Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:30 pm
Jac3510 wrote:Yes, it does, Byblos,
It makes sense yet you still disagree. I think the point needs further clarification, read on.
Jac wrote: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.
Jac wrote: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.
Jac wrote: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
Jac once wrote:Stating a present tense reality using a relative time based verb is not the same as an absolute time based verb.
Jac wrote: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?