Felgar wrote: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.
Felgar wrote: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