Are those with an intellectual belief saved?

[PaulSacramento]

When I was a RC I didn't know that catholic church meant the "universal church" or that there were other catholics beside RC.

[narnia4]

So I'm the only essentially Calvinist poster left on these boards? Don't think I want to go into that conversation again without back up. I will say that one of my concerns with other views does happen to be close to what jlay mentioned. It definitely matters what you consider to be an "act" or "work", but under a view other than Calvinism is belief a work anyway?

Many also find the idea that Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough to be very concerning as well. Because if the five points are incorrect, then Christ died and atoned the sins of people who are not and will not be saved.

Don't mind me though, you guys can carry on...

But as far as Catholicism I'd agree with J here, there is indeed a "true church" that has existed, I happen to think that it includes some who call themselves Catholic but is not composed of only those who call themselves Catholic.

[jlay]

Me thinks a drive-by appearance of Puritan Lad is on the horizon.

It definitely matters what you consider to be an "act" or "work", but under a view other than Calvinism is belief a work anyway?

I would say, and hope you would agree that it doesn't matter what a theological system says, but what the Bible says. And I don't think there is a verse that could make it any more clear that believing is not a work.

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:2,3,4,5)

[narnia4]

I agree with that, that's why I (as we all should) try to determine which theological system best fits/explains what the Bible says. If everyone can agree on the essentials, John 3:16 and belief in God and the Trinity... and if we can also all agree that what we're attempting to do is find what the authors (and "Author") of the Bible were trying to say and how to best apply and interpret it, then I can live with even differences on stuff like this.

Although I would like to stress that I find systematic theology to be a very useful tool and hope that we all only "buy in" to a theological system if we believe it does fit what is plainly (and sometimes not so plainly) taught in Scripture.

[kmr]

Salvation is a gift from God by means of Christ. To obtain it, you need to accept Christ. If you believe in Jesus, but refuse to accept him, then you are like the demons, who believe but shudder.

Although, I don't think that there are many such cases in the world... it is not all too common to believe that a loving God gave such a wonderful gift and yet refuse to have faith in his Son anyways... in this way, is there really such thing as merely an "intellectual belief"?

[domokunrox]

I think Gettier proved this to be an invalid criteria. I know you tend to side with the analytical philosophers, but enough of them allow for hylomorphism that there is room in your tradition to agree that knowledge actually ought to be understood as the mind's apprehension of a form (which includes formal words, that as opposed to conventional words external to the mind or phantasms internal to it).

edit: I'd also suggest reading through Thaetetus. It's rather easy, actually entertaining since it is the form of a dialogue, and useful to the discussion since Socrates ends the account by poking holes in the JTB notion of knowledge. That's all just to say that the problem isn't original with Gettier. Gettier's specific version is original with him, but the fact that the JTB notion is inadequate is something we've known for over two thousands years.

No, Gettier proved something else. Those philosophers before him who tangled with it before him also had different problems. They sought ways to deal with radical epistemology methods. Namely, logical positivism and early empiricism methods.

Belief, true, and warrant is perfectly valid criteria. Rejecting it is fine. That however carries awful implications.

For example, lets say I have the belief that the sun will come up tomorrow. Just the belief. I don't know if its true or any warrant for the belief. On what basis would the belief be rational? None, we have no idea if the sun will come up tomorrow, beliefs alone are just as good as gambling except in this case we would be gambling with our souls. If thats good enough for you, fine. Have at it.

Lets say however that you want to say that your belief is true. The sun coming up tomorrow becoming true, therefore my belief is true is still a gamble. And in this case again, we would be gambling with our souls.

But how about those who don't want to gamble with their souls? Is there a reasonable or rational basis for our belief in being saved by the work of Christ? Of course there is. I don't need to explain this, we've got all kinds of evidence scientific, philosophical, and theology here on the website. However, in order to have something to examine. You realize immediately that you are examining (finding warrant for) a proposition (a belief at this point), and its alleged truth (are the truth bearers perfectly valid?).

Now, is believing (belief alone) the sun will come up tomorrow a reasonable or rational belief? Nope. It could only be true by accident.
Is believing (belief alone) in Christ's work on the cross to be saved a reasonable or rational belief? Nope. It could only be true by accident.

I guess the question we could be asking here is can we really be ignorant about our beliefs? Sure. Would our belief be valid?

The way I see it, intellectually, its uncertain. Depends on your honest understanding of the bible you were able to apply.
Ignorantly? Thats up to God to decide. We can't decide that. God will know if you were truly ignorant to ignore his instruction.

I've stated this plenty of times. We will be judged based on what we know, regardless of what revelation applies to the person in question.

Now, I don't mean to bring up a whole other idea to this. I don't want to detail this thread, but its something I think is fundamental and can change the dynamic to the discussion. WHEN do you think you are "saved"? I'm sure many of us have very different opinions and ultimately some proofs are not simply going to be satisfactory to others. It really does affect this discussion more than we know it does.