How are we saved?

[Philthy]

I dodged nothing.

You did dodge it and you continue to - perhaps unknowingly.

The issue was not simply sinning, but sinning and not caring. This is an issue of the heart, and that of the heart of an unbeliever.

No, this is not the issue in its entirety. This is merely the issue *you *wished to address and in the terms you wish address it in. Here’s the original quote:

mesl4:

So what do you believe is the fate of those who do believe Christ died for our sin, but don’t care, and keep on sinning?

mesl4 asked about those who “believe Christ died for (their) sin”…and keep on sinning. What you did in each of your responses is label them as “unbelievers” when the original question clearly identifies them as people who believe that Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins.

• Now, if you wish to say that there is no such thing as a “believer” who continues to sin, then say it.
• If you wish to say that their is no such thing as a “believer” who’s passion and commitment to the Lord gets “lukewarm” over time, ie they “dont care”, then say it.
  It seems to be an uncomfortable question for you - "what happens to believers “who return to the vomit” - so to speak? I can only assume that is because you dont seem to have any real answer other than their rewards in Heaven are less. And even with that pretense of an answer you cant quite bring yourself to say that their enjoyment of Heaven will be any less than those who do not go on sinning. Your answer really amounts to “nothing happens” but you wont say that either! So, whatever you have to say, please address the actual question as asked - “What happens to a BELIEVER who…” and don’t go off on another topic of your own choosing which directly ignores the question asked while claiming that you answered it …

 

[moondweller]

It just seems to me that for a man who “believes” he is saved by uttering the magic words “I believe”

Belief is of the heart, not the lips. You don’t seem to know what belief actually is. Doesn’t surprise me.

and who rejects grace through faith with acts of charitable love

I don’t reject “grace through faith” at all (to the contrary), and certainly not acts of charitable love.

is working very hard to teach his own theology and belief system.

My theology is Biblically Pauline, and I don’t have a belief “system.” I don’t believe in a religious system. God gave only one religion and that was Judaism as described in the Mosaic Law. That dispensation ended with Christ, and anticipated the time when faith would come:Gal 3:23 “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Why does any of what you say matter if all we need to do is believe?

I would conclude that according to Paul, faith IS what matters. Because faith is connected to promise. To believe in God is to believe what He has promised. The New Covenant is based on unconditional promises. Faith is believing what God has said He would do. This kind of justifying faith goes all the way back to Abraham. It’s called Abrahamic faith. That’s why he’s called the father of all believers.Heb. 10:14-18 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them,” {He then says,} “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.

You are a sweating and perspiring contradiction of teaching.

How so?

Most everyone in these forums “believes” in Jesus.

But not the promises.

So what is it to you that some of us want to exceed the requirement (as you believe it to be) ? Are you afraid that Catholics might realize a higher and better salvation through their unnecessary works of charity and love?

Now who’s "sweating and perspiring contradiction of teaching? A “better salvation?” Based on “unnecessary work of charity and love?” Are you claiming another Covenant besides the New? Or are you renovating the Old (Law?) The former is unbiblical, the latter provides no salvation. Never did. Never will, no matter how you reconstruct it.

Or re you afraid we are going to work so hard that we dig a hole to hell and work ourselves out the other side and miss heaven and our salvation?
James

"For by GRACE you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works…"What can I say? It is written via the Holy Spirit.

 

[moondweller]

You did dodge it and you continue to - perhaps unknowingly.

No, this is not the issue in its entirety. This is merely the issue *you *wished to address and in the terms you wish address it in. Here’s the original quote:

Originally Posted by mesl4
So what do you believe is the fate of those who do believe Christ died for our sin, but don’t care

In the original question Mes14 ASSUMES them to be believers, alluding to the Heb. 10 passage.

Now, if you wish to say that there is no such thing as a “believer” who continues to sin, then say it.

If I were to say that I would be a fool. There’s no such thing as a believer who doesn’t sin. I responded to the preposterous idea that there is such an animal as a “believer” who continually sins and doesn’t care. A believer is someone who has been convicted of his sins by the Holy Spirit, and through that conviction turns to Christ, by faith, for forgiveness. He is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and fully understands that it was his sins that put Christ on the cross. Such a conviction can never create an “I don’t care” attitude toward the sacrifice of Christ and sin. It’s IMPOSSIBLE! If I were to see such an attitude from one who professes faith in Christ, I would not believe his profession.

If you wish to say that their is no such thing as a “believer” who’s passion and commitment to the Lord gets “lukewarm” over time, ie they “dont care”, then say it.

No true believer can remain in such a state. To remain in such a state would testify to his/her unbelief.

It seems to be an uncomfortable question for you -

How so?

"what happens to believers “who return to the vomit” - so to speak?

You’re alluding to the 2 Pet. 2:22 passage. These are those who act according to their true nature. A “dog” returns to its own vomit and a “sow” to wallowing in the mire. They reveal their true nature. True believers are never referred to as “dogs” or “sows” in Scripture, but always “sheep,” purchased by Christ Himself.

I can only assume that is because you dont seem to have any real answer other than their rewards in Heaven are less.

I gave Mes14 no such answer, no do I give you that answer.

And even with that pretense of an answer you cant quite bring yourself to say that their enjoyment of Heaven will be any less than those who do not go on sinning.

The qualifier was go on sinning and “DO NOT CARE.” I don’t believe such a one, no matter what he professes with his lips, will enjoy heaven as long as he continues to sin and “does not care.” No salvation has taken place. Get it? :doh2:

So, whatever you have to say, please address the actual question as asked - “What happens to a BELIEVER who…” and don’t go off on another topic of your own choosing which directly ignores the question asked while claiming that you answered it …

You’ve got your answer. No such animal exists.

 

[guanophore]

So, my statement that “sin” is the main focus of Catholicism is not made from a gross ignorance of the Catholic faith.

You know, this may be true. I am willing to concede that it is a stubborn refusal to refuse what the Church teaches.

Either way you look at it, it is wrong.

To believe in the Lord is to believe what He has promisedRom 4:20-21 "...yet, **with respect to the promise of God**, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and **being fully assured that what God had promised**, He was able also to perform."

Yes. This is what Catholics believe. We believe that faith is what makes us able to perform according to the promise.

I know what it mens to not believe the message of the cross, but what does it mean to not “avail themselves of His sacrifice?”

The Apostles taught that those who believed should be baptized. In baptism we are joined by the HS to Christ, in his death and resurrection. It is this act of faith that brings the grace, poured out in His blood on the cross, into our souls.

Do you understand that there is a distinct theology called “Reformed Theology?”

Yes, or so it has been presented here by “Reformed”. Y’all have a lot in common!

But as to your statement one cannot be sanctified and not be saved I refer you to:

1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband;"Can an unbelieving wife or husband be saved? Of course not. Yet, in a sense, they’re “sanctified” through their believing spouse. Your problem lies in your monolithic idea of the word “sanctified.”
​

Evidently.

I like that! monolithic. Tee Hee.

And I want to commend you that you don’t consider the confessional (booth) an excuse to sin.So then you are saying salvation is exclusively about, by and for Catholics?

Actually, Eastern Catholics do not use a “booth”, and a lot of Latin Catholics don’t either.

I think I said the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. Everyone who is saved is Catholic, because there is only One Body, and all those who are joined to the Head are members of His One Body.

Yet I don’t see where Paul taught the churches he planted, and later wrote to by letter, that Peter was “Vicar of Christ,”

Certainly not! Vicar is a Latin concept that did not evolve for centuries. In the early days he was called The Rock, or the keeper of the keys, and a number of other titles.

head of the church on earth and is to be addressed as “Pope.”

Jesus has always been Head of the Church. Pope is another Latin term not used by Arameans. He was called “the Big Fisherman”.

Or that he began his letter to the church at Rome with the words, “your Excellency, Pope Peter.”

Another Latin custom. I think where your polemic falls short is that you seem to only be able to find fault with the Latinizations of the Church. You cannot successfully apply all these detractions to the Eastern Rites, or the Orthodox, who have no loved lost on Rome either. In order to discount the teaching validly, you will have to discount it across the board, and not just in the Latin Rite.

Strange, indeed, that Paul should instruct the Vicar of Christ, head of the church on earth.

Not at all. Scripture is clear that we should teach and admonish one another in all wisdom. ​

 

[savedsinner]

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

Romans 1:4-6
…Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;

Romans 6:16-18
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness

Romans 6:22-23
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

James 2:21-24
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Romans 6:3-5
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Moondweller has claimed that Catholics believe in a works based salvation, but I say no, this is not accurate. Catholics believe in the obedience of faith, as Paul writes about in his letter to the Romans. Paul does contrast faith to the Jews and how they followed the Torah, but that is not the whole picture that Paul is trying to push forward in this espistle.

Why was the faith of the Roman church proclaimed through out the world, because they believed in the Gosple, is that the faith Paul is talking about?

I don’t think so.

I think the reason the faith was proclaimed through out the world was because of how the Roman church lived out their faith.
They had faith working in love, just like St. James is speaking of.
Paul is not calling people to faith, but to the obedience of faith. That is being a slave of God, not a slave of sin. This doen’t come automatically when someone becomes a christian, that is why Paul is telling the Roman church that they must live by the the spirit, and not by the flesh. They must trust in God to give them the grace to live a righteous life. And what is one of the graces that Paul speaks of, well he is first of all speaking of baptism.

Paul say’s that when you are a slave of God, or to put it another way, have the obedience of faith, this will lead to sanctification, which then leads to eternal life. I would take it that by eternal life, Paul is speaking of our salvation. In other words, when we have a faith working in love, this will lead us to salvation.
This is why the Catholic church doesn’t teach a works based salvation, but it teaches, that we are saved by God’s grace alone, and our response to this grace is a faith working itself out in love, also known as charity.

If Moondweller wants to say that we are saved by faith alone, and by that he means a faith that is working itself out in love, then we are talking about the same thing. But nowhere in the bible is faith set apart from love, nowhere. If you think that the bible teaches that, then you are misinterpreting the bible.

Genesis 26:4-5
I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Sure sounds like obedience of faith to me instead of faith alone.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Belief is of the heart, not the lips. You don’t seem to know what belief actually is. Doesn’t surprise me.

Nor does it surprise me that you do not comprehend that the heart serves the body and that the belief that is “taken to heart” always results in more than just lip service and yields acts of love. Thus you show the nature and limited dimension of your true belief as an intellectual belief - which at heart is just the same old heretical worm of gnosticism all over again. Don’t you think?

I don’t reject “grace through faith” at all (to the contrary), and certainly not acts of charitable love.

Good - that is very Catholic of you to admit that faith alone does not save.

My theology is Biblically Pauline, and I don’t have a belief “system.” I don’t believe in a religious system. God gave only one religion and that was Judaism as described in the Mosaic Law. That dispensation ended with Christ, and anticipated the time when faith would come:Gal 3:23 “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Setting aside for the moment that what you really have is a private “Pauline” interpretation ( an interpretation that Paul himself would scratch his head over and not recognize as his) you are admitting here that “your” theology is a fractional truth. But we know that one must live by every word that comes from God - and that word is fully manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. That is why Catholics have a Christ centered theology not a theology picked and chosen from a few books of Pauline writing.

Don’t delude yourself - you do have a belief system. You just don’t recognize it since its right under your own nose where you can can’t see it. You believe in what MD wants to believe and what somone else taught MD he should believe.

Your belief, for the most part is formed from a context of “in opposition to” Catholic teaching. This is the tell tale pattern of Protestantism and reform theology that is a new “innovation of man” that comes to us very late in history. No Apostle would recognize 90% of what you profess as truth.

What you really have therefor is a belief system that is defined in terms of opposites. Your system can’t stand on its own without having an antagonist (from your context) to push up against. Your system requires the resistance of a force or standard like gravity to give it traction. In essence you are just like the kid who writes graffiti on a wall. That mischievous kid would have no canvas nor any personal relevance by which to impose his views on society without the existence of a surface to deface in his own image. Lacking an original standard you deface what others have built.

Naughty boy.

I would conclude that according to Paul, faith IS what matters. Because faith is connected to promise. To believe in God is to believe what He has promised. The New Covenant is based on unconditional promises. Faith is believing what God has said He would do. This kind of justifying faith goes all the way back to Abraham. It’s called Abrahamic faith. That’s why he’s called the father of all believers.Heb. 10:14-18 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them,” {He then says,} “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.

The New Covenant is based on unconditional promises?
This is not true. You are inventing new theology again or expressing it incompetently. Are you blind to the many cases in NT scripture that are conditioned on the word “IF”?

Just a few examples of many that refute this statement:

• For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. (Matthew 6:14)
• But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? (John 5:47 - note not Pauline Theology)
• If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.(John 8:24]
• If you be the children of Abraham, **do the works of Abraham **(John 8:39)
• If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.(John 13:17 - Jesus refutes the tenants of Gnosticism - it takes more than knowledge and belief - YOU MUST DO)
• By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another. (John 13:35 - active love not passive)
• If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love. (John 15:34 - be a doer not a talker)
• You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.(John 15:35)
• Try your own selves if you be in the faith; prove ye yourselves. Know you not your own selves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates? (2 Cor 13:5 - “Pauline Theology” - impenitents must do penance)

There are hundreds more. Do you read the same Gospel that Catholics do MD?

[continued]
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]

CentralFLJames:

You are a sweating and perspiring contradiction of teaching

How so?

By going out of your way to work hard to ignore the hundreds of verses in scripture that contradict your personal theology. See above for just one example.

But not the promises.

Now you are judging the souls of others here and calling us non-believers for refuting your false teachings? The promises require actions - not words and not new words that the apostles never taught.

Now who’s "sweating and perspiring contradiction of teaching? A “better salvation?” Based on “unnecessary work of charity and love?” Are you claiming another Covenant besides the New? Or are you renovating the Old (Law?) The former is unbiblical, the latter provides no salvation. Never did. Never will, no matter how you reconstruct it.

I am sweating here as I labor to correct the heresies you routinely spew in these forums. You again have attempted to dodge the question. If one believes in Jesus as savior and then decides to work and do good deeds are you claiming that their salvation is invalidated by that work? How is exceeding what you consider to be the (minimal) requirements cause one to lose one’s salvation.
Are you asserting that “good works” is a visible sign of disbelief in Jesus? hoo-boy it must be hard living in your house and making sure one does not accidentally do a good deed for fear that it will be taken by God as a lack of faith that He does it all for us!

"For by GRACE you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works…"What can I say? It is written via the Holy Spirit.

You are only showing a mediocre understanding of Pauling theology here. Notice that the passage speaks of salvation in the past tense -“you have been saved.” In Greek this is the perfect tense, which denotes a past, completed action. It is not relevant to maintaining one’s salvation - we must persevere in that as Paul tells us many times. You are selectively reading Paul according to the designs of your own making. We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation. It is the kind which we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we will one day receive (cf. Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5). You really need to get off of the milk and cookies and step up to solid food. More here: Faith and Works (Jimmy Akin)

James

 

[Philthy]

moondweller:

In the original question Mes14 ASSUMES them to be believers, alluding to the Heb. 10 passage.

Correct

If I were to say that I would be a fool. There’s no such thing as a believer who doesn’t sin. I responded to the preposterous idea that there is such an animal as a “believer” who continually sins and doesn’t care. A believer is someone who has been convicted of his sins by the Holy Spirit, and through that conviction turns to Christ, by faith, for forgiveness. He is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and fully understands that it was his sins that put Christ on the cross. Such a conviction can never create an “I don’t care” attitude toward the sacrifice of Christ and sin. It’s IMPOSSIBLE! If I were to see such an attitude from one who professes faith in Christ, I would not believe his profession.

I agree with you here.(!) The reason I am so fixated on clarifying this point is because you simultaneously preach OSAS and Assurance of Salvation(not necessarily on this thread) and you do both “through faith apart from works”, and apart from sin. From the above exchange it is clear that you would judge behavior as an indication of a person’s salvation. Every time the admonitions are made in the NT epistles regarding unrepentant sins which preclude one from the inheritance of eternal life you, by default of OSAS, and apart from any clear indication that the comments are not intended for the faithful, unilaterally declare such admonitions as applying only to unbelievers. And rather than embrace the notion that they “were saved” and have “made a shipwreck of their faith” (have fallen from grace/lost salvation) you simply retroactively assume that they “were never saved”. This retroactive assumption could perhaps even follow a prior period of time where you judged the same person as “saved” based upon their confession of Christ as Lord, their stated belief in his atoning sacrifice, etc etc etc “apart from works”. Undoubtedly you would tell this person during the “fruitful” period of their lives that they can be assured of their salvation through faith alone. Unfortunately history has plenty of examples of people who had powerful conversion experiences, turned around lives, apparent fruit of the holy Spirit etc; people who were “educated” and believed that they believed who, unfortunately, at a later time grew restless and lukewarm in their faith and ultimately rejected that faith and returned to a life of sin.
I would say they lost their salvation. You would say they never had it. Regardless of that difference, the key point that I see in this entire situation is that it is useless to preach salvation by “faith alone” when the only criteria *we *truly have is our behavior. I’ve said repeatedly that perhaps God knows our salvation in a different way, but we dont. We must use the barometer of our avoidance of sin, our love towards others, and our sorrow when we do sin as a critical measure of our salvation and leave what only God knows to God alone. It is from this perspective that I consider the notion of sola fide and absolute assurance of salvation “no matter what the future brings” as pretty useless doctrine.

No true believer can remain in such a state. To remain in such a state would testify to his/her unbelief.

I absolutely agree 100%. This is why it is improper to claim OSAS - at least in any useful, practical way - prior to the completion of our earthly lives. Yet you do it all the time. Do you not see the contradiction when we have not been given knowledge of the future in a particular individuals life?

I don’t believe such a one, no matter what he professes with his lips, will enjoy heaven as long as he continues to sin and “does not care.” No salvation has taken place. Get it? :doh2:You’ve got your answer. No such animal exists.

Yeah I get it - either it hasnt taken place or its no longer in place and you and I dont know which it is - dont even have a clue - until the person’s life of walking in the good works that God has created in advance (cf Eph 2:10) is over. That aint the OSAS youve been peddlin’.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

As a Protestant, we often say, “We are saved by believing the Gospel, or putting our trust in Jesus/giving Him our life.”

But this doesn’t contain all of the “how”. This is at the front end…and we’re trusting God to do what is impossible for us.

But the “how are we saved?” also includes God’s workmanship in us (sanctification). For instance, the Lord disciplines us so that we won’t be condemned along with the world (1 Cor 11:32). So if one is finally justified (and not condemned along with the world), it’s also due to being in shape by this discipline (sanctification).

There’s also confession of sin. If we confess, we receive forgiveness and cleansing of all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:9).

There’s also the anointing of the sick…if someone is sick there’s prayer, anointing with oil, and if they have any sins, they are forgiven there too (James 5:14-15).

There’s lot’s involved with the “how” God saves us!

God bless you,

 

[jim1130]

As a Catholic, I have understood that we have a moral assurance of Heaven, but not a guarantee.

“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you, that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23).

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Yes. This is what Catholics believe. We believe that faith is what makes us able to perform according to the promise.

“Promise” doesn’t require performance on your part, it requires total faith in the performance of Another, Jesus Christ. And on His perfect performance God established unconditional promises regarding salvation (redemption, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, eternal life and glorification) to those who believe in Him.

The Apostles taught that those who believed should be baptized.

Here you have the correct chronological order. Those who BELIEVED were baptized. Not the other way around (e.g., infant baptism).

In baptism we are joined by the HS to Christ, in his death and resurrection. It is this act of faith that brings the grace, poured out in His blood on the cross, into our souls.

Here’s where we part. Men began to think and teach inaccurately about ritual, water baptism and eventually predicated to it a delusive power and, consequently, it (water baptism) took on a life of its own, even to the exclusion of personal faith.

In the ancient church personal faith and water baptism were intimately united. Those that personally believed the gospel message of Christ were subsequently water baptized. But it wasn’t the baptism itself that united them to Christ (His death to sin, burial and subsequent, bodily resurrection to glory), but the creative act of God (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10) based on one’s personal faith in Christ; ritual baptism being only the outward testimony of the spiritual (positional) reality.

Baptism in and of itself carries no power. But tragically, men in high positions in the visible church began to adopt and promote the idea that it did, to the end that water baptism supplanted personal faith, and through water baptism “Christians” were being stamped out like molded parts on an assembly line.

Actually, Eastern Catholics do not use a “booth”, and a lot of Latin Catholics don’t either.

True! But you got the picture.

I think I said the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. Everyone who is saved is Catholic, because there is only One Body, and all those who are joined to the Head are members of His One Body.

That’s very “Pauline” of you to say this.

Originally Posted by moondweller View Post
Yet I don’t see where Paul taught the churches he planted, and later wrote to by letter, that Peter was “Vicar of Christ,”

Certainly not! Vicar is a Latin concept that did not evolve for centuries. In the early days he was called The Rock, or the keeper of the keys, and a number of other titles.

Latin, Pig Latin, Koine Greek, Modern Greek, makes not difference. The notion that Peter was head of the church on earth and his “successors” were/are the Roman bishops was not taught by any Apostle, not even Peter himself.

Another Latin custom. I think where your polemic falls short is that you seem to only be able to find fault with the Latinizations of the Church. You cannot successfully apply all these detractions to the Eastern Rites, or the Orthodox, who have no loved lost on Rome either. In order to discount the teaching validly, you will have to discount it across the board, and not just in the Latin Rite.

You’re rationalizing. I discount it across the board because it can’t be traced back to the Apostles, which is a fundamental requirement for oral tradition.

 

[notsmart]

By what means do we have available to us to continue to grow in holiness as the christians did so with the apostles in the bible.
I say you must be catholic to really be a christian.
I understand and respect non catholics, and their arguments.
However, I stay with Jesus. I will die trying to get to be a catholic.

As a Protestant, we often say, “We are saved by believing the Gospel, or putting our trust in Jesus/giving Him our life.”

The Bible says the gospel is the good news that God sent his only Son, the Messiah, the annointed one, to save Jews and Gentiles by dying for our sins, and rising from the dead and that we too will rise from the dead.

How do Catholics say we are saved? If I were an atheist or another religion or knew nothing about Christ/ God, and asked how I can go to Heaven/( Which I guess I wouldn’t ask if I were an atheist, but play along…), what would you say?

 

[moondweller]

savedsinner:

If Moondweller wants to say that we are saved by faith alone, and by that he means a faith that is working itself out in love, then we are talking about the same thing.

If that’s all you’re saying then, yes, we are talking about the same thing.

But nowhere in the bible is faith set apart from love, nowhere.

True. But nowhere is it stated that salvation is based on our love, but rather His toward us:John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."The condition is not our love but our faith in Him. Certainly love for others should follow, especially for the brethren (1 Thess. 3:12-13; 4:9-10; 5:11,14,15; 2 Thess. 1:3). But the condition for salvation, even according to Christ, is faith.

If you think that the bible teaches that, then you are misinterpreting the bible.

I think a misinterpretation (rather misunderstanding) of the Bible is that it teaches salvation conditioned at all on our love. CentralFLJames has gone so far as to say salvation is also conditioned on “God’s faith in us.”

 

[notsmart]

moondweller,

Tell me about the woman who annointed Jesus with oil, and tears, and wiped her hair on Jesus.
Tell me what you think of this bible story.
I need to know, based on your post before mine.

 

[christcnection1]

catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

**“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).” **

So in a nutshell, faithful Catholics are saved, being saved, and will be saved. (saved past, present, future)

Additionally, Jesus said only those that do the will of His Father in heaven will be saved. (Matt 7:21) Loving God is part of His will - in fact it’s the most important thing we can do - to love God above all else. Moreover, as important as faith and hope are, love surpasses both.

 

[moondweller]

CentralFLJames:

Nor does it surprise me that you do not comprehend that the heart serves the body and that the belief that is “taken to heart” always results in more than just lip service and yields acts of love.

But I do. Where we part is the notion that those acts of love on man’s part contribute to God’s sovereign act of grace in saving the believer.

Thus you show the nature and limited dimension of your true belief as an intellectual belief - which at heart is just the same old heretical worm of gnosticism all over again. Don’t you think?

Nope, not at all. Not even closely related.

Good - that is very Catholic of you to admit that faith alone does not save.

It is, isn’t it? If that’s what I was admitting to.

Setting aside for the moment that what you really have is a private “Pauline” interpretation ( an interpretation that Paul himself would scratch his head over and not recognize as his)

And you know this how?

you are admitting here that “your” theology is a fractional truth.

Could you quote me on this admittance?

But we know that one must live by every word that comes from God - and that word is fully manifest in the person of Jesus Christ.

True, but not exclusively. It is also manifest in the theopneustos, written Word of God, preserved for those generations that would live after Christ’s earthly ministry and the Apostolic age. A written Word that, like all literature, must be studied and understood in its proper context.

That is why Catholics have a Christ centered theology not a theology picked and chosen from a few books of Pauline writing.

Well, Paul was certainly used to write more than just a “few” Books. And the content of his teachings (theology/soteriology) found in them certainly do explain to us a salvation wrought by God alone through the sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Remove Paul’s writing from the N.T. and we’d know very little to nothing of the great N.T. doctrines such as justification by faith, redemption and propitiation in His blood, the believer’s sanctified position in the resurrected Christ, divine reconciliation through the cross, and most of all, that overall, glorious message of salvation by grace through faith alone. In fact Paul calls it “my gospel” and boldly states:Rom 2:16 "…on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."Paul fully understood that his “gospel,” that he preached and wrote, was the word of God:2 Tim 2:8 "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.

Don’t delude yourself - you do have a belief system. You just don’t recognize it since its right under your own nose where you can can’t see it. You believe in what MD wants to believe and what somone else taught MD he should believe.

I certainly recognize and greatly appreciate great men of the Word of God who, corporately, helped me to understand and grasp this grace in which I now stand. But my faith is not a system in that I am bound by threat of anathama to accept their teachings as infallible. But I am free to examine their teachings/writings and compare them to the written Word of God myself and how they align themselves with “the faith” which has now come (Gal. 3:23-26), by which I am justified as a gift (Rom. 3:24). There’s teachings of Luther I don’t agree with, and I suspect that if he was living with us today, neither would he. Much study has been dedicated to the Scripture since his day. Far more than any time in church history.

Your belief, for the most part is formed from a context of “in opposition to” Catholic teaching.

Not true. Only the Catholic teachings that don’t align themselves with salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone: Paul’s gospel.

This is the tell tale pattern of Protestantism and reform theology that is a new “innovation of man” that comes to us very late in history.

Well, it’s not a “new innovation,” but a reintroduction to Biblical soteriology which got lost along the way.

No Apostle would recognize 90% of what you profess as truth.

True, if they denied 90 percent of what is revealed in the N.T. Epistles.

 

[notsmart]

The woman who annoited Jesus with her tears, and with wiping her hair, knew her need of what?
We do not go out of our way to injure Jesus but we do come to a point when we know we are.
Do we really ever stop injuring Him?

 

[moondweller]

CentralFLJames:

The New Covenant is based on unconditional promises?
This is not true.

Examine the wording of the N.C. in His blood. It is all “I will…,” not “If you will, then I will.” That latter wording belonged to the conditional covenant of Law God made with national Israel.

You are inventing new theology again or expressing it incompetently. Are you blind to the many cases in NT scripture that are conditioned on the word “IF”?

You’re confused with the “Gospel Accounts” and “gospel of Jesus Christ.” The four Books at the beginning of the N.T. are called “Gospels” but they are historical accounts of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ up until the time of His sacrificial death which THEN inaugurated the N.C. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the N.C. Do you know where the N.C. is located in the Scriptures? Look at Heb. 8:8-12. Look at the “I wills…”

1. **I will **effect a new covenant…
2. I will put my laws into their minds…
3. I will write them upon their hearts…
4. I will be their God…
5. I will be merciful to the iniquities…
6. I will remember their sin no more…

There are no "If you will, then I will… in the covenant. That’s why it’s unconditional.

I am sweating here as I labor to correct the heresies you routinely spew in these forums. You again have attempted to dodge the question. If one believes in Jesus as savior and then decides to work and do good deeds are you claiming that their salvation is invalidated by that work? How is exceeding what you consider to be the (minimal) requirements cause one to lose one’s salvation.

But I don’t believe one can lose one’s salvation. YOU DO! The original question of the O.P. is “How are we saved.” My overall answer is according to Paul’s gospel: “By grace through faith…, gift of God…, not as a result of works.”

Are you asserting that “good works” is a visible sign of disbelief in Jesus?

No. God forbid! Only the idea that good works in any way are a cause of salvation. Such a notion is a sign of disbelief in Jesus (i.e., what it means to believe in Him for salvation).

Notice that the passage speaks of salvation in the past tense -“you have been saved.” In Greek this is the perfect tense, which denotes a past, completed action.

BINGO.

It is not relevant to maintaining one’s salvation - we must persevere in that as Paul tells us many times.

You’ve just changed it from “by grace through faith” to works.

You are selectively reading Paul according to the designs of your own making.

You’re adding to Paul according to your disbelief.

We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation.

Neither Paul nor any of the N.T. writers speak of “initial” salvation or “initial” justification. If you’re going to add the word “initial,” which has absolutely no contextual support, then don’t EVER bash Luther for adding the word “alone” which does have valid contextual support.

Now you are judging the souls of others here and calling us non-believers for refuting your false teachings? The promises require actions - not words and not new words that the apostles never taught.

But it’s you who add the word “initial.”

The action *promise *requires is FAITH. If it was your promise then it would require work on your part. But it’s God’s, hence, FAITH is required of you. Do you believe God when He says: “I will remember their sin no more?”

 

[notsmart]

Moondweller,
Please answer my posts so I can get to the heart of your real question that is hidden behind this one.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller,

Tell me about the woman who annointed Jesus with oil, and tears, and wiped her hair on Jesus.
Tell me what you think of this bible story.
I need to know, based on your post before mine.

You have before you a woman who, unlike Simon, fully understood her sinful state. Do you understand yours?