A hypothetical in regards to salvation

[greggy53]

Logically Christianity must have a starting point in time for each one of us.Prior to this starting point in time, were we to die, per orthodox Christian standards we would be in hell away from the presence of Christ.

Per Othodox Christain Standards?? Are you talking Eastern Orhtodox? or what you consider to be "traditional’? According to histoical Christianity (which is Catholic) our Christian journey of Salvation begins with the sacrament of Baptism.

What I hoped this hypothetical would do would be to hone in on the issue of what I as an individual must (not optional) do to receive the gift of eternal life from our Lord Jesus…

You cannot do anything to merit Salvation. We are saved by Grace. Faith then becomes the evidence of that grace from God.

Ephesians 2 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

The reason why this interests me is I have heard it stated that Catholicism is not Christian because they do not believe in “faith alone”. OK…The follow on question in my mind is whether “faith alone” is essential…

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

The other thing that I wanted to do with this hypothetical was to bypass the issue of baptismal regeneration. Now I am not sure I believe in it myself…but…from what I have read from Catholic sources you throw in this little thing called Baptism of Desire. …

This little thing that you say we throw in has been a teaching of Christianity for the better part of 2000 years. I’ts a simple concept. If I’m dying or about to die and cannot receive the sacrament but have the desire then God is gracious and loving and merciful and considers it done.

 

[Gem]

Oh…maybe then the issue is that you as a Catholic use words differently than I do.

So for now, let us bypass what is the correct meaning of salvation.

Now I have heard from Catholic sources that “I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved”. So it is my understanding that per Catholicism all three senses are valid.

Yes, they are all valid, as long as no individual believes he is guaranteed enternal life regardless of any future sins he commits (barring sincere confession).

I think the difficulty here is that you are trying to define a minimum requirement to be a Christian, and the answer is that “it depends”.

Christ gave several “must dos” in the NT: have faith, be baptized, love God, love neighbor, receive the Eucharist, etc. And Paul and the Disciples gave others including be faithful to the Church which is the body of Christ. But obviously, not everyone who is in heaven has done all these things. But here is the point.

God gives commandments for US to follow. So under normal circumstances (long life, time to ponder, life in a community), we are expected to do ALL those things commanded in the NT. However, God is NOT bound by laws given for His people. So for some, a simple repentance in their heart on their deathbed is sufficient for salvation. But for others who recognize Christ’s kingship, we are expected to follow all his commands and expand His kingdom here on earth.

The phrase “faith alone” is found no where in the bible except to say that it is not sufficient (James). But this doesn’t mean that someone on their deathbed cannot be saved. Our beliefs and our road to salvation have to be based on the entire bible and in the Church’s interpretation of it, not on individual ideas pulled from scripture and interpreted privately.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Per Othodox Christain Standards?? Are you talking Eastern Orhtodox? or what you consider to be "traditional’? According to histoical Christianity (which is Catholic) our Christian journey of Salvation begins with the sacrament of Baptism.

So what about the guy who is trusting Jesus for his salvation but has to wait three months before he is baptized because of scheduling problems in the church. What happens if he dies during these three months.

Catholicism (if I understand it correctly) says he spends eternity with Christ because of “baptism of desire.”. So in this case eternal life with Christ begins at the point of belief, not at the point of baptism.

The problem is that this is the model most of us follow. For example I came to faith 6 months before I was baptized. The church I hooked up with didn’t have equipment to do indoor baptisms and it was winter with snow.

Anyway, it is exactly this line of discussion that I wanted to avoid.

The solution to all of this of course is to baptize at the point of belief. But nobody does this.

You cannot do anything to merit Salvation. We are saved by Grace. Faith then becomes the evidence of that grace from God.

Ephesians 2 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

OK. This sounds good. But from reading other posts here, I am sometimes led to a different understanding.

James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

And earlier on in the chapter we read faith without works is dead.

So therefore we can distinguish between dead faith and living faith.

So if you want to rephrase “faith alone” to “living faith alone” to bring James into the discussion I am cool with that. I am not one to insist on my dialect of Christianese.

This little thing that you say we throw in has been a teaching of Christianity for the better part of 2000 years. I’ts a simple concept. If I’m dying or about to die and cannot receive the sacrament but have the desire then God is gracious and loving and merciful and considers it done.

Actually the little thing was reference to Baptism of Desire. The implications of Baptism of Desire (because nobody baptizes at the point of belief) is that eternal life with Jesus starts with the earlier event, not the later event.

Of course the solution is to be like the book of Acts where they did baptize at the point of belief. But nobody does this.

Anyway it is this stuff I didn’t really want to get into.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I think the difficulty here is that you are trying to define a minimum requirement to be a Christian, and the answer is that “it depends”.

Not really. I am asking a simple question. What must happen in order for the initial status of a person’s soul go from (1) spending eternity separated from Christ to (2) spending eternity in the presence of the Lord.

Christ gave several “must dos” in the NT: have faith, be baptized, love God, love neighbor, receive the Eucharist, etc. And Paul and the Disciples gave others including be faithful to the Church which is the body of Christ. But obviously, not everyone who is in heaven has done all these things. But here is the point.

So my question again is…Which of these “must dos” are required to change the initial status of ones soul from “separated from God” to in the “presence of God”. And which of these “must dos” are for later on.

Am I making this that difficult to understand?

God gives commandments for US to follow. So under normal circumstances (long life, time to ponder, life in a community), we are expected to do ALL those things commanded in the NT. However, God is NOT bound by laws given for His people. So for some, a simple repentance in their heart on their deathbed is sufficient for salvation. But for others who recognize Christ’s kingship, we are expected to follow all his commands and expand His kingdom here on earth.

Again which of these commandments are “must dos” in order to change the inital status of ones soul from hellbound to heavenbound, and which of these commandments are “must dos” for later on.

Help me here. I don’t see where I am making my question so difficult to understand?

 

[greggy53]

So what about the guy who is trusting Jesus for his salvation but has to wait three months before he is baptized because of scheduling problems in the church. What happens if he dies during these three months
Catholicism (if I understand it correctly) says he spends eternity with Christ because of “baptism of desire.”. So in this case eternal life with Christ begins at the point of belief, not at the point of baptism…The problem is that this is the model most of us follow. For example I came to faith 6 months before I was baptized. The church I hooked up with didn’t have equipment to do indoor baptisms and it was winter with snow.

You are getting confused by elements of time. The point of belief for the dying man becomes the point of Baptism. God exists outside of time and can see everything at once.

Anyway, it is exactly this line of discussion that I wanted to avoid…

Sorry, just trying to anwer your questions.

So if you want to rephrase “faith alone” to “living faith alone” to bring James into the discussion I am cool with that. I am not one to insist on my dialect of Christianese…

I see no need to re-phrase what St James saw fit to write. In itself it is germane I think to your question of whether faith alone brings salvation…It does not.

Actually the little thing was reference to Baptism of Desire. The implications of Baptism of Desire (because nobody baptizes at the point of belief) is that eternal life with Jesus starts with the earlier event, not the later event…

Like I said above It is all one event to God. He sees it all at once, and forever.

Of course the solution is to be like the book of Acts where they did baptize at the point of belief. But nobody does this…

Except when they baptized infants & children. Then they could not Baptize at the point of belief.

Anyway it is this stuff I didn’t really want to get into

Then what did you want to talk about? I’m all ears

 

[kalt]

I am posing this hypothetical in order to understand to the best of my ability what is the Catholic answer to the question “What must I do to be saved”. I find in my mind hypotheticals can help me drill into answers.

As usual I am not here to debate, just learn and evaluate. I might ask silly questions if I am not getting something though.

Let us suppose there is a man totally uneducated in the things of God alone in a hotel room who stumbles upon a Bible (we will call it a Catholic Bible). He begins to read the gospel concerning Jesus Christ and is somehow touched by the account of his life, death, and subsequent resurrection.

He gets to the part where he reads about the thief on the cross asking Jesus to remember Him when He comes into His kingdom and he also is moved to ask Jesus the same for himself. He remembers much of the wrong that he has done in his life and ask Jesus to forgive him of what he has done wrong.

That night he dies of a heart attack. He is not baptized and has not done any particularly good thing since that prayer. Neither has he done any particularly sinful thing.

Assuming he is sincere in his prayer.

My question is what is the eternal destination of this man. Please ignore purgatory for now because I know those who are in purgatory per Catholicism eventually go to heaven.

Is his eternal destiny heaven or is he still without the Lord. If his eternal destiny is hell, please indicate what else this man should have done in order for him to be with Christ before he died.

Oh one more possibility. If your answer is “I don’t know” please tell me what information I may have omitted from this hypothetical. Perhaps I am being ambiguous here.and I should clarify my hypothetical.

There is baptism of desire.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So what about the guy who is trusting Jesus for his salvation but has to wait three months before he is baptized because of scheduling problems in the church. What happens if he dies during these three months.

Catholicism (if I understand it correctly) says he spends eternity with Christ because of “baptism of desire.”. So in this case eternal life with Christ begins at the point of belief, not at the point of baptism.

The problem is that this is the model most of us follow. For example I came to faith 6 months before I was baptized. The church I hooked up with didn’t have equipment to do indoor baptisms and it was winter with snow.

Anyway, it is exactly this line of discussion that I wanted to avoid.

The solution to all of this of course is to baptize at the point of belief. But nobody does this.

Gabriel of 12;
Catholic Baptism is not just for those who come to a point in their lives of faith. Baptism is entrance into the Kingdom of God, when all Sins including original sin is removed forever by the blood of Jesus, when mercy and grace are given to the new child of God be it an infant or an adult instructed in the faith.

A Catholic baptism does not discriminate against no one but prays and calls all peoples, infants, terminally ill, including those on a death bed to baptism to recieve the free gift of God of the first installment of our eternal inheritance which is the Holy Spirit.

God’s grace does not discriminate, that is why Infants and those at the point of death are freely given this gift from God in baptism at any time.

Baptism is not an act of faith, Baptism is necessary in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

I understand you are not looking for this type of discussion, but I post this to correct your broad statement of being “baptised after coming to belief”, for the thread, because this is not a Christian teaching baptism since the first century.

 

[Gem]

Not really. I am asking a simple question. What must happen in order for the initial status of a person’s soul go from (1) spending eternity separated from Christ to (2) spending eternity in the presence of the Lord.

So my question again is…Which of these “must dos” are required to change the initial status of ones soul from “separated from God” to in the “presence of God”. And which of these “must dos” are for later on.

Am I making this that difficult to understand?

Again which of these commandments are “must dos” in order to change the inital status of ones soul from hellbound to heavenbound, and which of these commandments are “must dos” for later on.

Help me here. I don’t see where I am making my question so difficult to understand?

Why is “it depends” such a bad answer? A pagan, completely ignorant of Christ could possibly be unwittingly saved through Christ’s sacrifice by doing nothing other than worshiping a universal god as best as he conceives him without the benefit of revelation. This is up to God to decide in His justice.

However, we HAVE been told the good news and so it it binding on us. So, for people who have heard the Gospel, the first things one must do are repent, believe and be baptized (and by “baptism” I include the baptism of desire which God extends to those for whom physical baptism is impossible) And by “repent and believe” I also include the vicarious belief of parents for their infant children. (This is a parallel to circumcision as beginning membership in God’s family). If anyone were to die at this point, they would go to heaven.

However, most people don’t. So the other things I described are then binding on Christians from that day forward to the extent that they are honestly aware of them. It is for this reason that physical baptism is delayed to that catechumens are fully aware of the obligations they are undertaking.

 

[NotTooSmart]

You are getting confused by elements of time. The point of belief for the dying man becomes the point of Baptism. God exists outside of time and can see everything at once.

OK. Let me ask you this question.

I came to faith in Christ in November. I was baptized in May the next year.

Now if I had died between November and May.

If you are saying I would be in hell because I had not been baptized, then we have big issues.

If you are saying that I would be in heaven because of my faith in Christ (provided my faith is sincere and I am not in mortal sin), then we are good. One of the respondents to this thread said this. And we are good.

If you are saying you don’t know then I would have to ask why.

If you then say because you don’t know my heart and don’t know for sure whether I am sincere, then we are good.

If you say because you don’t know whether in my case my faith is enough (assuming I am not in mortal sin and my faith is sincere) then again we have issues.

Because then you are saying that my faith is not sufficient for the state of my soul to initially change from lost and going to hell to in heaven with the presence of the Lord. You are saying that some combination of works is required along with my faith to initially change the status of my soul from lost to found. We have issues.

Now, I don’t think this is what your church teaches from what I have read of the best of your apologists…Dave Armstrong??.. (is the name of this Pelagianism). But who knows, I could be wrong.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I understand you are not looking for this type of discussion, but I post this to correct your broad statement of being “baptised after coming to belief”, for the thread, because this is not a Christian teaching baptism since the first century.

Now we can have a separate discussion on whether God designed baptism to be an event later and separate from belief or an event to be simultaneous to belief. That would be interesting in itself.

But irregardless (I know that is not a word), in real life belief does occur before baptism. It happens in your church (probably) and it happens in mine. I know that because that is the way it was in my life.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Why is “it depends” such a bad answer?

Because if you are saying that faith in Christ is not sufficient to change the initial status of my soul from lost and going to hell to spending eternity with Christ, then we have issues.

As I say, that is not the impression I have gotten from the Catholic apologists that I have read. But that is the impression I am getting from some of you here.

Maybe I have to go back and reread your apologists. Maybe I was cutting Catholics more slack in my thinking than I should have been. But then again, maybe some of you all are not even understanding your own faith. Who knows.

 

[greggy53]

OK. Let me ask you this question.

I came to faith in Christ in November. I was baptized in May the next year.

Now if I had died between November and May…

The Catholic Church teaches us that Baptism is an essential part of salvation.
When you were Baptized you became a member of the body of Christ.
If you had died before you could have been baptized, but had come to believe in Jesus, and had full intention of being baptized the Church teaches that God in his mercy and knowing your heart would have welcomed you as having been baptized. (Baptism of desire)This is Catholic teaching. I don’t know if any Protestant Churches profess that. I don’t know that they believe that Baptism in necessary for salvation because many of them do not believe that Baptism is sacramental. But the Catholic Church teaches that you must be baptized because the scriptures say so. At what point in TIME and in what form that baptism takes places is incidental, and in the hands of a merciful God.

Because then you are saying that my faith is not sufficient for the state of my soul to initially change from lost and going to hell to in heaven with the presence of the Lord. You are saying that some combination of works is required along with my faith to initially change the status of my soul from lost to found. We have issues. …

Well, I know you don’t want to discuss Purgatory, so I’ll leave this alone for now.

Now, I don’t think this is what your church teaches from what I have read of the best of your apologists…Dave Armstrong??.. (is the name of this Pelagianism). But who knows, I could be wrong.

As for our best apologists, I don’t know who Dave Armstrong is, and I am not familiar with the term Pelagianism?? But the list of our best teachers contains hundreds and hundreds of saints and spans 2000 years of Christian faith.

 

[NotTooSmart]

The Catholic Church teaches us that Baptism is an essential part of salvation.
When you were Baptized you became a member of the body of Christ.
If you had died before you could have been baptized, but had come to believe in Jesus, and had full intention of being baptized the Church teaches that God in his mercy and knowing your heart would have welcomed you as having been baptized. (Baptism of desire)This is Catholic teaching. I don’t know if any Protestant Churches profess that. I don’t know that they believe that Baptism in necessary for salvation because many of them do not believe that Baptism is sacramental. But the Catholic Church teaches that you must be baptized because the scriptures say so. At what point in TIME and in what form that baptism takes places is incidental, and in the hands of a merciful God.

Of course the bolded part is key. Now I have always felt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism as necessary for salvation are inconsistent with each other. But who am I to criticize.

Well, I know you don’t want to discuss Purgatory, so I’ll leave this alone for now.

Actually have at it if you think it is relevant. I will plug in judgement seat of Christ when you say purgatory. The two concepts are not all that far from each other.

As for our best apologists, I don’t know who Dave Armstrong is, and I am not familiar with the term Pelagianism?? But the list of our best teachers contains hundreds and hundreds of saints and spans 2000 years of Christian faith.

Well here is his website. I see it has been revamped, but somewhere he used to have links to a whole bunch of papers he has written.

My review of him is that while he is not convincing in respect to (1) your denomination being the one true church and superior to everybody else (2) many of the other Catholic distinctives, at the same time he is quite convincing in respect to (1) maybe your denomination is not the spawn of Satan that some would have me believe (2) maybe your distinctives (that I don’t buy into) are not quite as evil that some would have me believe they are. In other words the case against Catholicism is often way overdone (not that you all don’t overdo stuff either).

 

[Lapey]

NotTooSmart:
The apple tree was much less confusing!!!

 

[greggy53]

Of course the bolded part is key. Now I have always felt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism as necessary for salvation are inconsistent with each other. But who am I to criticize.

There is ample scriptural evidence that Baptism is an essential part of the Salvation process. Do you reject this?

 

[NotTooSmart]

There is ample scriptural evidence that Baptism is an essential part of the Salvation process. Do you reject this?

Well what I strongly do not believe is that having faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient to initially make the transition from lost and and going to hell to found and spending eternity with Christ. Instead that God makes you wait 6 months later until you are baptized before this gap is bridged. This is certainly not my experience and (from what I understand) not the teaching of your denomination. This is (at least from my understanding) part of the teaching of the “Church of Christ” denomination, and assuming it is, I strongly object to it.

After this point, well let’s just say I have a few silly, little questions that I could ask folks on all sides of the issue. But that is another day. The issue is not that important to me.

 

[greggy53]

Well what I strongly do not believe is that having faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient to initially make the transition from lost and and going to hell to found and spending eternity with Christ. Instead that God makes you wait 6 months later until you are baptized before this transition is bridged. This is certainly not my experience and (from what I understand) not the teaching of your denomination.

After this point, well let’s just say I have a few silly, little questions that I could ask folks on all sides of the issue. But that is another day. The issue is not that important to me.

I was taught by the Church that Baptism is essential for salvation. As far as I know it is still part of Church teaching. If you have evidence that the Church has changed it’s position on this please let me know.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I was taught by the Church that Baptism is essential for salvation. As far as I know it is still part of Church teaching. If you have evidence that the Church has changed it’s position on this please let me know.

You mean you are not aware of “Baptism of Desire”?

Or are you saying that (back to my hypothetical) that Baptism is absolutely necessary to change the initial status of my soul from lost and going to hell to found and going to heaven. And therefore that God would have sent this poor fellow to hell because he had not gotten baptized.

Could you please put this in terms I understand. Either it is that way or it is not that way.

This is all very confusing to me. One minute I get the impression that under my hypothetical God would not let the poor fellow in because he was not baptized. The next minute I get the impression that he is cool because of Baptism of Desire. Which is it?

 

[greggy53]

You mean you are not aware of “Baptism of Desire”?

You are joking of course. We have been talking about this for a while now. You said you don’t accept Baptism as essential to Salvation. You also said that my “denomination” says the same thing. I told you there was ample scriptural evidence for it, and that the Catholic Church definitely holds that Baptism is required. I asked you for evidence to back your statement. The crux of the matter is many Protestants believe that all that is required for salvation is a “born again” experience. Therefore Baptism, and all the other sacraments become secondary and even inconsequential. Is that your position?

 

[NotTooSmart]

You are joking of course. We have been talking about this for a while now. You said you don’t accept Baptism as essential to Salvation.

Actually I said I don’t believe in baptism as essential to bridge the initial gap between without Christ and with Christ. I say that because I understand that with Catholicism the word “salvation” has a present and future sense to it and I don’t want to get hung up with different definitions of the same word. In other words I don’t want both of our dialects of Christianese to get in the way of me understanding this.

You also said that my “denomination” says the same thing.

That is because your denomination has this “Baptism of Desire”. If your denomination said that baptism was absolutely essential to bridge this initial gap, then there would be no Baptism of Desire.

I told you there was ample scriptural evidence for it, and that the Catholic Church definitely holds that Baptism is required.

So there is no such thing as “Baptism of Desire”? Honestly, you all are making this very confusing to me. I honestly do not know what to think.

The crux of the matter is many Protestants believe that all that is required for salvation is a “born again” experience.

Let us take experience out of the equation, that is way too subjective. And while we are at it, let’s use for now a different word than “salvation” since I think our traditions use it in a different sense and I don’t want to get bogged down with different dialects of “Christianese”.

What I am saying is all that is necessary to bridge the initial gap from a human soul being separate from Christ and destined to hell to a human soul destined for eternal life with Christ (this is what we call salvation…you might call something else and use the word salvation in a different sense) is genuine, living, faith in the person of Jesus Christ.

If baptism was required as part of the equation to bridge this initial separation from God, then there would be no hope for the poor fellow in my hypothetical. He would find himself in hell. But that is not what Catholicism teaches. Or at least it is not what I have read. But at this point who knows. You guys are making this very confusing for me (remember I am NotTooSmart).

Therefore Baptism, and all the other sacraments become secondary and even inconsequential. Is that your position?

Actually I don’t have a firm, solid position concerning all issues pertaining to baptism. For example I don’t really have biggie issues with the Lutheran understanding of baptism. I do have issues though with the Church of Christ understanding of baptism.