Catholics and Non Catholics

Discussions amongst Christians about life issues, walking with Christ, and general Christian topics that don't fit under any other area.
Felgar
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
Christian: No
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by Felgar »

Byblos wrote:I can honestly say right here and right now that I do have 100% assurance of my salvation.
I understand. I should have said "no objective assurance" rather than "no real assurance" in my response. I feel that real assurance can definately come through one's relationship with Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Just because it's subjective doesn't make it unreal. But I do agree with Jac that only Free Grace can offer assurance completely independant of any personal experience, and that can play a very important role in the early stages of one's life as a born-again Christian.
Byblos wrote:
Felgar wrote:"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.
Right, good Byblos! Now let's see whether Jac takes issue with the wording. If so, the next step will either be to discuss these issues in light of scripture, or else try again with a new question. :)
FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FFC »

Byblos wrote: The entire point I am trying to make is that if 'God only knows' is allowed, then absolute assurance is not so absolute.
Byblos, when I said God only knows I meant that we can't know for certain where another person stands with God regardless of what they say they believed to attain it. This I think is good becuase it seems to bring much judgement and problems with it. But we as individuals can know 100%...if we can't than we have the right to call God a liar. If you know that you are a new creature and believe God's word that no one can pluck you out of His hand than where is the lack of total assurance? If nothing can separate us from the love of God then where is the lack of total assurance? It's all about God keeping us, not us doing things to keep kept.

The bottom line is that if you are truly a child of God you will not go to hell regardless of how much you blow it here on earth. This should give us great joy and cause us to praise His name and glorify Him in all we do.

Does that make sense?
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Post by Jac3510 »

Canuckster wrote: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?
Be sure to note that I've never said that salvation is by faith. I've said repeatedly that salvation is by grace, but that grace is applied though faith. The basis of salvation is, of course, the finished work of Christ. However, we do not acquire it based on the finished work, but we acquire it through our faith. The question is simple: what is your faith in? What are you trusting? What are you receiving? Jesus did all the work -- sinless life, death, resurrection, etc. -- so that He could purchase for us redemption. He now offers it to all freely. They simply have to believe in Him for it. The key, however, is that you have you to receive it on His terms. "God saves by grace or not at all," or put another way, "God saves on His terms, not ours." The terms of salvation are this: faith alone. The reason: God will be no man's debtor. Thus, we have to believe the saving message, not our own form of it, to be saved, and again, the saving message is that we can be saved by simply trusting in Jesus for it. Indeed, it is what we must do if we are to be saved.

As far as the question relating to intellectual belief, you have to recognize and understand what you are believing in. You have to believe in Jesus. Belief, of course, requires intellect. It is not, though, our intellect that saves us. It is Christ who saves us. We are simply asked to believe in Him, and if we do that, then He saves us. No more, no less.

Felgar, as to your wording:
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 do take issue with this. Let me offer a rephrasal:

Do you trust Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life, and that His sacrifice on the cross has redeemed you of your sin, and therefore your eternity with God is secured?

Now, of chief importance to me is this idea of "secured," but I suppose we can handle that as necessary. But, if a person believes that, then they have believed the Gospel. However, Catholicism rejects that. Catholicism teaches that you must repent and stay in the faith. It is inherent in their understanding of the term "trust." Additionally, they would take issue with "your eternity with God is secured." They would add, "so long as you maintain this trust." Of course, now you have added a condition that changes the object of faith. The object has gone from Christ's promise to your commitment to His promise. In fact, even further, you have now rejected Christ's promise in it's entirety, which is that the moment we are saved, we are actually saved, not potentially saved. Christ offers eternal security, not a state of grace. If, then, Christ does not offer a state of grace, then if you are trusting Him for a state of grace, then you have not received what He actually offers, which is salvation.

Again, there are three issues we have to keep in mind with reference to the Gospel:

1. The person offering salvation, which is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God,
2. The condition on which this offer is received, which is faith alone,
3. The nature of the offer, which is eternal security.

Thus, Jesus says in short, "He who believes in Me has everlasting life." John 6:47, NKJV
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Felgar
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
Christian: No
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by Felgar »

Jac3510 wrote:Do you trust Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life, and that His sacrifice on the cross has redeemed you of your sin, and therefore your eternity with God is secured?

Now, of chief importance to me is this idea of "secured," but I suppose we can handle that as necessary. But, if a person believes that, then they have believed the Gospel. However, Catholicism rejects that. Catholicism teaches that you must repent and stay in the faith. It is inherent in their understanding of the term "trust." Additionally, they would take issue with "your eternity with God is secured." They would add, "so long as you maintain this trust." Of course, now you have added a condition that changes the object of faith. The object has gone from Christ's promise to your commitment to His promise.
I am completely fine with the rewording...

See, I question whether a Catholic really believes the maintanence of faith in the same way you say. If so, then I agree with your reasoned implications (that necesitating maintanence in that way DOES in fact create a 'faith plus' doctrine.) It also immediately leads to absurdities such as: most all doubt from time to time and if, during one of those times, a person happens to get hit by a bus, is his salvation lost? I would say of course not, and point to the timeless nature of Christ's redemption and justification.

It's up to Byblos to respond but I don't think the meaning of the phrase has changed due to your revision. I think he can honestly say 100% that he does agree with the statement, where according to your understanding they shouldn't be able to agree to it. I feel that the break between the two is in your not accepting that underlying their concept of perserverance is a deeper understanding and trust that only the finished work of Christ saves.

But I guess we'll see shortly. Edit: remember that my original purpose was to question whether any other belief was heresy (which is to say, whether those beliefs do not allow for salvation). This ties in with my typical LS'ers conversion experience, in that the initial faith through which we experience God's grace is the very same for all of the belief system's we have been discussing.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Post by Jac3510 »

I will be interesting to see how Byblos responds to this . . . I'd be interested to see. But I'm not sure how to get my thoughts across any clearer . . . this sentence concerns me: " I feel that the break between the two is in your not accepting that underlying their concept of perserverance is a deeper understanding and trust that only the finished work of Christ saves."

An atheist can affirm that, in the Christian system of thought, only the finished work of Christ saves. I believe that. You believe that. Byblos believes that. Mormons believe that. JW's believe that. That is why I made the distiction to Canuckster between the basis of grace and the mode of acquiring grace. The basis, all agree, is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In doing that, Jesus secured the right and ability to offer saving grace. Fine. But now, the question is, how do we receive that grace?

Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists believe that in order to receive it, we must repent and maintain that repentance (overall). If we do not maintain our faith, we do not have that grace, either in the sense that we lost it or in the sense that we never had it. I argue that the Bible says to receive that grace, we must believe in Christ for it apart from works, including repentance. And there, to me, is the difference, not in any refusal to accept or see a position they hold.

Time's up, I gotta run.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Felgar
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
Christian: No
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by Felgar »

Jac3510 wrote:this sentence concerns me: " I feel that the break between the two is in your not accepting that underlying their concept of perserverance is a deeper understanding and trust that only the finished work of Christ saves."

An atheist can affirm that, in the Christian system of thought, only the finished work of Christ saves. I believe that. You believe that. Byblos believes that. Mormons believe that. JW's believe that. That is why I made the distiction to Canuckster between the basis of grace and the mode of acquiring grace. The basis, all agree, is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In doing that, Jesus secured the right and ability to offer saving grace. Fine. But now, the question is, how do we receive that grace?
I feel that I understand your point of view perfectly and that there's no need to be any clearer. I just disagree with a part of it. Do you feel there's something additional that you're saying which I'm not understanding?

I see your point about everyone objectively believing something about Christianity, rather than actually believing in Christianity. But I think, the fact that the question as posed is inherently introspective negates the concern you've raised. The question doesn't ask of a person: "Do Christians believe that Jesus redeems their sins" but specifically asks "Do you believe that Jesus has redeemed YOUR sins."
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Post by Jac3510 »

But Felgar, there will be people who believe that they have been saved, but they aren't. It doesn't matter if you believe you are saved . . . it matters if you ARE saved. And how do you know if you are saved? Only if you have believed the Gospel. Catholics do not believe the gospel.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5310
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Post by Canuckster1127 »

Jac3510 wrote:But Felgar, there will be people who believe that they have been saved, but they aren't. It doesn't matter if you believe you are saved . . . it matters if you ARE saved. And how do you know if you are saved? Only if you have believed the Gospel. Catholics do not believe the gospel.
Point of clarification, I would suggest you word this as "Official Catholic Doctrine deviates from scripture" or to some other form to your satisfaction.

I suspect that there may be more catholics in heaven than what you'd be comfortable with, making that statement. ;)

That is what I am on about when I state that we need to take people one at a time, and not as a group with vast generalizations.

Do you think people have just been being saved since the Reformation? How do you think people were saved before then? Do literacy rates figure into your view as they were relatively much lower prior to the revolution of the printing press? In view of that situation, do you see that perhaps the church carried a higher responsibility prior to that as the keeper of teachings and doctrine? How would they have been right in their teaching and doctrine in this regard given that dynamic?

When did the Catholic Church go wrong and at what point do you believe that they ceased as an organization or institution to teach pure doctrine?

How were people saved prior the faith maintained from that time to the time of the Reformation?

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm working through some of these issues on my own and anything anyone can offer to address them would be welcome and carefully considered.

Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

Jac3510 wrote:Do you trust Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life, and that His sacrifice on the cross has redeemed you of your sin, and therefore your eternity with God is secured?

I will be interesting to see how Byblos responds to this . . . I'd be interested to see.


The meaning did not change my understanding of the question in any way, nor did it change my answer.
Jac3510 wrote:Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists believe that in order to receive it, we must repent and maintain that repentance (overall). If we do not maintain our faith, we do not have that grace, either in the sense that we lost it or in the sense that we never had it. I argue that the Bible says to receive that grace, we must believe in Christ for it apart from works, including repentance. And there, to me, is the difference, not in any refusal to accept or see a position they hold.


I can say that my belief is that salvation is by grace through faith. (notice the period). I can say that as a catholic particularly in light of Vatican II and the Pope's statement re salvation to the Lutheran church. The 'losing it' or 'not having it' part does NOT negate Jesus' unconditional offer. It negates the fact that we were sincere in accepting it to begin with. It proves we never truly asked for it and therefore never really received it. Again, it is not canceling or rejecting Christ' offer. It's proving we never did ask for it to begin with. That is how I've come to understand it. Now one might ask why is it that the RCC or even our Calvinist/Arminianist churches haven't put this out there more clearly? The answer is I don't know. I can speculate, however, that it might have to do with the church's responsibility not only in theological matters but also in matters moral, social, societal and perhaps even economical. The fear is that such ideas will eventually degenerate into true antinomianism and complete lawlessness as very few will truly and sincerely accept Jesus' unconditional offer and remain true to the faith irrespective of its non-effect on salvation. The end result will be chaos and anarchy. I think the catholic church (as in the universal church of Jesus Christ) is trying to guard against that, perhaps at the expense of a clearer biblical message (at least for the masses that don't delve too deeply into theology/soteriology), the ramifications of which only God knows. I hope this clears up my side.
Felgar
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
Christian: No
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by Felgar »

Jac3510 wrote:It doesn't matter if you believe you are saved . . . it matters if you ARE saved. And how do you know if you are saved? Only if you have believed the Gospel.
Clearly, the ones who believe they are saved are the ones who thought they earned it of their own accord.

I agree with your quoted statement above. But I'll add that you've believed the Gospel if you believe that Jesus has saved you. There's no additional complexity as I see it. Byblos a great many other Catholics believe that, as I've shown through the excersize of framing an appropriate question which both sides accept.

Which brings me back to my point... The beliefs resulting from their understanding of their doctrine is not heresy, though perhaps beliefs in line with your understanding of their doctrine is. Do you understand their doctrine better than them? Perhaps; that's open for debate...

But nevertheless, their own understanding DOES matter, because it directly impacts what they actual believe in their hearts. There can be only 1 conclusion: Since Byblos doesn't see the perseverance as an additional condition to accepting Jesus' salvation, he doesn't believe in an additional condition, and is therefore solely trusting Jesus for his salvation as per the true Gospel.
FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FFC »

Jac wrote: Catholics do not believe the gospel.
Jac, did you really mean to say that? Isn't the Gospel the death burial and ressurection of Christ? I have no doubt at all that most Catholics believe that.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

FFC wrote:
Jac wrote: Catholics do not believe the gospel.


Jac, did you really mean to say that? Isn't the Gospel the death burial and ressurection of Christ? I have no doubt at all that most Catholics believe that.


This reminds of a phrase repeated about a half a million times a day around the globe during catholic masses:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by FFC »

Byblos wrote:
FFC wrote:
Jac wrote: Catholics do not believe the gospel.


Jac, did you really mean to say that? Isn't the Gospel the death burial and ressurection of Christ? I have no doubt at all that most Catholics believe that.


This reminds of a phrase repeated about a half a million times a day around the globe during catholic masses:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Amen!

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;


1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.


1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Do you believe this, Byblos? :wink:
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

FFC wrote:
Byblos wrote:
FFC wrote:
Jac wrote: Catholics do not believe the gospel.


Jac, did you really mean to say that? Isn't the Gospel the death burial and ressurection of Christ? I have no doubt at all that most Catholics believe that.


This reminds of a phrase repeated about a half a million times a day around the globe during catholic masses:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.


Amen!

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;


1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.


1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Do you believe this, Byblos? :wink:


Believe it? I live and will die by it. (and Jac says 'see, there he goes again').
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Post by Gman »

I am going to be brief about this... I believe that salvation and faith is part of our armor... And that God wouldn't let us go into battle without it, or with half a helmet. And it stays with the believer forever because without it we are dead in the water... However, if the believer, (in their heart of hearts) chooses to quit the battle and divorce God (just like divorcing your wife), then God would honor that as well and send ourselves to damnation, (even though he would pursue us not to like a loving wife). After all it is our free will, right?

Ephesians 6:11-17
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

13 Therefore, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness

15 and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace;

16 above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the spoken word of God.

Just a thought... We always have our armor whether we choose to put it on or not.

As for WHO is saved (or has a helmet), well that's up to God to judge. Not any church...

Sleep well tonight.. :)

G -
Post Reply