as 'trusting Jesus' in God's eyes, without just looping back into that same line of thinking? Or would you say that the very same logic applies to a statement such as this also?

I say this would fall to the exact same logic, because that person has not viewed salvation as something that they have. They have not trusted Christ for eternal life. That's what Christ is offering. You have to believe in Him for it. They don't know they have it, and thus, they haven't trusted Him for it.

God bless

[Byblos]

What I've been trying to tell you is the answer is NO, even though at some point I might think I can.

Yet you reject OSAS. You believe you can "give salvation back." If a person believes and later rejects their faith, do they still go to heaven, Byblos?

Have I been unclear in any way? Have you been reading my posts or just regurgitating previously held opinions without interaction? Jac, I am not rejecting OSAS. What I am rejecting is the notion that I cannot reject it at some point after being saved. You reserve that right for yourself when you said you can become an atheist and still be saved. Why is it that I cannot reject OSAS after I've been saved as well? By becoming an atheist, you've effectively rejected OSAS by default, yet you are still saved. Please stop telling me what I believe and don't believe. One more time, once I am saved (as per the definition of free grace with 100% objective assurance), I can reject anything I want and still be saved. That's your definition, not mine. What I showed you is that catholics most definitely believe in 100% objective assurance because from the catechism of the catholic church

one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit.

Ben Douglas, of Catholic Apologetics International, says:

The Catholic, reading [Matt. 10:22] proscriptively, will interpret it as “out of the set of justified Christians, those who persevere to the end will enter heaven, whereas those who do not will lose their salvation and go to hell.”

He goes on to say:

As should be obvious by now, to have a meros with Christ, in the book of life, etc. means to go to heaven, while to have a meros in the lake of fire means to go to hell. And, much to the Calvinist's chagrin, I'm sure, Christ tells St. Peter that if a certain contingency is not met, St. Peter will have no meros with Him, i.e. will go to hell. If eternal security were true, and St. Peter had already been saved, then nothing could have severed St. Peter from his salvation, and thus Christ would be telling a lie. Moreover, St. Peter had already made a divinely inspired confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:15-17), and thus it is not possible to maintain that he had not yet been saved.

It might be objected that Christ is not literally telling St. Peter that unless He washes his feet here and now he will be damned. But I grant that. Christ is teaching a universal spiritual truth, namely that due to our fallen nature, our tendency to turn towards sin, unless Christ sanctifies us and continues to sanctify us we will apostatize and be damned by God.

Would you disagree with him, then?

What about Mario Derksen of Catholic Insight? He wrote an article, The Myth of Eternal Security to prove that you can lose your salvation. Or, again, Jason Evert of Catholic Answers, in explaining to Catholics how to get around the OSAS claims of protestants, tells them that once they have agreed that salvation is spoken of as a future event, " . . . it's time to offer the evidence that the free gift of salvation can be just as freely forfeited."

Yes, I would definitely disagree with all of them. What's more, they are disagreeing with the Pope, the Catholic Catechism, as well as the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration I've quoted before.

The fact is that Catholics don't believe in eternal security. Now, as I've made very clear, you don't have to accept eternal security to be saved, but you cannot reject eternal security and be saved. Why? Because the Gospel message is this: "Jesus has saved me from Hell." You can't say that, because you believe that there is a chance you may still end up there (or, at least, that is what Catholic dogma teaches)

And I've made it abundantly clear that what you're saying above is false, yet you choose to ignore it.

So, with all that said, you aren't using "objective assurance" in the same sense I am.

If by objective assurance you mean to totally trust God/Jesus for his promise and that the promise will never be rescinded then I am using it in the same sense as you are.

If by objective assurance you mean, after having had objective assurance and been saved, I cannot doubt it or reject it, then I am not using it in the same sense you are, but then again, you would be contradicting your very own definition of free grace, i.e. what happens after the fact has no bearing on salvation. Which is it Jac, are we or are we not using it in the same sense?

[Jac3510]

Have I been unclear in any way? Have you been reading my posts or just regurgitating previously held opinions without interaction? Jac, I am not rejecting OSAS.

Hopefully I've just been terribly misunderstanding you this whole time. So, rather than looking at what OTHER Catholics (who are apologists) say, let's look at your own words:

If you're trying to pin me down to admit that as such I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God then let me save you the trouble. I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God.

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

I don't believe we are disagreeing, Bizzt. In fact, that's exactly what I mean by saying we have the choice to reject God. I.e. to reject his gift or refuse to accept it (or give it back).

I disagree because once I choose to trust God, you do not leave me the choice of opting out of my salvation

If you think you have absolute assurance you are deluding yourself.

Just a small comment on John 6:47 in that I do agree that you have assurance but it is not absolute in the sense that to believe and have everlasting life is a process, not an instantaneous click. Look no further than the continuation of that verse:

48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

This clearly indicates a continuous process, not just a momentary belief that can fade away but its promise remains.

Here is a quote your referenced with approval, bold is yours:

Scripture teaches that one's final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31—46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

And this goes to the heart of the matter of assurance. If a person believes he is saved then it turns out he wasn't saved after all, does that not negate absolute assurance?

If the answer is yes, then does it not follow and necessitate repentance? And finally, would that be considered a works-based salvation?

If the answer is no, i.e. once saved always saved, does that not negate our free will to reject God, (having been already saved)?

These are not simple dilemmas. Jac, for example, seems to think unless you have absolute assurance (once saved always saved, no matter what) then you aren't really saved. I'm not sure how 2,000 years of christendom will take that but that is basically what we are discussing.

IMO, the point you bring up here is more indicative of the serious rift between catholicism and the reformation , and that is the question of whether or not one can lose his salvation, aka Once Saved Always Saved, or not. And even at that, I can tell you the 2 schools of thought are not very far apart unless you are on the extreme side of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism.

I suppose I could continue . . . but these are sufficient.

Now, clearly, I've misunderstood you somewhere. So why don't you explain to me your understanding of salvation and how we can "give it back" and go to Hell even though you believe in OSAS. Or do you?

Is there any circumstances in which you could find yourself in Hell, Byblos?

As for your disagreement with the people I quoted, that's fine with me. I'm glad you disagree, because they are not wrong. Given our extensive discussion, can you agree that they have not believed the Gospel since they reject having objective assurance of their salvation, and since they reject the doctrine of eternal security?

[Byblos]

Have I been unclear in any way? Have you been reading my posts or just regurgitating previously held opinions without interaction? Jac, I am not rejecting OSAS.

Hopefully I've just been terribly misunderstanding you this whole time.

No, you've just been misunderstanding me only lately (in this thread).

So, rather than looking at what OTHER Catholics (who are apologists)

They can apologize all they want. They're still missing the point.

say, let's look at your own words:

If you're trying to pin me down to admit that as such I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God then let me save you the trouble. I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God.

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

I don't believe we are disagreeing, Bizzt. In fact, that's exactly what I mean by saying we have the choice to reject God. I.e. to reject his gift or refuse to accept it (or give it back).

I disagree because once I choose to trust God, you do not leave me the choice of opting out of my salvation

If you think you have absolute assurance you are deluding yourself.

Just a small comment on John 6:47 in that I do agree that you have assurance but it is not absolute in the sense that to believe and have everlasting life is a process, not an instantaneous click. Look no further than the continuation of that verse:

48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

This clearly indicates a continuous process, not just a momentary belief that can fade away but its promise remains.

Here is a quote your referenced with approval, bold is yours:

Scripture teaches that one's final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31—46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

And this goes to the heart of the matter of assurance. If a person believes he is saved then it turns out he wasn't saved after all, does that not negate absolute assurance?

If the answer is yes, then does it not follow and necessitate repentance? And finally, would that be considered a works-based salvation?

If the answer is no, i.e. once saved always saved, does that not negate our free will to reject God, (having been already saved)?

These are not simple dilemmas. Jac, for example, seems to think unless you have absolute assurance (once saved always saved, no matter what) then you aren't really saved. I'm not sure how 2,000 years of christendom will take that but that is basically what we are discussing.

IMO, the point you bring up here is more indicative of the serious rift between catholicism and the reformation , and that is the question of whether or not one can lose his salvation, aka Once Saved Always Saved, or not. And even at that, I can tell you the 2 schools of thought are not very far apart unless you are on the extreme side of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism.

I suppose I could continue . . . but these are sufficient.

No need to continue. Yes I've said all of that and yes that was my understanding at the time. I too missed the point but what I'm also telling you is that catholicism didn't as I've only recently clearly shown.

Now, clearly, I've misunderstood you somewhere. So why don't you explain to me your understanding of salvation and how we can "give it back" and go to Hell even though you believe in OSAS. Or do you?

I do not believe we can give it back (nor does catholicism). I do believe that, once saved (as per FG definition), one can fall so far into sin as to think one is no longer saved when in fact one still is and always will be. In that state of mind, one would need the sacraments to re-position his thinking back on the right track (though not to merit salvation because it wasn't lost to begin with). The fact is, people are not perfect and are full of doubts. Those doubts do not change God's objective promise, but they do play on one's sense of assurance so-to-speak.
Does this clear it up for you?

Is there any circumstances in which you could find yourself in Hell, Byblos?

Me personally? Heavens no, God forbid (objectively, of course ). As for others, I wouldn't know nor dare to presume.

As for your disagreement with the people I quoted, that's fine with me. I'm glad you disagree, because they are not wrong. Given our extensive discussion, can you agree that they have not believed the Gospel since they reject having objective assurance of their salvation, and since they reject the doctrine of eternal security?

Like I said, I wouldn't presume what they believe or not believe. What I do see is a clear contradiction with the catechism, the pope, and the joint declaration.

[Felgar]

I've said a million times before that I'm not trying to CONVINCE anybody of anything.

Right, it was only upon my request that you endevoured to do some convincing, I haven't forgotten that.

Clarity is the entire issue. If you have seen exactly what I am saying, and I think you have, you can work through these other issues easily.

Like I said, I have real trouble reconciling this with my larger understanding of God and His love and His plan for creation. I wouldn't say it can be done 'easily.'

For the record, I don't think that you have rejected the FG gospel because you DO believe in OSAS.

Yes that's right. However, my personal beliefs about FG is not what's being questioned. Only the implications that you derive from your understanding of FG, which are that no one else can possibly be saved.

I think you and I both understand each other very clearly, or at least I can assure you that I understand you completely. You have achieved your clarity. For me, it now comes down to deciding whether I agree with your eariler line of thinking, and if so, how does that change my broader understanding of my God, my Faith, and my Christian brethren. As such I'll need some time to let this all sink in. Thanks once again for your time throughout this discourse...

[bizzt]

I find Jac is taking a stand like Kent Hovind in YEC theology that one cannot have salvation if one believes in an Old Earth. And not to be rude I find it very downgrading to God's Plan and Salvation that a Human or many humans try to understand God's plan for Salvation and then in turn become like a Pharisee and closed minded.

[Jac3510]

Byblos:

If you have come to the place where you believe that Jesus has saved you and there is no longer any way that you could find yourself in Hell, as it certainly seems like you do, then you could not have made me any happier! I agree with you that a person can lose their sense of "being saved." However, you should be able to agree with me that even in those times of "feeling lost," we can still know beyond any doubt that we are saved, because we know what we believed. That is why I say assurance is objective. Welcome to the OSAS side of the debate

Hopefully, you'll work on your Catholic friends and help them realize the same thing. Like I said, if a person doesn't have objective assurance of their salvation - if they believe they could find themselves in Hell - then they do not believe the Gospel!

Felgar:

Like I said, I have real trouble reconciling this with my larger understanding of God and His love and His plan for creation. I wouldn't say it can be done 'easily.'

Maybe "easily" was the wrong word . . . I have told people before that I didn't come to FG easily. I came kicking and screaming, so to speak. Just as much, I didn't come to the position I'm advocating now easily, either. There was a good bit of kicking and screaming there, too. And even now, there are some views of the major FG proponents that I strongly disagree with. For those of you who are concerned that I am extreme, I'd just suggest you read some of Zane Hodges or Bob Wilkin on the necessity of believing in the doctrine of eternal security . . . there are DEFINITELY some extremists in the FG camp. I can think of a couple things that I disagree with . . .

But I digress. Anyway, will this change your view of God? I would say yes and no. We have to come to terms with the fact that the vast majority of people who have ever been born will find themselves in Hell. It is just as true that the majority of people who have heard of Jesus will be in Hell. God does save, and He saves graciously. But He saves on His terms, or He doesn't save at all. And those who have mishandled His word will receive their due. The Gospel is very, very simple. The only reason we have had this extremely complicated debate is because we are discussing theology, but the Gospel isn't about that. The Gospel is about a promise. All a lost person needs to hear is this: "God has offered to save you from His wrath, from eternal punishment. He has offered you salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the price for your sins, and now He offers you everlasting life if you believe in Him for it. Do you, now, trust Jesus for your eternal salvation?" That's it. If they understand the promise, that Jesus offers them everlasting life, then they just have to accept it.

Sadly, many, many people have either never heard that promise, or they have rejected it. Martin Luther is a great example. Here is a man who, either by his own ignorance or by the false teaching he had received, believed that he had to do good works to be saved. Had it not been for his own personal study of Galatians and Romans, he would have died and gone to Hell, even though he "believed in Jesus" and wanted salvation dearly! How many people, though, have never had that study? How many people have died either rejecting or simply never hearing the promise of Christ? They are in Hell. Do we then blame God? Of course not. We blame the false teachers.

Yes that's right. However, my personal beliefs about FG is not what's being questioned. Only the implications that you derive from your understanding of FG, which are that no one else can possibly be saved.

I'm sure you'll understand if I object to the spirit of the words "no on else can possibly be saved." Everyone can be saved. Anyone can be saved. You just have to be believe the promise of Christ! Of course, that's the trick, isn't it? You have to believe it!

It is terrifying to realize how many people are lost. So, I totally understand where you are coming from. But, I would implore you not to change your theology to allow people into heaven, but rather to reach as many people for Christ as you can. Maybe this is why there is no evangelistic zeal in the Church today, because so few people understand and believe the Gospel???

Anyway, I agree that we have both achieved clarity, so I am pretty happy right now. Even if you decide you don't agree with me, that's fair enough. Whatever you decide to go with, I think I know you well enough to know that it will be based on Scripture. If, then, you decide I am wrong here or that I have taken it too far, then you will have a Scriptural, and clear, Gospel to take to people. That's good enough for me. Of course, I do think that you'll eventually come to agree here, but it's only because I've been exactly down this road before.

Fun discussion, if not a bit stressful at times!

Bizzt:

I find Jac is taking a stand like Kent Hovind in YEC theology that one cannot have salvation if one believes in an Old Earth. And not to be rude I find it very downgrading to God's Plan and Salvation that a Human or many humans try to understand God's plan for Salvation and then in turn become like a Pharisee and closed minded.

I imagine you would feel that way. You believe we can give back salvation, unless you have changed your opinion, anyway. The difference in me and Hovind is that Hovind is dealing with a non-soteriological issue, whereas I am dealing with straight soteriology. I've seen the arguments that you can't be non-YEC and be saved. The basic flaw they have is that they forget that accepting or rejecting YEC is secondary to accepting or rejecting the Gospel. So, I wouldn't place myself in that catagory. But, I would simply encourage you to consider your position VERY carefully, because if you believe that you can lose your salvation, then the simple fact is that you don't, at this moment in time, believe the Gospel. Why? Because you cannot say to Jesus, "I believe you have saved me from Hell, but I don't know that I am saved from Hell."

I'm not being legalistic, Bizzt. I am, however, proclaiming the Gospel, which is exclusivistic by nature. You do the same. You tell people they can only be saved through Christ. I tell people they can only be saved by believing the promise of Christ. Like I said earlier in this thread, the question is "What do you believe." Many people will say "Lord, Lord" and still be condemned . . . now, if Byblos has reconsidered his position, perhaps you should, too?

God bless

[bizzt]

Bizzt:

I find Jac is taking a stand like Kent Hovind in YEC theology that one cannot have salvation if one believes in an Old Earth. And not to be rude I find it very downgrading to God's Plan and Salvation that a Human or many humans try to understand God's plan for Salvation and then in turn become like a Pharisee and closed minded.

I imagine you would feel that way. You believe we can give back salvation, unless you have changed your opinion, anyway. The difference in me and Hovind is that Hovind is dealing with a non-soteriological issue, whereas I am dealing with straight soteriology. I've seen the arguments that you can't be non-YEC and be saved. The basic flaw they have is that they forget that accepting or rejecting YEC is secondary to accepting or rejecting the Gospel. So, I wouldn't place myself in that catagory. But, I would simply encourage you to consider your position VERY carefully, because if you believe that you can lose your salvation, then the simple fact is that you don't, at this moment in time, believe the Gospel. Why? Because you cannot say to Jesus, "I believe you have saved me from Hell, but I don't know that I am saved from Hell."

I'm not being legalistic, Bizzt. I am, however, proclaiming the Gospel, which is exclusivistic by nature. You do the same. You tell people they can only be saved through Christ. I tell people they can only be saved by believing the promise of Christ. Like I said earlier in this thread, the question is "What do you believe." Many people will say "Lord, Lord" and still be condemned . . . now, if Byblos has reconsidered his position, perhaps you should, too?

God bless

Have I ever given my position? I still do not know what I believe on this. I have heard many great arguments but I am not convinced either way. I have had more of a Problem with the way you present your arguments then anything. I find you put God into a box created by Jac and that is how he works everything. Then using that Theology of the Box you then preach the Gospel and say Byblos (using him for an example) because you do not believe in OSAS you are not saved because you believe in a different Salvation then I.

quick side note

I believe in OSAS with few reservations now I want to believe in that but have more doubts that OSAS is correct

How do you know Jac? Based on what Scriptures? Are you denying the Holy Spirits work in Byblos Life?

This is where I find the most difficulty with OSAS. If one can be Grafted into a Vine can one be Grafted out.

Another Jesus is walking down the road where a fig tree I believe at One Point was producing Fruit but was not anymore. What did he do?
Mat 21:19 And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.

The Word is my refreshing waters Jac. I have not seen really 1 scripture in the last few pages. Can you quote a bunch for me in point form so I can look them up and allow the Holy Spirit to minister to me. I might come back and ask a few more questions.


Thanks

p.s. Please forgive me for what I said about being a Pharisee. I was fairly upset.

[Felgar]

Even if you decide you don't agree with me, that's fair enough. Whatever you decide to go with, I think I know you well enough to know that it will be based on Scripture. If, then, you decide I am wrong here or that I have taken it too far, then you will have a Scriptural, and clear, Gospel to take to people.

Exactly... In hoping to find some means of reconciliation, the only thing I can do now is return to scripture, looking for some missing piece that can begin to shift perspectives just a little bit in this area. Due to my extremely busy life and also my (relatively) limited familiarity with scripture, this will undoubtedly take some time.

I guess the main concern I have is how this is so contrary to my understanding of the heart condition and it's role in finding Jesus. I can write someone who professes a works-based salvation as being too proud and unwilling to exhalt Jesus. Someone who rejects Jesus altogether (or rejects the entire concept of God) I can write off as dark-hearted and exceedingly stubborn, completely unwilling to die to self and sin. But fellow Christians who sincerely have a heart after Jesus I just cannot write off, and neither can God in so far as my understanding of the very nature of God.

Anyways... No need to comment. Just wanted to add for a little bit more clarity.