Catholics and Non Catholics

[Felgar]

K, Jac hasn't responded in a while so let me flip this around. I think I've shown that people can place an importance on works but this importance is not seen as earning salvation and therefore doesn't take away from one's faith in Jesus. But I was reading another thread from back in January, in which Byblos posted this excerpt from Jon Jackoblich:

Those who make it to Purgatory, die in the state of grace. They are the friends of God, who before death, were guilty of venial sin(s) or they failed to do sufficient penance for sins already forgiven.

The Catechism describes it as a process and not a place of purification after death for the saved. To claim that you are assured of your salvation and entrance into Heaven because you simply believe in Jesus is blasphemy.

...

So, why do non-Catholics reject a teaching so full of consolation? My guess is that they want to believe that the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin; hence the believer will go at once to Heaven (also known as the belief called Sola Fide or faith alone).

Nowhere in the Bible dos it say faith alone. This is un-Scriptural, since Christ tells us that to enter into life we must keep the commandments, hear the Church, do the will of His Father and much more with faith. Yes, actions plus faith.

K, in particular the parts in bold are troubling and definately are contrary to the understanding of the statement: "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?"

This statement says nothing more than: "the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin", in the form of saying "His sacrifice on the cross has redeemed you of your sin"... And this fundamental belief seems to be in direct opposition to Jon's quote above. Notice at the end the very assertion: "to enter life we must keep the commandments ... yes, actions plus faith."

Sorry to always pick on you Byblos but for better or worse you are representive of Catholicism, and honestly I've been nothing but impressed at how well you handle such "accusational" (for lack of a better word) topics...

The question I have, is how could this possibly be reconciled with Jon's statements, and ultimately who does represent the true Catholic Church. Jon's whole quote would certainly seem to be contending that as individuals we have to 'make up' for our sins before God and ultimately that we can earn his righteousness. It's his whole argument for Perdition: Where else could we make up for our sins?

This line of thinking is exactly what Jac warns about and I completely agree with him here. WE can NEVER make up for our own sins, and if we believe we can, then in fact we are trusting our own ability and not trusting Jesus' redemption for our salvation. And that in fact, is most certainly heresy.

[Byblos]

K, Jac hasn't responded in a while so let me flip this around. I think I've shown that people can place an importance on works but this importance is not seen as earning salvation and therefore doesn't take away from one's faith in Jesus. But I was reading another thread from back in January, in which Byblos posted this excerpt from Jon Jackoblich:

Those who make it to Purgatory, die in the state of grace. They are the friends of God, who before death, were guilty of venial sin(s) or they failed to do sufficient penance for sins already forgiven.

The Catechism describes it as a process and not a place of purification after death for the saved. To claim that you are assured of your salvation and entrance into Heaven because you simply believe in Jesus is blasphemy.

...

So, why do non-Catholics reject a teaching so full of consolation? My guess is that they want to believe that the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin; hence the believer will go at once to Heaven (also known as the belief called Sola Fide or faith alone).

Nowhere in the Bible dos it say faith alone. This is un-Scriptural, since Christ tells us that to enter into life we must keep the commandments, hear the Church, do the will of His Father and much more with faith. Yes, actions plus faith.

I spent some time looking for the thread and finally found it here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ght=#27242

It's a pretty long quote from Jon Jackoblich that I posted in support of purgatory rather than on salvation. I will confess I didn't delve into the quote in its entirety and the fact that it contains some contradictions. On the one hand he says that 'Those who make it to Purgatory, die in the state of grace' and 'a process of purification after death for the saved'; and the very next statement he says 'To claim that you are assured of your salvation and entrance into Heaven because you simply believe in Jesus is blasphemy'. That last one he's still talking about people in purgatory. Well, which one is it? Are people in purgatory saved (assured of their salvation) or are they not? The catholic catechism teaches that souls in purgatory are most definitely saved (those who died in a state of grace) but are not in a pure enough state to enter heaven (as nothing impure can enter heaven). In Protestant terms, I would think of purgatory as the Bema Seat Judgment where christians will have to answer for their deeds. They are saved but as though through fire (some type of discomfort is suggested). Clearly Jackoblich is confused about who goes to purgatory and who doesn't.

K, in particular the parts in bold are troubling and definately are contrary to the understanding of the statement: "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?"

This statement says nothing more than: "the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin", in the form of saying "His sacrifice on the cross has redeemed you of your sin"... And this fundamental belief seems to be in direct opposition to Jon's quote above. Notice at the end the very assertion: "to enter life we must keep the commandments ... yes, actions plus faith."

I can almost understand from what misguided perspective he's saying that since the RCC has not done nearly enough to correct such thinking. The misguided perspective is that scripture contains ample evidence of both salvation by faith as well as works of charity and love. He (and so many other catholics) erroneously link the 2 together with salvation whereas the truth as it should be emphasized by the catholic church, and as evidenced by the pope's statement to the Lutheran church and by the catholic catechism, is that salvation is by faith, not works. Where does that leave works? Obviously they are the outward signs of a good faith and meritorious of heavenly rewards (either at the Bema Seat judgment or purgatory or some other such in between).

Sorry to always pick on you Byblos but for better or worse you are representive of Catholicism, and honestly I've been nothing but impressed at how well you handle such "accusational" (for lack of a better word) topics...

You can pick on me any time and thank you Felgar for the sentiment, I appreciate that. And since I'm probably the only catholic left on this site, I guess that makes me the de facto Catholic rep.

The question I have, is how could this possibly be reconciled with Jon's statements, and ultimately who does represent the true Catholic Church. Jon's whole quote would certainly seem to be contending that as individuals we have to 'make up' for our sins before God and ultimately that we can earn his righteousness. It's his whole argument for Perdition: Where else could we make up for our sins?

This line of thinking is exactly what Jac warns about and I completely agree with him here. WE can NEVER make up for our own sins, and if we believe we can, then in fact we are trusting our own ability and not trusting Jesus' redemption for our salvation. And that in fact, is most certainly heresy.

I took a top-down approach answering this thread. I hope I answered your question above.

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Gman]

This line of thinking is exactly what Jac warns about and I completely agree with him here. WE can NEVER make up for our own sins, and if we believe we can, then in fact we are trusting our own ability and not trusting Jesus' redemption for our salvation.

I would agree with this also.. Our goodness (if any) would never stack up to the goodness of Christ and I think God would turn us into swiss cheese if we ever thought that, (and rightfully so).

But heresy? To make it clearer, I don't know... There are sometimes when that thought may have crossed my mind. I believe that the belief that trusting in one's own ability is wrong but as for the person doing it, well don't we all at sometime in our lives (or even as a believer) trust in our own ability outside of Christ? If so then we are ALL heretics, right?

G -

[bizzt]

This line of thinking is exactly what Jac warns about and I completely agree with him here. WE can NEVER make up for our own sins, and if we believe we can, then in fact we are trusting our own ability and not trusting Jesus' redemption for our salvation.

I would agree with this also.. Our goodness (if any) would never stack up to the goodness of Christ and I think God would turn us into swiss cheese if we ever thought that, (and rightfully so).

But heresy? To make it clearer, I don't know... There are sometimes when that thought may have crossed my mind. I believe that the belief that trusting in one's own ability is wrong but as for the person doing it, well don't we all at sometime in our lives (or even as a believer) trust in our own ability outside of Christ? If so then we are ALL heretics, right?

G -

Rom 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;

[Byblos]

This line of thinking is exactly what Jac warns about and I completely agree with him here. WE can NEVER make up for our own sins, and if we believe we can, then in fact we are trusting our own ability and not trusting Jesus' redemption for our salvation.

I would agree with this also.. Our goodness (if any) would never stack up to the goodness of Christ and I think God would turn us into swiss cheese if we ever thought that, (and rightfully so).

But heresy? To make it clearer, I don't know... There are sometimes when that thought may have crossed my mind. I believe that the belief that trusting in one's own ability is wrong but as for the person doing it, well don't we all at sometime in our lives (or even as a believer) trust in our own ability outside of Christ? If so then we are ALL heretics, right?

G -

Rom 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;

My sentiments exactly.

[Felgar]

But heresy? To make it clearer, I don't know... There are sometimes when that thought may have crossed my mind. I believe that the belief that trusting in one's own ability is wrong but as for the person doing it, well don't we all at sometime in our lives (or even as a believer) trust in our own ability outside of Christ?

The trust I am speaking of is in our own ability to obtain God's righteousness. If we try to do that (like the pharisees) we aren't trusting in Jesus for it, and therefore we aren't believing in his gospel. Outside of of salvation we have many abilities, esspecially with the added help of the Holy Spirit, but that's not a salvation issue.

The misguided perspective is that scripture contains ample evidence of both salvation by faith as well as works of charity and love. He (and so many other catholics) erroneously link the 2 together with salvation whereas the truth as it should be emphasized by the catholic church, and as evidenced by the pope's statement to the Lutheran church and by the catholic catechism, is that salvation is by faith, not works. Where does that leave works? Obviously they are the outward signs of a good faith and meritorious of heavenly rewards (either at the Bema Seat judgment or purgatory or some other such in between).

I agree 100%, and once again I think we've shown how those of Catholic faith can still be completely trusting in Jesus (and therefore the Gospel) while at the same having a strong emphasis on works. With the RCC esspecially, one could enter it discourse into whether all of the dogma and inherently works-based rituals detract from the true message of the gospel, but honestly that's another thread for another day and we've talked about it in the past also. So let's let sleeping dogs lie...

Thanks once again for your patience and peristance Byblos. It's a comfort to know that Catholics most certainly can be brothers and sisters in Christ.

P.S. Sorry I forgot to inlcude that link; I was going to because I had it right there but it slipped my mind.

[Jac3510]

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.

Of course people haven't been saved only sense the Reformation. The Gospel has always been the same . . . believe in Jesus for your salvation and you have it. Have there been a great, great number of people who thought they were saved because of their ritualism through the years as tought by the Catholic church? Absolutely. But there has always been a remnant who have believed and taught that salvation was by faith alone. The idea just didn't get any traction until Luther came on the scene. It will be sad to see just how many souls have been lost by the false doctrine espoused by the RCC and other such "Christian" denominations.

As far as when the the church went wrong, it didn't take long. We have quotes as early as the second century that works were necessary to be, or stay, saved. Baptism was thought to be required. Repentance and confession were absolutes. Mass became to mode by which a person received grace. Cyprian stated very early, and rightly, that only those in the church were saved, but he wrongly qualified that idea by stating that the church was in the bishops, and therefore, those not in agreement with the bishops were lost. Thus, we have another condition of salvation.

The simple message of faith alone was actually perverted in the apostles' age. Remember the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, or the Judaizers that Paul fought against and wrote against in Galatians, or the proto-gnostocism Peter dealt with, or the heresies promoted by apostates from the apostolic circle John condemned . . . all these furnish great examples of the fact that people do not want to believe the simple Gospel, which is that salvation is by grace through faith alone.

Now . . .

Felgar:

I'm not going to go through this and line by line all these replies. Let me just remind you of something about RCC faith and then make the application more generally. They make a distinction between initial salvation and progressive salvation. To that extent, they are correct. Justification is by faith alone, which they affirm. Sanctification is by our working with Christ. They affirm this as well. However, they view sanctification being completed as necessary to keep their justification. In other words, one can be justified, and then later condemned. If they trust Christ alone to save them, but if they later do certain evil things, they lose that salvation. They lose that justification.

Think about that idea carefully. You said it yourself, that if they believe that continued faith was necessary, then they are advocating salvation by works. Thus, you stating "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" is simply wrong. The "salvation" Byblos thinks he has received is not the Salvation offered by Christ. The salvation Jesus offers is COMPLETE.

Here's an example I heard some time ago with reference to Catholic theology:

Suppose you are tied to a railroad track and a train is barreling down on you. Someone comes and cuts you free. You are "saved." However, in Catholic thought, you can still be killed by the train. You have to get off the tracks. Oh, right now it is ten minutes away, so you are "safe," but there is a HUGE difference in being "safe" and being "saved." See, Catholics don't believe in being saved from Hell. They believe in being safe from it, so long as they persevere in faith and good works. Jesus doesn't offer "safe" though. He offers "saved" or He doesn't offer it at all. That is the very definition of the offer: everlasting life. Byblos hasn't believed in Jesus for that, so far as I can tell. If he believes now, and has always believed, that salvation has to be maintained, then he has not accepted the simple gospel.

Now, I understand and appreciate you concern and desire to open the gates of salvation to a wider audience. However, I would strongly encourage you to consider what you are saying. What does it mean, Felgar, to "trust in Jesus." What do we have to trust Him for? What is the sin qua non of the Gospel? What must a person believe to be saved? Jesus said that narrow is the way to salvation, and few find it. Why is it so narrow? Why do few find it? Because that gate is faith alone in Christ alone. Christ Himself is the gate, not Christ and our works. Christ and His gift is the gate, not Christ, His gift, and our commitment to it. Don't water down the gospel.

[Felgar]

You said it yourself, that if they believe that continued faith was necessary, then they are advocating salvation by works. Thus, you stating "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" is simply wrong.

You are not drawing a distinction between doubting and complete rejection of God. As I pointed out, it's ludricous to think that mere doubts would interfere with anyone's justification. What they are saying is that if someone delibrately and purposefully chooses to reject Jesus and the Holy Spirit then God will honor that choice. First, very very few people would ever do that. And second, what happens in that situation is not entirely biblically clear. I think they're still justified but a difference of opinion in that matter is not a salvation issue...

Why? Because of my second sentance above. No one is saying that they are earning their justification by staying in the faith; they are just saying that they would also have the capability to reject Jesus even after accepting him. It's in no way a type of works-based salvation. Belief is not a work. Belief is not a work for us, and it's not a work for them. It has nothing at all to do with works Jac - nothing.

If someone came in and answered "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?" with "Yes, so long as I continue to do good works" then you would have a point, but that's not what's being said here Jac. Let me remind you what's actually being said:

The meaning did not change my understanding of the question in any way, nor did it change my answer.
...
I can say that my belief is that salvation is by grace through faith. (notice the period).

Honestly your position seems extremely legalistic Jac, which is ironic since that's the very thing that Free Grace would promise to do away with. Believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself for your sins and accept his offer of salvation. So long as it's understood that one cannot earn salvation of their own accord then there is nothing to worry about.

We are at an impass here because you cannot accept the idea that somone can be trusting in Jesus while also having an emphasis on the maintanence of faith and on holy living. But intellectual understanding of all of these theoligical matters need not interfere with one's fundamental belief in Jesus as their saviour. In the end, that's what it comes down to...

[Byblos]

Felgar, I totally agree with you. Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly.

Jac, if you're saying works are completely uncessary for salvation then I am in total agreement. That is how I see my faith. If you're saying, apart from salvation, works are unnecessary or unscriptural then I definitely disagree. As far as OSAS is concerned, I will confess it's still a mystery to me but the way I've come to reconcile it with my faith is that, as Felgar said, very few will actually choose to reject their salvation, and so OSAS will hold true for the vast majority. For those unfortunate few, they simply were not sincere in their confession of faith and therefore never received the gift of salvation to begin with.

[Jac3510]

Felgar, you missed my point that time around. RC's believe that initial salvation, that is, justification, is by faith alone. However, they believe that to maintain that justification, they have to do works. Now, they reconcile that statement in a variety of ways, but in the end, for a Catholic, it is possible to fall from a state of grace. It is possible to once be "saved" and then at a later time be "unsaved." It is possible to be initially justified and then lose that justification, resulting in damnation.

Therefore, by definition, they do not believe in eternal security. Note my rephrasal which you quoted above:

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?"

Catholic dogma rejects the part in bold. Trusting Christ does not SECURE your salvation, because it can be lost. Nothing secures it except a life lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Again, we can play theological word games with doctrines like perseverance and preservation, but as Byblos has so pointedly reminded us, the difference in Protestants who accept them and Catholics is practically zero. The result of a person who does not persevere in the faith is the same in both systems: damnation.

What I am saying, Felgar (and to you, Byblos), is that the offer of Christ is NOT temporary salvation. The offer of Christ is final, total, unequivocal salvation that cannot be lost. If you have not received from Christ eternal life, then you then you are not saved. Let's put that even more plainly: if you have not trusted Christ to give you a life that cannot be lost, no matter what you do or don't do in the future, then you have not received from Christ what He has offered.

Now, you say this is legalistic. It is the furthest thing from it. What I AM saying is that you have to receive the gift from God that God offers. You also have to receive it on God's terms. Take my own salvation. When I was six years old, I understood that Jesus paid the price for my sins, and because of that, I could "go to heaven." In my six year old mind, I pictured Jesus offering me a present, and that present was life in Heaven, forever. What did I have to do to get it? I had to simply take it. And I did. Jesus said if I believed in Him I had everlasting life, so I took it. I believed in OSAS from the day I was saved. Now, it wasn't until later that I understood all the theological reasons that we cannot lose our salvation, but the point is that at six years old, I received from Christ a particular gift: everlasting life that I knew couldn't be lost. It was the nature of what I was receiving.

But let's take this "legalistic" charge to its logical conclusion, shall we? Let's say that you are right. I know that you believe in OSAS, Felgar. So, what you are saying to me is that you don't have to understand WHAT you are receiving from Christ. You just have to trust Him for something. What if you don't understand what it means to forgive? You know, there are some people who say, "I can forgive you, but I won't forget what you did!" If they receive from God "forgiveness" that is the type where God still holds them accountable, then have they received "forgiveness" at all? Or further, since we don't have to have a solid understanding of what we are receiving, do we have to have a solid understanding of who we are receiving it from? Can I believe that Jesus was just a nice guy? Maybe Jesus never existed at all, but God is offering to forgive me, and He uses this nice fairy tale to express that idea. So, I trust "Jesus" to "forgive" me, so now I really do "believe in Jesus!" Am I saved? And if you say to me, "No, no . . . you have to have the right Jesus!" What if I say to you, "Felgar, you are being legalistic!"

There is nothing legalistic about understanding what the Person is promising. That is why we have to preach the Gospel. We have to make it clear so that people can choose to accept or reject it. Let me just use a real life, live-action example:

Byblos, I have a question for you:

Jesus Christ has offered you everlasting life, and by everlasting life, I mean that no matter what you do or don't do in the future, no matter what you believe or don't believe in the future, NO MATTER WHAT, this life will not end. This life Jesus offers guarantees that you will live forever in heaven in the very presence of God. All you have to do is receive it from Him. You don't have to do anything else. Nothing whatsoever. Not now, not in the future. All you have to do is to believe in Him to give to you what He promised. Do you believe that?

If not, why not?

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

Just curious. Can you reference a Patristic father or writings that show a OSAS position in the 4th century or earlier?

I don't recall that I ever ran accross it, but then I haven't looked for it either.

Thanks,

Bart

[Jac3510]

Minus Scripture, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. The early church fathers got away from salvation by faith alone almost immediately by making things like baptism (to wash away original sin) and conformity with the bishops (Cyprian) all necessary to being saved. The idea was that if you were to be saved, you had to be in the church. Thus, those who were outside of the church, be it by choice or be excommunication, were not saved.

The entire idea of OSAS didn't become popular until the Reformation, that I am aware of. Byblos may have some more info on that, but I'm pretty sure the historical position has been what I've outlined above. Cyprian would probably be the best place for you to look, though. I see if I can dig up some especially relevant quotes later this week. My computer that has the ones I'm thinking of is down. I don't want to quote without being able to reference. The ideas are clearly stated as above, though. For the record, Cyprian is the one who said that outside the Church, there is no salvation, although that translation may not be the best. Regardless, it's been adopted by the RCC and defined and redefined since then . . . I don't want to get any more detailed without exact references, though.

[FFC]

Jac. Question for you. If a person believes Christ for eternal life, believes in once saved always saved, but then later down the road talks to an Arminian and decides that maybe his theology is wrong, and that it is possible for one to lose their salvation. Is that person truly saved?

[Jac3510]

If a person has believed in Jesus for eternal life, then they have it. It doesn't matter what they do in the future. They still have it. There are serious consequences for denying the gospel at a later date, as Heb. 10:26-31 and other such passages make clear. But, those consequences do not include hell. They relate to temporal punishment as well as loss of rewards in heaven.

To be saved, you believe in Jesus for eternal life. If you've never believed in Jesus for eternal life, then you aren't saved. That's the Gospel.

edit: As an aside, you can't believe in Jesus for "eternal life" without also believing OSAS - it's a logical necessity. To believe in eternal life is to believe in OSAS. You aren't believing in Him for conditional life. You aren't believing in Him for eternal life that you get in the future if you maintain you faith. You are believing in Him to give you eternal life right now. A life that ends isn't eternal, is it? So, as has been pointed out, if eternal life can be lost, then it has the wrong name.

[Byblos]

Byblos, I have a question for you:

Jesus Christ has offered you everlasting life, and by everlasting life, I mean that no matter what you do or don't do in the future, no matter what you believe or don't believe in the future, NO MATTER WHAT, this life will not end. This life Jesus offers guarantees that you will live forever in heaven in the very presence of God. All you have to do is receive it from Him. You don't have to do anything else. Nothing whatsoever. Not now, not in the future. All you have to do is to believe in Him to give to you what He promised. Do you believe that?

If not, why not?

If I don't have to do anything else, nothing at all, then my answer is yes, I believe it without question (by the way, I certainly do not see baptism as a work, it is simply an expression of the faith, much like confessing with your mouth that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour is a confession of the faith. But that's for a different thread anyway).

The question though is not whether or not if I don't do anything will I still be saved?. The question is if my life degenerates into an evil one, am I still saved? Or better yet, was I ever saved? As I said before, the jury's still out on that one as far as I'm concerned. It's not so much that I am doubting Jesus' offer of eternal salvation. It's that in my human limitation, I will be doubting myself that I ever received this offer to begin with. Worse yet, I can use it as an excuse to commit all kinds of atrocities then turn around and say to God you don't have a choice, you must save me. Whether or not it will turn out that I still am will be up to God and no one else. I hate to keep saying this Jac, but I will refer you back to the Hitler analogy. If he were saved in his youth then he'd be in heaven as we speak. While it may not be up to me or you, I would have a very hard time sharing any heavenly space with him. And again, it's not that that is not the case; it's that I, as a God-fearing human being and as a Christian, cannot accept it as a premise, only due to my own limitations and insecurities.