Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[jcrichton]

The creed uses catholic as an adjective ,not a noun .Any genuine believer/saint is “catholic” and in accordance with the Nicene usage.
To say I am a Baptist "catholic’ or a Catholic “catholic”, or an Orthodox “catholic” is interpretive and ok and equally inclusive to the Creed usage To infer that the adjective “catholic” in the creed is actually referring to only your Church , turning into a noun, is a misrepresentation of the Creed. To infer that your church is the only church exclusively fulfilling all those church adjectives in the Creed is interpretive . The fruit of the latter has been some good, some bad, and some ugly thru out your history ( as is with most churches-you are not alone).

…the problem with your premise is that you want to defy the Apostolic Succession while claiming apostolic authority to defy apostolic succession… “Catholic” does mean universal… but not simply geographically… Catholic means universal in Faith Base Belief… something the non-Catholic Christians cannot even begin to claim as they hold a smorgasbord of beliefs which not only contradict the Catholic Church but each other… so their “catholicity” just simply runs out… fyi: it happened at the very offset of Luther’s rejection of the Catholic Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If you truly believe in Christ as your savior and Lord and I do also, are we not One ? Are we not part of the same Body ? Why do you seem to say there are different Bodies of Christ ?

…there’s but One Body… but when you hold a belief that differs from Scripture and from my belief then we cannot both the holding the Truth… when your belief is passed down from someone who opposes what has been established for nearly 2000 years than your belief cannot be complete or must be in error… asking for the Body of Christ to exist in thousands of pieces that do not converge into a single Union is to deny Christ’s Commandment to BE ONE!

The Apostolic Missions did not create multiple of faith base culture/churches… as St. Paul stated:

16 That is why I urge you to take me as your pattern 17 and why I have sent you Timothy, a dear and faithful son to me in the Lord, who will remind you of my principles of conduct in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. (1 Corinthians 4:16-17)

…multiple patterns, multiple principles, multiple conducts do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t think a Protestant knowingly would reject scripture…it is their stronghold. But, they can certainly misunderstand its meaning, as there are a wide variety of Protestant interpretations of scripture. Each denomination thinks they alone have it right …basing this on scripture …quoting scripture which says " the HS will guide you unto all truth".

However, the Old Prof past posts indicate he comes to this topic with open mind. He has already stated that if Judas could be proven a true believer …he would see the fallacy of his position and possibly assume the Catholic viewpoint.
.

…but that’s just it… he truly has not shown that he has an open mind… I have engaged him a multitude of times and he simply ignores every single passage that denies his preconception of Salvation and free will; even when he purports that one simply needs to show him… he refuses to let go of his preconceptions… and the language he uses, while not double minded, is misleading because he both pretends to be able to listen/read with an uncompromised mind while he attacks the Church and what she Teaches…

…a simple point is God’s Omnipotence… time and again it has been explained to him that Catholics know that God is Omnipotent… yet he keeps muddling the issue of man’s free will and God’s Omnipotence (it’s the old ‘by faith alone theater’).

…as for Judas, he continues to deny that Jesus actually elected him (separated him from the world) and that he wilfully rejected Christ–‘he only rejected Christ cause he was not a believer’… yet, as most, continues to hold Judas to the mind set of a Believer (‘if only he would have turned to Jesus’)… it is this double dealing that cannot allow a person to reach true breakthroughs!

…don’t get me wrong… Christianity, as Catholicism, is for all… and it is Christ’s Command that we all be one in Him as He is One with the Father… so I always pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten us all so that all of us may become members of the One Body… sadly, pride gets in the way and Christians continue to believe that a shattered body is just as good as a Whole! :crying::crying::crying::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

What is more self serving potentially, a church that says it is the only true one or a church that says that any believer is part of the “church”. What is more self serving, a church that says salvation is thru it’s church, or a church that says salvation is thru a personal positive encounter with Jesus Christ himself ? What is more self serving a church that says the only full encounter and life with Christ is exclusive to itself or a church that says the encounter and fullness could be with a number of churches ? Is there such a thing as a second class citizen/journey ,ship to heaven, or would it be a self serving church that claims first class mother ship status… As far as the 325 ad church neither of us looks exactly like them. For sure they were diversified and in doctrine would say it was still universal, not exclusive yet and not opposed to any current protestant doctrine. SS was not needed then for the church had not stayed from scripture yet. Calvin was not needed then either for the church was not yet imbued heavily into works and rites and sacraments, certainly not seven.

…you continue to miss the point: Luther: ‘hey, I am the authority… no man can come to God but through me… because it is by my faith alone!’ Calvin ‘no, no, no, I am… and just for that no man can be Saved but those that I deem that God has predestined to be Saved… take that Luther!’ …the myriads of popes from the myriads of faith base Christian communities: 'nope, nope… we voted… it is we, I… I mean me… wait, us… OK the ones that are on this side… no wait, the ones that Baptize… or perhaps those speaking in… nah, nah, the first… not second… not the mega… yeah that’s it… the mega… wait not them, us, I… wait… wait… God is love so God wants everyone however they want to be… yeah that’s the ticket! Com’n, I can hear the Holy Spirit… just follow me…

…get it? It’s as Jesus said… the blind following the blind… a multiple of authorities with a multiple of doctrines with a multiple of conducts… but as long a each person has a vote on what the Bible really mean to say… they can all agree that the Catholic Church is wrong!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Lets test that. Start a thread where you detail Catholic traditions that don’t have their basis with Jesus and the Apostles. I am sure we can show you how every Tradition can be traced back through the Early Church Fathers to the Apostles. You are not the first person to make this claim over the last 2000 years so we are well versed in the bridges.

…sorry, paul c, we would lose… their belief is that the Catholic Church derail the true Chruch in the 4th century… so anything that dates before Luther/Calvin is not real to them!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…YesNever heard it put that way Not sure Cain had a personal interpretation problem but certainly a faith problem. God only told him to “do what is right”. What was right ? Should it have been a blood offering as some suggest Some would say it was just a “heart condition” perhaps lacking faith or love or as you suggest, ,not giving his "best’;As far as Abel, I never heard that he judged what God deserved. Hebrews says by Faith he offered a better sacrifice. I would say Abel did not hope the Father would be pleased but had assurance by faith that he attained, faith in the nature of God, which one can only know by personal experience.Hence, with Joy scripture seems he offered his best, the "juicy, tasty “fat” Was not a short cut problem but a faith problem, a knowledge problem, relationship problem.

3 Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, 4 while Abel for his part brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favour on Abel and his offering. (Genesis 4:3-4)

There’s no mention of God asking for blood sacrifice… but we do have Cain offering “some of the produce” wile Abel the first-born and their fat… Abel sought to please God so he gave the best–as St. Peter jumped for Jesus while the rest of the Eleven, including the disciple that the Lord Loved most, were much slower to react… or do you contend that only St. Peter had Faith?

.Good .Many say the CC gave it to us, but Vatican 2 says it is God.:Well a bit self serving but I would add the Word gives us Himself and or the Holy Spirit to inhabit and direct and grow the church along with the Written Word . Is it telling that you left that out ?

It means the Sacred Writings: the New Testament Written by the Church and the whole of the Bible, 73 books, as a compilation.

…I see that you are fond of self-serving… If there is One Faith and it gets splintered into thousands of parts… which one part among those thousands are you referring to as the Holy Spirit inhabiting and directing?

…That is a continual false assertion .I have stated the devil has such knowledge and he certainly is going to hell…I believe there are scriptures that state that. We know there will be those that are eternally saved (that is, at the end of time there will be saints in heaven that no man can number). We know they (gentiles) are called adopted sons of God .We know several scriptures say salvation is “granted”. .I agree ,it does not stop there. I am not sure Calvin ever used the word capriciously. Personally that would be an extreme view .just as the CC view is askewed the other way. I believe you get to the pearly gates and you read “choose whom you will serve” or believe and you shall be saved and other similar scriptures dealing with free will or perseverance. As you pass thru the portal, on the other side is written , "saved since before the foundations of the world or other such scriptures dealing with apparent predestination. Is it either or or both ?

… Yes, that is the problem with a strict Calvinist view. I am not sure though if it is also a misunderstanding of his view. Never the less it sounds cold and creepy to me as stated,and would find it harmful to the spreading of the gospel.

…perhaps I jumped to an erroneous conclusion… but from what I have understood, do you not believe, as Calving, that some are eternally saved and that Christ’s Authority is delegated to all?

…yes, we are predestined for Eternal Salvation and our Salvation is Asured but only in Christ:

12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believed in his name 13 who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself. (St. John 1:12-13)

…but those who are Granted such status do not receive a “sin” as you “please” Salvation… the status of child of God is mute if a Believer returns to the sinful life he/she experienced prior to becoming God’s adopted child.

…and while it may be harsh, I’ve only stated what Calving has proposed: God chooses to Save whom He has predestined while damning those He predestined making His Salvific Plan a private club or a carrot to be dangled in front of those whom He has already damned! …your issue should be with Calvin!

Yes, but again the conscious determination is a gift to be accepted or rejected is it not?

…does Calvin not deny it? Free will has already been granted that’s why we can consciously Believe/reject Christ/Salvation!

Yes, but my question are we justified once ? …as to your scripture of the Philippians “working out your salvation” is not so much a personal exhortation but a corporate one, as in Paul’s absence from their city church. If anything it shows the need of each other, of the Body, of the Church .That is the context, to keep on working what was begun, to maturity. And really the fear and trembling is suggesting humility, not a question of end result. It is God working in you to help your will and action. So as one friend once told me that yes he could curse God today or tomorrow and “die”, lose his salvation, but that he is assured only in that it is Christ who keeps him from doing so. His faith and assurance is in Christ’s work.

…but what maturity can be achieve once you have peaked? …isn’t that much as hollowood’s films where the expert pretends not to know something so that at the end he/she can fake an achievement?

If you are Saved, Eternally and Never Losing your Asured Salvation… what growth is there… how can you work out Salvation or do you mean as a whole the Church is not Saved but the individuals are?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

First, the church teaches you do not have to eat his flesh as the CC means it to get to heaven, for the church acknowledges that there are others outside the church, who do not believe real presence, who are saved. Why do you take it that you must literally eat yet not take it literally the consequence that Jesus speaks of: to go to heaven ? I would be forced to say if it was literal that all Protetstants who don’t accept RP will not go to heaven. Interesting it was disciples who did not believe FROM THE BEGINNING who left. One could say (well Jesus said in John 6) they were never saved in the first place.

…but did Jesus actually say that?

…and when His Authority and Teaching were rejected, did Jesus call them back and watered down His Doctrine?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps, but it is one thing to say it is an apostolic tradition, that the apostles actually did them (heard confession, prayed rosary, believed Mary Immaculate ,even Assumed, a functioning pope, infant regenerational baptism, Mass as a "sacrifice’ offered to God, a separate unmarried priesthood, administered seven sacraments, prayed to saints, prayed for those in purgatory. It’s another thing to call for it’s basis, that they didn’t quite do it but laid groundwork for future interpretation for which I would say that yes ,every thing you do has been related to some interpretive scriptural basis.

…so you truly believe that Jesus dropped a copy of the Holy Bible as He Ascended into Heaven and told the Apostles to copy it and distribute it so that all could read along as they preached to them the Good News?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Just what is your Good News ? What must I do to be saved ? Do I have any assurance?

…the Good News is that in Christ Jesus, the Resurrectin and Life, man is Granted Salvation; that outside of Christ you can yell all you want ‘Lord, Lord’ and will not be granted an audience!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[paul_c]

…sorry, paul c, we would lose… their belief is that the Catholic Church derail the true Chruch in the 4th century… so anything that dates before Luther/Calvin is not real to them!

Maran atha!

Angel

This is a foolish statement. We CAN show the basis of every Catholic teaching has its basis in the Apostolic Faith. Don’t you believe that?

 

[paul_c]

Perhaps, but it is one thing to say it is an apostolic tradition, that the apostles actually did them (heard confession, prayed rosary, believed Mary Immaculate ,even Assumed, a functioning pope, infant regenerational baptism, Mass as a "sacrifice’ offered to God, a separate unmarried priesthood, administered seven sacraments, prayed to saints, prayed for those in purgatory. It’s another thing to call for it’s basis, that they didn’t quite do it but laid groundwork for future interpretation for which I would say that yes ,every thing you do has been related to some interpretive scriptural basis.

Let’s be clear here. There are two parts of Catholic Tradition: doctrine (what is taught) and practice (how those teachings are brought to the people). Doctrines are eternal and never change. Practices however, must change with the times because the Church needs to bring the truths about salvation to the people in the most effective manner possible.

The Church has always forgiven sins in the name of the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is documented in the Bible. The procedure has changed over time, but the essence is the same. The unmarried priesthood is a church practice of the Latin Rite . The Eastern Catholic Rites do not have a celibate priesthood. This was done to focus the priests solely on God and the laity. The rosary is a form of prayer used in devotion. Like all devotions, these are practices that lead to holiness, but not doctrine. You can read about the Church’s historical understanding of the Assumption and Immaculate conception of Mary through the papal bulls that rendered those doctrines official in the church. The mass has changed very little in the last 2000 years. Have you read Justin Martyr’s description of the mass from 150 AD (its on line). As for a functioning Pope, If you read Acts and the epistles of ST. Peter, you see him exercising all the roles of the current popes: interpreting scripture, defiining and clarifying doctrine, replacing Apostles, speaking for the Church, excommunicating (Simon Magnus), If you’ve been to the catecombs in Rome, you see that Saints were venerated very early in the Church and taht praying for those in purgatory actually was discussed in Maccabees (one of the reasons that Luther was so keen to pull it out of the canon.)

 

[pocohombre]

…the problem with your premise is that you want to defy the Apostolic Succession while claiming apostolic authority to defy apostolic succession… “Catholic” does mean universal… but not simply geographically… Catholic means universal in Faith Base Belief… something the non-Catholic Christians cannot even begin to claim as they hold a smorgasbord of beliefs which not only contradict the Catholic Church but each other… so their “catholicity” just simply runs out… fyi: it happened at the very offset of Luther’s rejection of the Catholic Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

Not sure that that CC interpretation of succession is what was meant at Nicene. Apoastolic is as apostolic does (forest gump). Catholic does mean universal .Catholic before “church” means universal church .Therefore what the universal church was then it is today. To insist there were no differences then is error . The very reason they were called to Nicene was because of differences . They “settled” on a core set of beliefs while allowing for lesser differences. It was a consensus. The same can be done today .You would end up with a “church” that encompasses the same core beliefs. So “church” would include Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. etc. Your definition is exclusive, not universal . It is only universal in itself . That is within Catholicism, it is universal, worlwide, coherent. The same can be said of Lutherans, or southern baptists, or Evangelicals or Lutherans worldwide. Within themselves they are found round the world. Christian is Christian my friend.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Perhaps, but it is one thing to say it is an apostolic tradition, that the apostles actually did them (heard confession, prayed rosary, believed Mary Immaculate ,even Assumed, a functioning pope, infant regenerational baptism, Mass as a "sacrifice’ offered to God, a separate unmarried priesthood, administered seven sacraments, prayed to saints, prayed for those in purgatory. It’s another thing to call for it’s basis, that they didn’t quite do it but laid groundwork for future interpretation for which I would say that yes ,every thing you do has been related to some interpretive scriptural basis.

Oh, my… How much of the Early Church Fathers have you read? Christians often love talking about ‘historical’ Christianity without having the slightest clue of what that means. If you want to see the origins of Catholic dogma, look to the early Christians and their teachings. Read Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (both disciples of the Apostles). Read Justin Martyr and Iranaeus. Read their works IN THEIR ENTIRETY (not on an anti Catholic website). They are free on the internet. The first Apology of Justin Martyr most clearly outlines early Christian dogma. If you read anything, read this.

I doubt you will find your brand of Christianity practiced among these early Christians…

 

[brb3]

First, the church teaches you do not have to eat his flesh as the CC means it to get to heaven, for the church acknowledges that there are others outside the church, who do not believe real presence, who are saved. Why do you take it that you must literally eat yet not take it literally the consequence that Jesus speaks of: to go to heaven ? I would be forced to say if it was literal that all Protetstants who don’t accept RP will not go to heaven. Interesting it was disciples who did not believe FROM THE BEGINNING who left. One could say (well Jesus said in John 6) they were never saved in the first place.

One could say that …but, that is errant logic.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Not sure that that CC interpretation of succession is what was meant at Nicene. Apoastolic is as apostolic does (forest gump). Catholic does mean universal .Catholic before “church” means universal church .Therefore what the universal church was then it is today. To insist there were no differences then is error . The very reason they were called to Nicene was because of differences . They “settled” on a core set of beliefs while allowing for lesser differences. It was a consensus. The same can be done today .You would end up with a “church” that encompasses the same core beliefs. So “church” would include Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. etc. Your definition is exclusive, not universal . It is only universal in itself . That is within Catholicism, it is universal, worlwide, coherent. The same can be said of Lutherans, or southern baptists, or Evangelicals or Lutherans worldwide. Within themselves they are found round the world. Christian is Christian my friend.

You lack a basic understanding of how the early Church operted. Heresy, particularly gnosticism, was already spreading rapidly before John was even dead. Apostolic succession and teaching were all that remained to prevent the heresy from getting into the Catholic Church. Ignatius first used the term ‘catholic’ to distinguish the Apostolic Church from gnostic sects. Read the writings I recommended to you. Clement wrote one or more epistles. Ignatius wrote 7 epistles or so. Justin Martyr’s first apology is short.
Read these, at least. It will take you maybe a few hours.

 

[brb3]

Just what is your Good News ? What must I do to be saved ? Do I have any assurance?

Do what Paul taught in scripture. Namely: receiving water Baptism & anointing with HS ( Confirmation), receive the Eucharist rightly, remaining IN CHRIST …by praying daily, confessing sins to both God & elders ( priests), following 2 Timothy 3:15 …and applying this to your life, striving for perfection…by following Christ and his will for you, …all this possible via the Universal (Catholic) Church, with the 7 Sacraments.

 

[brb3]

Not sure that that CC interpretation of succession is what was meant at Nicene. Apoastolic is as apostolic does (forest gump). Catholic does mean universal .Catholic before “church” means universal church .Therefore what the universal church was then it is today. To insist there were no differences then is error . The very reason they were called to Nicene was because of differences . They “settled” on a core set of beliefs while allowing for lesser differences. It was a consensus. The same can be done today .You would end up with a “church” that encompasses the same core beliefs. So “church” would include Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. etc. Your definition is exclusive, not universal . It is only universal in itself . That is within Catholicism, it is universal, worlwide, coherent. The same can be said of Lutherans, or southern baptists, or Evangelicals or Lutherans worldwide. Within themselves they are found round the world. Christian is Christian my friend.

Most of these on your list don’t have a valid Eucharist & Confirmation. Southern Baptists for example …as thats where my journey began. They also teach OSAS.

 

[brb3]

To: Oumashta Re: Can we have assurance of salvation question, posted on 24 Mar 2012.

I hope this thread is still alive, but, being new to the forum, I’m not sure how it all works.

Biblically, I see strong reasons to believe the true Christian can have an assurance of salvation. But I don’t want to go there yet.

The first response to your question from “Tietjen” listed a web site. Though that website may be impressive with “all” the bible quotations, I should tell you that it is common for apologists to blast out a bunch of verses to overwhelm you and say, “See, this confirms my position.” I’ve seen this with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. too, so am prepared to critically review what slant their theology may have on the scriptural proofs they provide.

So, I looked at the web site to see how it handled a “real” argument, and, sure enough, it just glossed over it and moved on. I’ll demonstrate why you can’t do that in a bit.

Another response you had from “thistle” said, “The only people who are assured of salvation are those who are baptised, Catholic, and die in a state of grace.” That’s more old school Roman Catholic view that can be seen in historical documents. But, really, it can be shortened to, “No, you must die in a state of grace.” With mortal sin as an ever present possibility in your life, which removes you from a state of grace, then if you die at that time before you do the penance to get back into a state of grace, then you are lost and will go to hell.

Basically, you cannot have assurance. That is really what you need to tell your Mother to be consistent with RC theology (and you’ve seen demonstrated in the responses so far).

The Council of Trent anathematized those who would teach that you can have the assurance of salvation - that’s what my library of their documents says. And the reason I have those documents and poured over them is because I studied with a Roman Catholic priest in 1997/98 who, though 87 at that time, wanted me to teach on comparative religion. He was still sharp, and was prepping me for the RCIA program. He had been a former Dean of Theology at one of the Roman Catholic universities and was feeding me a lot of Scott Hahn materials. I guess he thought Hahn’s conversion would have the stongest impact on a man of my higher education.

When we discussed the doctrine of mortal sin, we got into this subject of assurance. I told him what I told you above - my support of assurance - and then provided several arguments. Here is one of several he simply could not answer, nor do I think any Roman Catholic theologian can answer (or at least we shall see, since this is a RC apologetics site ).

So here goes:

Please read John 9:35 through John 10:30. Are you done reading it? Good.

Here we have a clear distinction. Jesus knows his sheep and they know Him, and the Pharisees are not part of Jesus’ flock.

Jesus - and we know he is a good shepherd (v. 11 and the duty to go after strays from the flock, Luke 15:4-7) - says, v. 28, His sheep will “never” parish. This translated word “never” comes from 4 greek words, which mean, as a whole, not at this present time or at any future time.

The Amplified Bible renders John 10:28 as, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never lose it or perish throughout the ages. [To all eternity they shall never by any means be destroyed.] And no one is able to snatch them out of My hand.” (On the internet, Biblegateway has this translation along with all the rest.)

So do we need to fix the Bible here? Are we to change Jesus’ words so eternal life is a possibility as long as the “believer” doesn’t choose to leave Christianity or doesn’t commit a mortal sin and die outside of a state of grace?

It seems like we can leave it as is. This is consistent with the understanding that no one can snatch them out of the hand of Jesus or the father (vv. 28-30), that a good work started by God will be completed by God (Php 1:6), that none the Father gives to the Son will ever be lost (John 6:37-40 seems pretty clear on that point), and that those non-Christians who profess to be real Christians were actually never, repeat, never a part of the His sheep flock (Matt 7:21-23, 1 John 2:19).

If you check these verses, it is difficult to let them stand as they are and still believe that a true Christian, a true sheep in Jesus flock, can actually perish in hell in the end. But, if I’m wrong about this, I would ask someone to show me why :bible1:.

The other question is, what are the evidences that a person is really a Christian? But that is another topic.

In Christ, OldProf

Old Prof…

In a recent post, you referred me back to this first post of yours. Interesting to see your background with Catholics. Did you complete RCIA back then ?
What doctrines could you not accept ?

Now regarding OSAS … what do you need to be shown, in order to be convinced. Give us your litmus test items …that if provided, would make convincing case for u.

 

[pocohombre]

Most of these on your list don’t have a valid Eucharist & Confirmation. Southern Baptists for example …as thats where my journey began. They also teach OSAS.

Their eucharist is quite valid within their own ranks as your is in yours.That’s the point. Of course there are differences, more that you could have listed. The point was they could claim universality, as you do, oneness, within their worlwide organization.

 

[pocohombre]

One could say that …but, that is errant logic.

How is it errant logic to take a statement with two connected parts both literally .I would say it is errant to take one literal and the other not.The two parts are: #1-must eat His flesh, # 2- to go to heaven. So tell me, I do not “eat His flesh” literally, so how can I “go to heaven” literally ?