Can Anyone Really Be 100% Sure They Will Go To Heaven When They Die?

[BibleReader]

edwinG:

Hi BibleReader.
Luke 18:9 " Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others."
I don’t see either Job or Paul fitting in to this parable the way you explained it. It possibly fits some people or it wouldn’t be available as an understanding for us. It clearly does not fit everyone either, of those in the past or of those living now or of those in the future. I dare say, a person does not have the wisdom to discern in others and some may be fooling themselves.
"once saved always saved " is a different kettle of fish.
I for one am not talking about how long God’s arm is.

The thread is can anyone ever be sure.
Paul and Job were sure on a daily basis. Job was still sure in the face of his calamity and well meaning wife and friends.
Do you feel in your heart that you are saved and if you die at this very moment you will live in Christ Jesus.
If you do you are answering “yes” to the question.
If you answer “No” or “Don’t know” there must be something you feel is blocking your path. It is up to you to free the path so you dont have any doubts.
Take heed of the parable. Dont trust in your self , in you own goodness,strength or wisdom and dont despise others. Trust completely in Him.
Walk in love
Christ be with you.
edwinG

The addition by Luke of the words, “and despised others” has tempted generations of Bible readers, anxious to avoid the implication of this Parable, to misinterpret it.

Because of the way you interpret the words, “and despised others,” we may as well throw out the Parable, and replace it with the words, “Despising is bad.”

You and Maggie (who presumes that the Publican in Jesus’ Parable wasn’t hated because he was morally disgusting but instead hated because the Jews hated Roman taxes) water the Parable down to a diatribe against prejudice.

I say that the Parable is not as shallow as, “Prejudice is bad.”

In fact, the surprising thing about the Parable is that the Pharisee was such a good guy – yet damned! – while the Publican was so inherently rapacious and brutal and therefore disgusting – yet saved.

Those here who are born-againers, and you edwinG who says, ‘If you answer “No” or “Don’t know” there must be something you feel is blocking your path. It is up to you to free the path so you dont have any doubts,’ should ANSWER ONE QUESTION before you interpret the story so that it doesn’t condemn belief in one’s own salvation:

DOES THE PUBLICAN IN THE PARABLE, WHO CHRIST DECLARES “SAVED,” BELIEVE THAT HE IS SAVED?

No.

 

[Curious]

And what did Jesus do? He wasn’t impressed by the supposed credentials of their traditions, he held their traditions accountable to Scripture. mtr01 asserted that the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura, but I showed that the Bible does. Jesus’ treatment of the supposed divine traditions of the Pharisees is one of many evidences of this. What makes Catholic claims to divine traditions any different than the Pharasaical claims to the same?

You are probably in right in that both Catholics and the Pharisees think/thought their traditions were from God.

But the Pharisees were hard-hearted, and seemed far more interested in being legastically perfect than having a relationship with God. From what I have learned, Catholics cherish what they call Sacred Tradition, and hold it alongside living and true relationship with God for the ultimate balance. Now, what I’ve said doesn’t prove that their Tradition is divinely inspired, but it does attempt to explain the difference.

 

[serendipity]

edwinG:

Was Paul certain? ( His conscience was clear because He always chose the narrow path.)

In terms of salvation, i always think of Paul taking about how working it our with fear and trambling. There is no doubt that Paul accpeted Jesus as the Christ and his savior. He not only accepted in, but taught it to many, many others. No doubt, he incoporated the moral teachings which he preached into his daily life. If he, with all his faith, courage and righteousness, still trembled at the though of judgement, how could I ever not?

 

[serendipity]

bloodwater:

all the thief did was anounce that he stood by Jesus and believed, and Jesus was like BAM your with me in heaven.

He was at death’s door, not spiritual death because he was spiritually dead. He had no time to put faith into actions. I think that some one who says “I am saved because I believe in Christ” from the age of nine, or even later in life and then lives decades later without ever trying to create God’s kingdom on heaven by discerning and living God’s will on earth, and then dies without ever producing any fruit for God, is not going to have much hope in attaining heaven, when that person had a life time to learn form the gospel about what God’s people do and how they live.

It is quite a different story than some one who is about to die, mannacled to a cross and there for the first time understands that Jesus is the Christ, and that his words have meaning and direction and guidelines for living. He is powerless to apply Christ’s example to his life, because his life is over. Surely in those cases God discerns the intent of the perons, knows what the person would have done if given more time, and final judgement is based on sincerity of intent, rather than limited to lack of opportunity.

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

One who makes this argument misses the point of 2 Tim 3:16-17, which says:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
–2 Tim 3:16-17

The thrust of the passage is the origin and resultant nature of Scripture, not the extent of the canon! It’s saying that that which is God-breathed is able, by its very nature, to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s evident where it says “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15).

Not so coach, notice that the writers of the New Testament refer to Scripture AND also the Gospel as separate entities, they did not consider what they were preaching as Scripture but as Gospel. We consider both as Scripture, a Jew wouldn’t would he?

 

[c0achmcguirk]

wcknight:

Clearly Catholics do agree on core beliefs, which many evangelicals do not.

So is abortion a core issue? Why do polls show that around 70% of Catholics support abortion in at least some circumstances?

pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

What about sedevacantism–is this a core issue? Why the disagreement? Isn’t it important to know if the Pope is legitimate or not? There are disagreements among Catholics and there are disagreements among Protestants. If disagreement makes my rule of faith (sola Scriptura) illegitimate, than Catholic disagreement makes Rome’s rule of faith illegitimate as well.

Is this what you want to argue for? That disagreement equals inadequate rule of faith?

What makes Catholic tradition more authoritative than jewish tradition is the direct authorization given by Jesus Himself to St. Peter and Peter’s successors.

Sorry, missed the part about the successors in the Bible. Could you point that out for me? I see the promises made to the Apostles and to Peter, but nothing is said of their successors.

It is so convenient for protestant Bibles to so conveniently leave out all the books that have any references to beliefs that they disagree with. Such a text is not only suspect, I would say it would be almost worthless.

If this were what actually happened in the canon debate, I’d agree with you. However, this is not what happened. The reformers adopted the same canon as the Jews (who wrote the Old Testament) and of Jerome, and the majority of Roman scholarship until Trent. Generally speaking, the church as a whole didn’t consider the deuterocanonicals inspired until Trent declared them so. Sure there were a few important scholars here and there that accepted them as divine (Aquinas, Augustine), but the vast majority of scholars until Trent followed Jerome’s lead.

Books such as St James letter which clearly states that not by faith alone are we saved, but good works are also a requriement.

Protestants have no problem with James, I love the book.

James isn’t talking about justification before God, but justification before other believers. The word dikaio-o has several meanings. Paul uses the forensic meaning almost exclusively. James here is using another meaning–that being “to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.”

It is a common mistake to assume that if a word in English has a primary meaning, that the underlying word in the original language has only one meaning.

Other books like Macabees I and II which clearly state that alms for prayers for the dead is a letigimate practice, even though greatly abused in the middle ages.

1 Maccabees mentions several times that there was no prophet at the time of its writing. Inspired Scripture requires of prophet to write it, so there can be no possible way that the book is inspired.

"And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. "
–1 Maccabees 4:46

"And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. "
–1 Maccabees 9:27

"And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. "
–1 Maccabees 14:41

Can Scripture be written by a non-prophet?

Protestants have more than one reason to reject the Maccabee books. This is one of many.

Protestantism came about 500 years ago, there is no question about that. That’s history.

Judaism has been around longer than Catholicism. Whoops! I guess you better convert.

The debate between Catholics and Protestants is much deeper than “my dad is older than your dad.” Let’s try to avoid such silliness.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Tom:

Not so coach, notice that the writers of the New Testament refer to Scripture AND also the Gospel as separate entities, they did not consider what they were preaching as Scripture but as Gospel. We consider both as Scripture, a Jew wouldn’t would he?

Sorry Tom, I don’t follow.

You’re saying that

(1) The apostles believed the Gospel was independent of Scripture and was not contained in Scripture.
(2) Timothy did not recognize the writings of Paul and the other apostles as Scripture.

This seems heretical to me. Where am I misunderstanding you?

Also, since you seem to believe that the Apostles didn’t feel their writings were inspired…could you respond to the last half of post 51? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=455800&postcount=51

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

So is abortion a core issue? Why do polls show that around 70% of Catholics support abortion in at least some circumstances?

First of all coach, welcome back, it’s been a while, glad you returned. Now, a few points, you bring up some very interesting points, however they have nothing to do with the topic of the thread, in fact they detract from the communication, for example; the subject of this thread is; “CAN ANYONE REALLY BE 100% SURE THEY WILL GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE?” you bringing up abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you’d like to talk about abortion, wonderful, start a new thread, but please, don’t try to hijack this thread or “muddy the waters”. (just a suggestion to keep you in good graces)

 

[ISABUS]

"It was a joy to me, Lord, in the midst of my struggles, to feel that in growing to my own fulfilment I was increasing your hold on me, to surrender myself to your providence. And now that I have discovered the joy of turning every increase into a way of making–or allowing–your presence to grow within me, I beg of you: bring me to a serene acceptance of that final phase of communion with you in which I shall attain to possession of you by diminishing within you.

“Now that I have learnt to see you as he who is ‘more me than myself’, grant that when my hour has come I may recognize you under the appearances of every alien or hostile power that seems bent on destroying or dispossessing me. When the erosions of age begin to leave their mark on my body, and still more on my mind; when the ills that must diminish my life or put an end to it strike me down from without or grow up from within me; when I reach that painful moment at which I suddenly realize that I am a sick man or that I am growing old; above all at that final moment when I feel I am losing hold on myself and becoming wholly passive in the hand of those great unknown forces which first formed me: at all these sombre moments grant me, Lord, to understand that it is you (provided my faith is strong enough) who are painfully separating the fibres of my being so as to penetrate to the very marrow of my substance and draw me into yourself.”

Hymn of the Universe by Father Teilhard de Chardin, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1965, Pensees, p.g. 103-104.

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

Sorry Tom, I don’t follow.

You’re saying that

(1) The apostles believed the Gospel was independent of Scripture and was not contained in Scripture.
(2) Timothy did not recognize the writings of Paul and the other apostles as Scripture.

This seems heretical to me. Where am I misunderstanding you?

Also, since you seem to believe that the Apostles didn’t feel their writings were inspired…could you respond to the last half of post 51? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=455800&postcount=51

God bless,
c0ach

Absolutely, read their words, when they speak of “Scripture” they are NOT referring to their teaching or the Gospel. Scripture to them was ONLY the Old Teatament. There was no New Testament. So in effect saying they professed “Sola Scriptura” would imply they were saying only the Old Testament and NOT the New Testament. We today understand that the New Testament is Scripture, but they did not. So if they said “sola Scriptura” they could have only meant the OT! Now something you need to realize and put into perspective the Catholic Church teaches that “all” Scripture is “2 Timothy 3:16 - given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” notice nowhere does it say “sola” or only Scripture is.
But also:
2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Tom]

Now getting back to the original question” CAN ANYONE REALLY BE 100% SURE THEY WILL GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE?” most of the responses have been “no” I disagree, I say yes “if” tomorrow, when I go to confession, make a good confession and receive absolution, followed by Mass and the Eucharist, the moment the host touches my tongue and I receive the body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus the Christ into my body, if at that moment I died I would in fact be 100% assured of going to heaven. Every minute after this act decreases the %. Five minutes later it might be 99%, after I see some sweet young woman walking down the street it may fall to 95%, seeing that neighbor who owns that darned dog who fertilizes my lawn may go to 93%. At that mo0ment when I receive Jesus into my body, I’m as close to heaven as I will ever be prior to death.

 

[cyprian]

Church Militant:

And the Reformed think they’re the source of all scriptural wisdom and right interpretation…yet you have no Eucharist as the scripture PLAINLY teaches. No scriptural confession, that the scripture PLAINLY authorizes when the NT PLAINLY uses the word absolve…You, by your traditions of men that are only some 487 years old, REMOVE 7 books that the early church considered canon. If you’re so right, then how come you and all your non-Catholic buddies don’t agree on everything? Differences about the necessity and mode of baptism, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, ETERNAL SECURITY…and just boatloads of other stuff. Hit the showers coach…there’s no Holy Ghost teaching among non-Catholics because the Holy Spirit teaches the same thing to everybody…Say whatever you will…there’s no unity of the Holy Spirit among you…

Sola Scriptura is a fantasy…Totally unsupported by anything prior to 1517. Just another reason to blow off non-Catholic religions. NOT ME JACK. Been there for 34 years, done that, and the ONLY good thing that came out of was an anti-Catholic attack that got me looking into the REAL Catholic teachings and led me home where I belong.
Pax vobiscum,

You Go!!
And let’s bring em all home bro

He is All
In All
for All
i am nothing

 

[Tom]

bloodwater:

according to …

"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast. "
Ephesians 2:8-9

9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”a]
Romans 10:9-13

…we can be sure when we have faith in Jesus Christ. and thats it.

Again, this is way off subject but: No, that’s NOT it!!! Learn the lesson of the rich man asking Jesus what he needed to go to heaven. It is NOT any one thing, be it faith, grace, Scripture, it’s “sola” nothing!!! It’s everything not “sola” anything.

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

However, the Bible does not mention another God-breathed rule of faith for us to follow. Now certainly, in the days when Christ walked the Earth, His words were God-breathed. And when the Prophets were used to write the words of Scripture, what they wrote was God-breathed.

1 Tm 3,15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Tom]

c0achmcguirk:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
–2 Tim 3:16-17 (Again what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?) Absolutely, never says “sole” or “sola” or anything to imply same. A book may be “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training” in medicine, but reading it will NOT make me a medical doctor, because, although “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training” it is NOT the only thing needed!

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Tom:

If you’d like to talk about abortion, wonderful, start a new thread, but please, don’t try to hijack this thread or “muddy the waters”. (just a suggestion to keep you in good graces)

Tom thanks for the warm welcome. Every single thing I’ve brought up was first brought up by a Catholic poster here. The abortion thing was brought up when someone pointed out Protestants not getting along. People brought up the canon, sola Scriptura, the Eucharist, confession, etc. I agree with you, they are off-topic. I’d love to stay on one topic.

Just a little fairness, would you be willing to chide your peers to stay on topic so I don’t have to go around correcting misconceptions on every topic under the sun?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Tom:

Absolutely, read their words, when they speak of “Scripture” they are NOT referring to their teaching or the Gospel

I don’t know that you read post #51 above. I pointed out that the apostles did believe their writings were inspired, and Peter even refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture. I don’t see you dealing with the passages I brought up. I’d love to see what you have to say about that in light of your assertion that the Apostles didn’t believe they were inspired.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

cyprian:

You Go!!
And let’s bring em all home bro

He is All
In All
for All
i am nothing

With historical revisionism, vitriol, and half-truths? If that’s how you want to “bring em all home,” I’ll lead you to it.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

1 Tm 3,15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Looking at the verse:

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
–1 Tim 3:15

Before you run away with what 1 Tim. 3:15 is trying to say, stop and ask yourself, “What does a pillar do?”

It holds a roof up. So a pillar is not a roof, just like the Church is not the truth.

Do not commit the exegetical fallacy that so many RC apologists make and confuse the Church with the truth itself. Protestants love and affirm 1 Tim 3:15, and I agree that the Church holds up the truth. But we don’t take the logical leap to say that the Church is the truth. You just can’t read that into the text.

God bless,
c0ach

PS: Still looking for another God-breathed rule of faith in the Bible (apart from Scripture)

 

[c0achmcguirk]

2 Tim 3:16-17 (Again what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?)

This has to do with mtr01 and MaggieOH’s attack on sola Scriptura. I responded to their arguments. Feel free to go back and read who brought the topic up first.

A book may be “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training” in medicine, but reading it will NOT make me a medical doctor, because, although “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training” it is NOT the only thing needed!

You haven’t dealt with the last part of the passage (thoroughly equipped for every good work). If there were a store that was thoroughly able to equip you for camping, would it not follow that it was a sufficient store? The Greek words in the passage make this abundantly clear. Artios means 1) fitted 2) complete, perfect, and exartidzo means 1) to complete, finish 1a) to furnish perfectly.

God bless,
c0ach