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.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

bizzt wrote:I just needed to get a Catholics Take on it. Someone in another Forum was talking about why Catholics have a works related Faith and used these Cachetisms to support their View. Hey Byblos where is that Link for the Vatican II talking about Salvation is through Faith Alone?

Thanks
Not a problem, here they are.

This link contains the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration (of 1999):

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9 ... ulles.html

This one comments about it:

http://www.citizensoldier.org/Popesalvationbyfaith.html

This one shows a papal preacher talking to the pope (Benedict XVI) re same:

http://www.catholic.org/international/i ... p?id=18021
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
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 »

Sorry, Byblos, the argument doesn't work. Stating a present tense reality using a relative time based verb is not the same as an absolute time based verb, which is what would be required in your understanding. If the word was in the indicitive, you might have an argument. But, it's not. It's a particple, so you don't have anything.

A participle, as you know, is a verbal noun. Here's an example that might clarify things. Suppose your favorite restaurant decided to do a cancer awareness drive, or other such cause. They said, "We are going to have a marathon to show our support. All the runners get a free dinner ticket!" "Runners" in this sentence is used the same way as "believing" in in John 3:16. It would be wrong of the restaurant to say to those who didn't finish the race, "No, you can't have the ticket because you didn't finish." People would rightfully respond that ALL the runners got the ticket, not just those who finished.

So, again, grammatically speaking, your case doesn't work. The present tense reality is used in a relative sense, as required by the Greek participle. That's just the way the thing is used. That's not my rule. It's straight grammar.

edit:

One more thing: Here is an article by Bob Wilkin dealing with the grammatical aspects of the Greek present participle. It isn't long, and I would highly recommend you read it. He cites more than a few instances proving that the present participle doesn't carry the continuous aspectual tone so heavily pressed by those in the Lordship camp.

God bless
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
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

Jac3510 wrote:Sorry, Byblos, the argument doesn't work. Stating a present tense reality using a relative time based verb is not the same as an absolute time based verb, which is what would be required in your understanding. If the word was in the indicitive, you might have an argument. But, it's not. It's a particple, so you don't have anything.

A participle, as you know, is a verbal noun. Here's an example that might clarify things. Suppose your favorite restaurant decided to do a cancer awareness drive, or other such cause. They said, "We are going to have a marathon to show our support. All the runners get a free dinner ticket!" "Runners" in this sentence is used the same way as "believing" in in John 3:16. It would be wrong of the restaurant to say to those who didn't finish the race, "No, you can't have the ticket because you didn't finish." People would rightfully respond that ALL the runners got the ticket, not just those who finished.

So, again, grammatically speaking, your case doesn't work. The present tense reality is used in a relative sense, as required by the Greek participle. That's just the way the thing is used. That's not my rule. It's straight grammar.

edit:

One more thing: Here is an article by Bob Wilkin dealing with the grammatical aspects of the Greek present participle. It isn't long, and I would highly recommend you read it. He cites more than a few instances proving that the present participle doesn't carry the continuous aspectual tone so heavily pressed by those in the Lordship camp.


But somehow it carries the past(ual) aspectual tone because that supports your position, is that right? Ah yes, I forgot you have the grammatical aspectual tone on your side as well. Wait, wasn't God on your side too? No wonder all catholics are doomed. :twisted:

Thanks for the interaction Jac, I get it now.

In Christ,

Byblos.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
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 »

1) It doesn't carry a "past" aspect either . . . there isn't any such thing. It is aspectually flat, that is, it is simply stating a reality. All who believe, at any given time, have ever lasting life. Leon Morris has suggested it be understood "every man who has faith has everlasting life." See the present tense there? If you stop believing, though, the definition of everlasting life is that you can't lose it, so you still have it even though you stop believing. With faith comes eternal life. That's what the verse says.

2) I didn't say all Catholics are doomed. Catholic dogma will damn a person, but Catholics can be saved the same way a muslim, Baptist, or even I am, which is by faith alone in Christ alone. Pretty simple.

Now, if you are finished with the discussion, that is fine by me. But if you are going to argue that I am wrong, then post the relevant grammatical/exegetical material. And thank you for the interaction as well.

God bless
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 »

First a pointed reply to emphasize my contention (longer post later for acknowledgements and possible clarifications)...
Jac3510 wrote:No, we are saved by believing in Christ for everlasting life.
Yes!
Jac3510 wrote:If you don't believe that you are saved in a completely objective sense, then you aren't.
Prove it!

I honestly feel that your whole argument has just been an explanation of what your belief is, and not why it is correct. I think that what you need to show, is why God would view these two faiths so different as to have #1 invalid:
1) I believe in Jesus, therefore he absolutely will save me.
2) I believe in Jesus, therefore he absolutely has saved me.
Both are placing faith is Jesus for salvation; why isn't that enough?

An analogy: Back in the first few centuries AD there were certain parts of the world that defined our solar system properly with the Earth obiting the Sun. They were correct, but they had only defined our system, not explained it. Equally non-contradictory to the available observations were other models (much more complex) in use around 1000 AD. Finally Newton came along and defined gravity as an attractive force between any two objects and also devised a formula that accurately describes this attraction, thus explaining the orbit of planetary bodies. See, without an understanding of why, the definitions of the system in play are vaccous and cannot be proven correct. Incidently, I believe that quantum physics and psychology are two schools that suffer from the same inherent problem, so at least you're not alone Jac. :D

(Am I conveying my dissatisfaction adequately? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, I'm just searching for a rock-solid understanding prior to ever considering the implications of what you are saying in terms of a LOT of self-proclaimed Christians being saved.)

Like I said there are lot of things I'd like to comment on, so I'll get back to you. The main question as stated above still stands IMO.
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 »

Both are placing faith is Jesus for salvation; why isn't that enough?
I think I can explain it . . .

What does it mean to "place faith in Jesus for salvation"? Can you explain that concept to me, as you see it?

edit: For the most part, I have been explaining myself rather than trying to convince anyone that I am right. I learned a long time ago that I can't change people's mind. So, I'm glad you picked up on that. If you get the basis of what I am saying, then you can decide for yourself. The question you asked is a good one, because I think it will help me explain why I think I am correct.
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 »

I think this is in the right direction, to simplify the discussion and the point of contention. What does it mean to "place faith in Jesus for salvation"... For me, it means understanding that I am a sinner, that only Jesus can redeem those sins, and then accepting that because of God's grace and through Jesus, I am forgiven.

(While not as valid for me personally, I think you could replace the last 3 words with "I will be saved" and have the faith still being placed in Jesus) Also, one might explore the concept that "placing faith for salvation in Jesus" could mean different things to different people, while still warranting God's grace in God's eyes. Like I'm sure a child who is told that believing Jesus can save them will not have the same basis of understanding that I have, yet in God's eyes they are certainly deemed righteous nonetheless.
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 »

Ok, so for you, "believing in Jesus" means to trust Him to be the forgiveness of your sins, right?

What if a person says, "But Jesus isn't capable of forgiving my sins!" Don't they have to believe that Jesus is capable, and willing (?), to offer this forgiveness?
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:Ok, so for you, "believing in Jesus" means to trust Him to be the forgiveness of your sins, right?
Yes.
Jac3510 wrote:What if a person says, "But Jesus isn't capable of forgiving my sins!" Don't they have to believe that Jesus is capable, and willing (?), to offer this forgiveness?
Yes I agree. If you don't believe that Jesus is capable of forgiving your sins, then clearly you cannot trust him for that forgiveness.
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 »

Alright, so you have to believe that Jesus offers forgiveness and that He is capable of giving it. Can you then say, "I believe in Jesus for forgiveness," and then disbelieve that you have it? I'm assuming, in all of this, that you believe that you have to receive forgiveness on faith and that you can't believe it is done by works.

In other words, can a person say, "Jesus says if I believe in Him for forgiveness that I have it. Ok, so I believe in Him for forgiveness, but I don't know that I have it"?

edit: This is especially important as you use the idea of trusting Christ for forgiveness. Can you trust Him for it and not know that you have it?
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:Can you then say, "I believe in Jesus for forgiveness," and then disbelieve that you have it?
Agreed, that would make no sense.
Jac3510 wrote:I'm assuming, in all of this, that you believe that you have to receive forgiveness on faith and that you can't believe it is done by works.
Naturally...
Jac3510 wrote:In other words, can a person say, "Jesus says if I believe in Him for forgiveness [then] I have it. Ok, so I believe in Him for forgiveness, but I don't know that I have it"?
No, a person cannot say that.
Jac3510 wrote:Can you trust Him for it and not know that you have it?
No, you cannot... (if your line of thought is not yet fully expressed through these questions then please ignore this and continue, understanding that I shall eventually expect an understanding of it)... 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).
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 »

Felgar wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Can you trust Him for it and not know that you have it?
No, you cannot...
Good, good, then this ought to be the last question I have to ask. If you answer this as expected, then I can make my major point.

What you just said is what I refer to as objective assurance, that is, the knowledge that you have something based on the fact that it is promised. In believing the promise, you know that you have it.

What you are saying, then, is that if you do not have objective assurance that you are forgiven, then you are not forgiven. You can't trust Him to forgive you and not know that you are forgiven!

So let me draw a general principle: You can't trust Christ for X and not know that you have X (assuming that X is a promise of Christ, i.e., justification, forgiveness, etc.). Is that acceptable? I'll continue as if it is.

I'm going to make another assumption: you have equated "salvation" with "forgiveness of sins." Is it fair to say that it is understood that forgiveness of sins results in being saved from Hell? Is it fair to say that we are trusting Christ to save us from Hell via the forgiveness of our sins?

I will respond to the second part of your post later. I want to make sure that we are on exactly the same page, though. :)
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:So let me draw a general principle: You can't trust Christ for X and not know that you have X (assuming that X is a promise of Christ, i.e., justification, forgiveness, etc.). Is that acceptable? I'll continue as if it is.
I will tentatively agree that it is acceptable, while reserving the right to question the difference between objective and subjective assurance (for to an individual, they are both assurance). On the trust side though, I have to accept your assertion, because the only alternative is to be saying "I trust Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins, but I'm not sure that my sins are forigiven." Clearly that is nonsense.
Jac3510 wrote:I'm going to make another assumption: you have equated "salvation" with "forgiveness of sins." Is it fair to say that it is understood that forgiveness of sins results in being saved from Hell? Is it fair to say that we are trusting Christ to save us from Hell via the forgiveness of our sins?
Yep, all true, all fair. :)
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Post by Byblos »

Byblos wrote:
bizzt wrote:I just needed to get a Catholics Take on it. Someone in another Forum was talking about why Catholics have a works related Faith and used these Cachetisms to support their View. Hey Byblos where is that Link for the Vatican II talking about Salvation is through Faith Alone?

Thanks
Not a problem, here they are.

This link contains the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration (of 1999):

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9 ... ulles.html

This one comments about it:

http://www.citizensoldier.org/Popesalvationbyfaith.html

This one shows a papal preacher talking to the pope (Benedict XVI) re same:

http://www.catholic.org/international/i ... p?id=18021
Hi Bizzt,

I made a mistake in the first link, it's supposed to be this one (that contains the full Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... on_en.html

Sorry about that.

Jac, Felgar

I'd like to quote a small part of this joint declaration that I think will put an end to the issue of OSAS wrt salvation. It is as follows:
4.6 Assurance of Salvation

34.We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ's death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God's grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.

35.This was emphasized in a particular way by the Reformers: in the midst of temptation, believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only him. In trust in God's promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18 ). 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. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation. [See Sources for section 4.6].
I think the last paragraph illustrates very much what I'm trying to convey (and in a sense what Felgar is trying to show) re: objective and subjective assurance. In a way this validates both our points Jac. When looked upon from an objective assurance point of view (i.e. from the side of God's promise) we do have objective assurance. When looked at from the subjective assurance point of view, one can look at their own lives and have doubts, yet still be certain that God's promise is irrevocable.

Does that make sense to you Jac?

God bless,

Byblos.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
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 »

Yes, it does, Byblos, 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.

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. 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.

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? Catholics and Arminians most definitely hold to (2).

Thoughts?
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.
Post Reply