Being "saved"?

[SavedByFaith]

As a lifelong Protestant Christian, I can tell you for a fact that Evangelicals refer to “being saved” as an event in time whereby one publicly confesses faith in Jesus Christ as their savior and asks Him “to come into their heart and be the Master of their lives”. This refers to an event prior to baptism (in most flavors of Protestantism). Most protestants believe (most) that this act of “being saved” is all that is required for one to go to heaven. Evangelicals mostly think that baptism is an ordinance of obedience and is not required for salvation. They also unanimously agree that good works are not required to continue in grace, that the act of accepting Jesus publicly is enough to secure their salvation forever and that that salvation can never be lost. Some protestants (Methodists for example) agree with Catholics that works must accompany faith in order for one to continue in grace.

Being saved is a point in time, an act if you will and is never a process for protestants. That being said, I am here because I am not so sure that I agree with their viewpoints anymore and am considering conversion.

 

[john654]

Saved By Faith,

As a lifelong Protestant Christian, I can tell you for a fact that Evangelicals refer to “being saved” as an event in time whereby one publicly confesses faith in Jesus Christ as their savior and asks Him “to come into their heart and be the Master of their lives”. This refers to an event prior to baptism (in most flavors of Protestantism). Most protestants believe (most) that this act of “being saved” is all that is required for one to go to heaven. Evangelicals mostly think that

It’s amazing. It is truly amazing. That is NOT in the Bible. That is a trdition of man. Jesus is the way.

You are NOT saved by believing in God. You are saved by BELIEVING God. Jesus is God. You are NOT saved by faith! You are saved by OBEDIENCE to faith! You can not declare yourself saved. Evangelicals are NOT God!

Saved by Obedience to Faith,
John

 

[Psalm45_9]

It seems that there is division within the Evangelical communion. Didn’t non-denominational churches splinter from the Evangelical movement? I’m just curios, because after reading this thread I have no idea what an Evangelical believes or who can really call themself an Evangelical. Michaelp, please do not take this an insult, that is not my intent. I am just confused now.

 

[john654]

Psalm45:9 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_376728”, true);
Senior Member
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 460

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Being “saved”?
It seems that there is division within the Evangelical communion. Didn’t non-denominational churches splinter from the Evangelical movement? I’m just curios, because after reading this thread I have no idea what an Evangelical believes or who can really call themself an Evangelical. Michaelp, please do not take this an insult, that is not my intent. I am just confused now.

---

NEMO ME IMPVNE LACESSIT

You REALLY NEED to understand something. The only NON-denominational Church is the Catholic Church. ALL protestant churches are denominational. You, when talking to them, “To Be Nice” can refer to tham as Non-denominational denominational churches. That would be charitable, anythig else would be to overlook the truth.

John

 

[Psalm45_9]

john654:

You REALLY NEED to understand something. The only NON-denominational Church is the Catholic Church. ALL protestant churches are denominational. You, when talking to them, “To Be Nice” can refer to tham as Non-denominational denominational churches. That would be charitable, anythig else would be to overlook the truth.

John

Your charity is most astounding…

 

[Beaver]

The on going process of conversion.

The daily choice of the fruit of the tree of everlasting life.

 

[SavedByFaith]

john654:

Saved By Faith,

It’s amazing. It is truly amazing. That is NOT in the Bible. That is a trdition of man. Jesus is the way.

You are NOT saved by believing in God. You are saved by BELIEVING God. Jesus is God. You are NOT saved by faith! You are saved by OBEDIENCE to faith! You can not declare yourself saved. Evangelicals are NOT God!

Saved by Obedience to Faith,
John

Salvation by Grace through Faith most certainly IS in the Bible:

Ephesians 2.8-2.9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The original question asked what evangelicals meant by “being saved”. I answered that question perfectly. I never said that salvation came by believing in God. Muslims believe in God, but not Jesus (as the Son of God). Salvation is by the grace of God through faith in the shed blood, atoning death, bodily resurrection and physical ascension into Heaven of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Protestants, by and large, however; believe that faith in Jesus Christ as their savior is ALL that is required - No Works! If you would please read my entire post, you will see that I did not profess the absence of works to be accurate, only that that is what most protestants believe.

Can someone verify for me that Catholics do or do not believe that people are “saved” through the shed blood of Jesus Christ or not. If I have this all wrong in what I think that Catholics believe then I may be wrong to even consider conversion. I will not waiver on Jesus being my only means of Salvation!

I also do not understand what is meant by “obedience to faith”. Faith is something that you do - i.e. you exercise faith, you have faith, how does one “obey faith”. I am not arguing - I just don’t know that phrase or what it means.

 

[michaelp]

Psalm45:9:

It seems that there is division within the Evangelical communion. Didn’t non-denominational churches splinter from the Evangelical movement? I’m just curios, because after reading this thread I have no idea what an Evangelical believes or who can really call themself an Evangelical. Michaelp, please do not take this an insult, that is not my intent. I am just confused now.

It seems to be the case that evangelicals are going through an identity crisis since the 90s. I have heard it described that evangelicals are just “nice fundementalists.” I smile when I hear this.

Evangelical for the last 50 years is an adjectival word that is used to describe an interdenominational movement that hold to a few key essentials. These beliefs include: salvation by faith alone, the Scriptures are the only infallible source for truth, belief in the first four eccumenical creeds, the need to have a relationship with Christ, not a religion, and the need for everyone to take part in the great commission.

This is what is called “centered” unity. We all are united around the center.

People are now examining if the “centered” unity is sufficient or do we need boundries as well. Can those distinctives garauntee that people will “hold the fort” of the Gospel of Christ and give enough latitude for people to disagree about non-essential issues.

Evangelicals want much freedom and debate in areas so that true learning and advancement can take place. This is the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”).

Now, many have come in and said that we need to have a “boundried” unity rather than a “centered” unity. The Catholic Church is largely a “boundried” unity. In other words, do we need to define more and set more boundries on what it means to be evangelical? This would be a more magisterial approach and would be a step back into fundementalism. Few are calling for this because of an issue that has come us called “open theology.” Open theologians believe that the traditional model of God is of Greek origin and must be abandonded. They believe that God is purely immanent and works in time rather than outside of time. Hense, they believe that God does not know the future and works in a give and take relationship with us. The problem is that these guys want to be called evangelical. This has cause some problems and people are asking “can this be tolerated.” Another problem is with the rise of postmodern churches (“emerging churches” as they are called). They hold to these essentials, but they have some epistemology issues.

It is an interesting time right now. These challenges always makes people thing and grow. I am really glad that God keeps challenging the Church as he did throughout history. It keeps us sharp, knowing what we believe and why we believe it. In the end, we will probebly stay with a “centered” approach and cling to Rupetus’ statement in the 16th century,

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”

BTW: For the most part, non-denominational churches form the hub of evangelicalism.

Hope this helps

Michael

 

[Exporter]

Lorrie:

Hello all,

I’ve heard from people in other religions that have said, “If one isn’t saved they won’t go to heaven**.” What exactly is being “saved”** and is it true (the above said)? I’ve been a Catholic all my life and have never heard a priest talk about this. Are there any Catholics here that are “saved”?

Thanks in advance and I’m hoping you all have a happy New Year!

---

The above was the original question.

Then some Evangelical person started tossing in words like “justification” and salvation. That just stired it up so much that the original question was NOT answered.

Catholics do not ask other people,“Are you saved?” Can someone answer the question,“WHAT EXACTLY DOES BEING SAVED mean?”

“Being” saved. The word “being” is a verb implying an action or a process. Can this question be answered bluntly?

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Evangelical Protestants have taught as the Church has always taught that salvation is past, present, and future as well. Evangelicals, when they are speaking about salvation, usually are referencing justification as an event. Justification, to the evangelical is the event when God declares the believing sinner righteous while still in his sinning state. It is when Christ’s righteousness is imputed (reckoned) to the account of the sinner. Therefore, we are not clothed in our own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ. Romans 4 is the clearest reference to this exact concept. Therefore, we are justified by faith and the finality of our salvation is yet future in the resurrection when death is swallowed up in victory.

Michael

Peace be with you, Michael. It’s a pleasure to talk with you.

I was with you all the way until the very end. James 2 is so clear that we are not saved by faith alone. But, we’ve been down that road before, so let’s try a different track.

What do you make of the description of the last day as presented in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 when all of humanity is brought before the throne, and each is judged on what he has done?

Revelation 20:12
The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls.

I’ll admit that we may just be splitting hairs here, with the Catholic saying that we are saved by faith and good works and the Evangelical saying that we are saved by faith, with good works being the natual component that pours forth. But, with your immortal soul on the line, I think it’s very important we follow Jesus’ direction to the letter. Especially in matters of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.

• Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
• John 6:53-54 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

In the end, this is all that Catholics are doing–obeying the directions of Christ. We hope we will live forever with our Lord, but we do not make assumptions when none exist.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[aridite]

SavedByFaith:

As a lifelong Protestant Christian, I can tell you for a fact that Evangelicals refer to “being saved” as an event in time whereby one publicly confesses faith in Jesus Christ as their savior and asks Him “to come into their heart and be the Master of their lives”. This refers to an event prior to baptism (in most flavors of Protestantism). Most protestants believe (most) that this act of “being saved” is all that is required for one to go to heaven. Evangelicals mostly think that baptism is an ordinance of obedience and is not required for salvation. They also unanimously agree that good works are not required to continue in grace, that the act of accepting Jesus publicly is enough to secure their salvation forever and that that salvation can never be lost. Some protestants (Methodists for example) agree with Catholics that works must accompany faith in order for one to continue in grace.

Being saved is a point in time, an act if you will and is never a process for protestants. That being said, I am here because I am not so sure that I agree with their viewpoints anymore and am considering conversion.

I know that you have doubts about the truth of the protestant understanding of “being saved” which you explained above, so I am not out to brow-beat you into seeing that it is false. But it has alway seemed to me that this kind of moment-of-personal-salvation, one-act-of-faith understanding of salvation by “faith alone” really reduces faith to a kind of work. I have bolded the “works” that protestants deem to be necessary to “win” salvation. Am I being unfair? Are these acts of acceptance/profession not really works? How would a protestant see the difference between these acts of faith, and the Catholic understanding of putting one’s faith into practice by works of charity and active celebration of the Sacraments? It seems to me that protestants reduce salvation to one work (acceptance) that cannot be undone (but which does not really make one holy, either). The Catholic position makes more sense (hence why I’m Catholic) that one can lose salvation by failing to live it out, and living out means becoming really a more holy, Christ-like person.

 

[SavedByFaith]

I think everyone is missing my point. I was raised a Protestant, was “saved” and baptized in a Southern Baptist Church 26 yrs ago at the age of 15. I am AGREEING with the Catholic viewpoint of works being required as an accompaniment to faith in Christ. What I am stressing is accompaniment, works alone (no matter how good they may be) will never do it. At some point there must be an acceptance of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on Calvary. If I am understanding correctly, the Catholic position is that the whole ball of wax is required to preclude one burning in Hell, i.e. faith, good works (fruits of that faith) and sacraments, is that correct? I am not arguing that at all or challenging anyone. I am here due to my concern over division in the Protestant ranks and am considering the Catholic Church seriously, I do however want to ensure that before I do anything rash that I understand completely the doctrines at stake so that I do not foolishly subscribe to something that I can not agree with.

 

[michaelp]

Peace be with you, Michael. It’s a pleasure to talk with you.

It is great to talk to you as well enanneman. I am always happy to converse with you and you respectful gracious attitude. Hope you and your family are safe and healthy in the Lord.

What do you make of the description of the last day as presented in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 when all of humanity is brought before the throne, and each is judged on what he has done?

I believe that Rev chapter twenty describes the judgement of all those who choose to be judged by their works (i.e. those who have not trusted in Christ). There were two books: 1) book of life and 2) the book of works. If you are found in the book of life, there is no judgement of works.

20:11 Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.

So, if your name is found in the book of life, you will not be judged according to your works, but according the the work of Christ.

20:15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

All those who have trusted in Christ will be delievered. All those who have not trusted in him are judged according to their works. And since no one will attain life according to their works, they will be thrown into the lake of fire.

I’ll admit that we may just be splitting hairs here, with the Catholic saying that we are saved by faith and good works and the Evangelical saying that we are saved by faith, with good works being the natual component that pours forth. But, with your immortal soul on the line, I think it’s very important we follow Jesus’ direction to the letter. Especially in matters of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.

I think so as well. But I believe that all those who have called upon the mercy of Christ will be saved. I think that it is faith alone that saves (justifies), not explicit understanding or complete adherence to this. In other words, I do not believe that Roman Catholics will not be saved because they have not believe in salvation by faith alone, but they will nonetheless be saved by their faith alone. In other words, the theology that is needed to be saved is very simplistic. Call on the Lord for mercy.

cont. . .

 

[michaelp]

I believe that Paul is the most theologically explicit writer concerning salvation by faith alone.

Speaking about salvation he says in Romans,
3:27 Where, then, is boasting?It is excluded! By what principle?Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! 3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

In Ephesians,
2:8 For by grace you are savedthrough faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 2:9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

To Titus,
“he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit”

These could not be referring to just the “ceremonial” aspects of the law for many reasons. I will sum them up here:

1. Paul does not use the word “law” to Titus, but “works of righteousness.”
2. Most importantly, the Jewish concept of the law necessitiates that he was talking about all works of righteousness. They Jew would have never separtated the law into our common understanding of “ceremonial” “moral” and “civil” laws. Their concept of the “law” was all that God required. This is shown when Christ said that all the law and the prophets are summed up in these two statements, “love the lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (Matt 22:37-40). The Jew to whom he was speaking understood this well when he said, “This is true” (Mark 12:32). To Christ, the Jews of his day and to Paul the law was not to be separated from loving God and loving neighbor.
3. The Ephesians and the Romans were primarily Gentile. They would not have had much of an issue with circumcism and sacrafices. To them, the Law was not the mosaic cerimonial system, it was all works of righteousness.

Therefore, I believe that the Bible truly teaches salvation by faith alone.

Now, about James. Romans and Ephesians were not written to counter any theological problem or deal with ecclesiatical issues. In other words, the books were by nature more objective and easy to interpret. Paul wrote Romans, not to correct anyone, but to give the Gospel (in hopes that he would raise support for his mission to Spain). Therefore, we would expect it to be the clearest concerning the objective realities of salvation.

James on the other hand, was written to a situation. James, unlike Paul, is angry. He speak to abuses from the very beginning. His tone is sarcastic. He begins by telling them that their faith seems to be false faith because they were not helping those in need. He tells them that works proves that a person has faith. These people did not have any works, so their proclaimed “faith” was false. He says that the kind of faith that they have (faith without works) cannot save them. So “faith alone” cannot save them because the faith that they had was false. Faith is vendicated by works. If there is no heat (works), there is no fire (faith). Faith will always produce works. James people were claiming that their faith alone saved them (this is obvious since he uses this exact terminology in 2:24 in response to them). But his concern is pastoral, not theological preciseness. His people has probebly heard the Pauline doctrine of salvation by faith alone and were abusing it. James comes in to correct the abuse. In short, James was saying that your “faith alone” cannot save you because it is not true faith. “Can that kind of faith save you” he says (2:14). I have often had to do this with my people who show no signs of faith. I use this book to challenge them to see if they have real faith. Faith is vendicated by works.

Hope this helps with James.

cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

This is going to be short and sweet. I don’t think that this should be in the Bible. It is not in any early manuscripts. It was probebly added by a Byzantine scribe who had good intentions. Here are some notes on it from the NET Bible.

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (Í B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (Í B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

We can just chew on this for a while. I have to get back to my dad at the hospital.

Have a great day.

 

[enanneman]

Hi Michael, thanks for the quick response, and my prayers are with you and your father.

I’m curious about your statement of the two different “books” mentioned in Revelation, as well as your belief on who will and who will not be judged.

michaelp:

I believe that Rev chapter twenty describes the judgement of all those who choose to be judged by their works (i.e. those who have not trusted in Christ). There were two books: 1) book of life and 2) the book of works. If you are found in the book of life, there is no judgement of works.

20:11 Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.

So, if your name is found in the book of life, you will not be judged according to your works, but according the the work of Christ.

20:15 Ifanyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

All those who have trusted in Christ will be delievered. All those who have not trusted in him are judged according to their works. And since no one will attain life according to their works, they will be thrown into the lake of fire.

I see no where in Revelation 20 that discusses a book of works, nor do I see where there is a group of people who are not judged by their works.

Revelation 20:11-15
Next I saw a large white throne and the one who was sitting on it. The earth and the sky fled from his presence and there was no place for them. I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.

These verses mention several scrolls, which aren’t named, and then the book of life. It states that all the dead were judged according to their deeds. If, according to you, one need only to believe in Jesus to have one’s name included in the book of life, why the need for judgment at all? The text clearly states that if a name is not listed, that person will not be saved. You seem to indicate as long as a person believed in Jesus, his name will appear in the book, and he will be spared judgment and be saved.

But, that’s not what the text states. It states “all the dead were judged according to their deeds.” And, when taken in conjunction with what Jesus says in Matthew 25…

Matthew 25:41-43
Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.

…it’s even clearer that everyone, both Christian and non-Christian, will be judged by their works, and if you fail to do good works, you will not receive salvation.

Again, you could say that works naturally flow out of faith, but it’s clear that Christ will judge us based on a lifetime of faithfully following his Word, not the single instant where we prayed The Sinner’s Prayer.

Again, I’m not saying that you personally believe in salvation guaranteed from a single act of faith, but plenty of people do, and, I believe, are being dangerously led astray.

The bottom line is that we have to follow the directions given to us from Christ, including being baptized and eating of his flesh and blood.

God be with you!

Eric

 

[enanneman]

SavedByFaith:

I think everyone is missing my point. I was raised a Protestant, was “saved” and baptized in a Southern Baptist Church 26 yrs ago at the age of 15. I am AGREEING with the Catholic viewpoint of works being required as an accompaniment to faith in Christ. What I am stressing is accompaniment, works alone (no matter how good they may be) will never do it. At some point there must be an acceptance of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on Calvary. If I am understanding correctly, the Catholic position is that the whole ball of wax is required to preclude one burning in Hell, i.e. faith, good works (fruits of that faith) and sacraments, is that correct? I am not arguing that at all or challenging anyone. I am here due to my concern over division in the Protestant ranks and am considering the Catholic Church seriously, I do however want to ensure that before I do anything rash that I understand completely the doctrines at stake so that I do not foolishly subscribe to something that I can not agree with.

You are most assuredly correct in your understanding of Catholic theology. Salvation comes form both faith and works.

Please take a look at the tracts on salvation on Catholic.com.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[aridite]

SavedByFaith:

I think everyone is missing my point. I was raised a Protestant, was “saved” and baptized in a Southern Baptist Church 26 yrs ago at the age of 15. I am AGREEING with the Catholic viewpoint of works being required as an accompaniment to faith in Christ. What I am stressing is accompaniment, works alone (no matter how good they may be) will never do it. At some point there must be an acceptance of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on Calvary. If I am understanding correctly, the Catholic position is that the whole ball of wax is required to preclude one burning in Hell, i.e. faith, good works (fruits of that faith) and sacraments, is that correct? I am not arguing that at all or challenging anyone. I am here due to my concern over division in the Protestant ranks and am considering the Catholic Church seriously, I do however want to ensure that before I do anything rash that I understand completely the doctrines at stake so that I do not foolishly subscribe to something that I can not agree with.

I hope what I posted didn’t give you the impression that I thought you were trying to argue against the Catholic position, but it sounds like I did give that impression. I am sorry for being so confusing. Apparently, this is a problem of mine, even though I make perfect sense to myself . I see your point: faith in Christ must precede but ultimately accompany good works, but works without faith in Christ are just as empty as faith without works. Both are necessary, and faith must come first, and this faith moreover is not merited, but pure grace. This is the Catholic position as I understand it. Insofar as faith must necessarily be manifested in good works (so that faith that doesn’t show itself in good works is not really saving faith), this doesn’t see far from the Evangelical position michaelp is explaining. (Catholics would include participating in the sacramental life of the Church among such good works.) Am I on the same page?

I was asking a further question, and anyone with insight into it is welcome to chime in. Doesn’t it seem like the faith spoken of by some protestants, especially the once-saved-always-saved, and faith-as-a-one-time-commitment-to-Christ are, in theory at least, reducing faith to a kind of work: namely one act of the will? Accepting Christ is something one does (grace may be required, but it still is a human act, i.e. a work). My point is that both Catholics and these protestants believe in faith+works (though the protestants may not see this is the implication of their systems), but Catholics see faith+works as a lifetime endeavor, whereas (at least these) protestants see faith/works as a one-time work (which just is coming to believe in Christ). Does anyone see my point? Am I being overly theoretical? Tell me if I am, but as I said, this makes sense to me.

 

[michaelp]

Hi Michael, thanks for the quick response, and my prayers are with you and your father.

I’m curious about your statement of the two different “books” mentioned in Revelation, as well as your belief on who will and who will not be judged.

I see no where in Revelation 20 that discusses a book of works, nor do I see where there is a group of people who are not judged by their works.These verses mention several scrolls, which aren’t named, and then the book of life. It states that all the dead were judged according to their deeds. If, according to you, one need only to believe in Jesus to have one’s name included in the book of life, why the need for judgment at all? The text clearly states that if a name is not listed, that person will not be saved. You seem to indicate as long as a person believed in Jesus, his name will appear in the book, and he will be spared judgment and be saved.

But, that’s not what the text states. It states “all the dead were judged according to their deeds.” And, when taken in conjunction with what Jesus says in Matthew 25…it’s even clearer that everyone, both Christian and non-Christian, will be judged by their works, and if you fail to do good works, you will not receive salvation.

Again, you could say that works naturally flow out of faith, but it’s clear that Christ will judge us based on a lifetime of faithfully following his Word, not the single instant where we prayed The Sinner’s Prayer.

No, what I am saying is that there were two books. The book of life and another book. Those who have not trusted in Christ will be judged according to their works.

The passage in Matt must stress that those who have trusted in Christ will have done good things. It is the same as James.

You must deal with the clear passages of Paul. There is nothing more clear in the NT because of his objective theological viewpoint. He explicitely states that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Condemnation comes from judgement. He clearly says that we are saved by faith and not by works so that no one will be able to brag (boast).

Again, I’m not saying that you personally believe in salvation guaranteed from a single act of faith, but plenty of people do, and, I believe, are being dangerously led astray.

Faith is something that is not a single act. It is something that begins and charaterizes the Christian life. I don’t believe that anyone believes in a point and time and that is it. People are called believers (present progressive–they believe and keep on believing), not those who believed. If that makes any sense.

They have found a tumor in my fathers colon. They are running tests to see if it is cancer and to see if it has made it to his liver. Please pray for him. I don’t know if he really loves the Lord. This may break him.

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

They have found a tumor in my fathers colon. They are running tests to see if it is cancer and to see if it has made it to his liver. Please pray for him. I don’t know if he really loves the Lord. This may break him.

Absolutely. I pray that the Lord’s will be done and that your father accepts Him into his life.

I have to admit I feel a bit uncertain about continuing this discussion in light of your situation, so please let me know if you want to pick this up later.

michaelp:

No, what I am saying is that there were two books. The book of life and another book. Those who have not trusted in Christ will be judged according to their works.

But, Michael, Revelation 20 doesn’t say that. It says that everyone will be judged, according to their deeds. Trust in Christ doesn’t prevent that judgment.

Let me ask you two questions so I can focus my efforts.

• Do you believe that baptism is a purely symbolic act or does it have an effect on one’s soul?
• Once a person has become Christian and has accepted Christ into his heart (that is, he is saved), can he lose that salvation?

michaelp:

The passage in Matt must stress that those who have trusted in Christ will have done good things. It is the same as James.

Amen, but you can see how a person may have said the Sinner’s Prayer and thought that was enough, never looking at any of the other directions of Jesus on baptism, the Eucharist, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, and so on. You can see how a person may wrongly assume he is saved, yes?

michaelp:

You must deal with the clear passages of Paul. There is nothing more clear in the NT because of his objective theological viewpoint. He explicitely states that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Condemnation comes from judgement. He clearly says that we are saved by faith and not by works so that no one will be able to brag (boast).

Amen, again, absolutely. Salvation is a free gift, and there is nothing we can do to merit it. But, there is plenty we can do to lose salvation.

My brother, please do not pluck out Romans 3:27 and hold it up as the key to salvation. The whole of the third chapter of Romans is Paul’s rebuke of the Judaizers who were teaching the new Christians had to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved. What Paul is saying in 3:27 is that it is not necessary to be a Jew to be saved. Michael, I urge you to look at 3:27 in the context of the previous chapter.

Romans 2:5-6
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works

And, he’s talking to saved Christians here.

michaelp:

Faith is something that is not a single act. It is something that begins and charaterizes the Christian life. I don’t believe that anyone believes in a point and time and that is it. People are called believers (present progressive–they believe and keep on believing), not those who believed. If that makes any sense.

Amen. You and I are close, I believe. But, there are plenty of born again Christians who can point to a date that they were “saved,” and they truly believe that there is nothing they can do to lose their salvation. But, Catholics believe differently. They point to their baptism when the door of salvation was opened, but it takes their entire lives to sucessfully walk through that door. And, if they die with an unrepented mortal soul upon their soul, that door will be slammed shut.

Peace be with you!

Eric