How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[PEPCIS]

What had been forgotten, Pepcis, is not what they have been told or taught. What had been forgotten is what they have experienced.

That would be your opinion on the matter. Peter does not say that they have experienced forgiveness, but that they have forgotten what had been related to them. How would you know that your sins are forgiven, unless someone told you that they had?

Another point to consider is that your EXPERIENCES relate to you what you know. Your knowledge is what has been forgotten, not your experiences.

Besides that, experiences cannot be trusted, and indeed can and will lead you astray from the truth.

9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Peter is pretty straightforward. There is no indication that they never believed in Christ.

There is an abundance of “indication” that they have never been believers. To begin with, James says that a life of no works is a DEAD FAITH. Jesus says that those with DEAD FAITH will be cast into hades. What more “indication” do you need?

mikeledes:

In fact, it says the opposite. The “context” you’re referring to is the theological framework you’re using to interpret the passage and this theological framework forces you to read into the text a “figurative” use of the word “forgotten.” There is no objective reason to claim that Peter is using “a play on words.” That’s being read into the text, not gleaned from it.

As I said, that’s just Biblical Interpretation 101. Of course you have to examine texts to find their true meaning. Jesus was not a LITERAL lamb, but to listen to your argument, I would have to admit that He was. How can you explain that?

 

[PEPCIS]

. . . when I asked you the following question: “Do you believe that the millions of infants that have died are burning in hell? Do you believe that those who have severe mental disabilities are condemned to burn in hell as well?”

You responded: “I believe that the Lord of all the earth will do right. Mine is not to question if His actions are evil if… I am happy to know that God cannot do injustice.”

Which is really a non-answer. If you can unequivocally say that one can only be saved through mental assent and acknowledgement of who Christ is, then you should be able to answer my question regarding the salvation of infants. An infant cannot make a mental assent or acknowledge Christ. Does this mean they will automatically burn in hell for all eternity, since the only way to heaven is through a mental assent and acknowledgement of Christ? The Westminster Confession, an important and well-known Calvinist statement of faith, states the following:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Do you agree with this statement? Or do you believe that this is wrong and that all infants and others “incapable of being called outwardly by the ministry of the Word” will burn in hell because they did not make a mental assent or acknowledge Christ?

I maintain that the Bible does not give specific relief for us who would want to know what the Judge of all the Earth will do. I believe that God is a righteous Judge. Therefore, I rest in the assurance that God will know what to do, and that He will perform righteously.

When the Bible speaks of being saved, it is ALWAYS coupled with mental assent. I don’t know of a verse in the Bible that gives us assurance on babies going to heaven. Do you?

 

[mikeledes]

I wanted to come back to readdress this statement of yours. I’m trying to be as circumspect as possible given the information that is going back and forth in this debate. One thing that I am learning is that there are Catholics (such as yourself and una fides) who are genuinely interested in correct doctrine. You are shattering some myths for me!!!

But your statement here is not really correct. In Biblical interpretation, the importance is not only found in interpreting in the immediate context of the sentence and paragraph and chapter and book, but also in the greater context of the whole of the Bible.

I say that, because it is imperative that we develop interpretations that are consistent and do not contradict other Bible verses. That is why I facetiously implied that you would consider Jesus as lying in another verse. I know that you don’t hold such a position, but that would be the natural outcome if we were to adopt your interpretation of that verse.

Well, the quandry is in the fact that you want to interpret LITERALLY, while I insist on an ALLEGORICAL interpretation. To be consistent in my interpretation that we cannot lose our salvation, then I must hold that this is referring to those individuals who come into the fold, even fooling themselves that they are true believers.

This is why Jesus can say that He “never knew you, depart from me you workers of evil.”

I agree. The Bible does not contradict itself. The problem is whether those other passages that seemingly contradict 2 Peter 1:9 are being interpreted correctly. The assumption that you’re making is that your interpretation of those other passages are correct. If they were correct, then I highly doubt Peter would have used the language he used in 2 Peter 1:9. There a passages that are so clearly figurative that both Protestants and Catholics agree on the fact that they are figurative (i.e. Jesus’s parables, etc.). However, there is nothining in 2 Peter 1:9 that indicates that “forgotten” should be interpreted figuratively. In fact, you’re the first Protestant that I’ve heard make such a claim. You believe it’s figurative not because the passage clearly indicates it, but because it contradicts the theological assumptions that you’re using to interpret the text. So if that theological assumption is wrong, then you’re interpretation of this passage is wrong as well.

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I hope that by carefully explaining my position that you will come to understand that I am being quite consistent and honest in my approach to the Scriptures. Even though I have been tempted to call your approach “dishonest” I have not done so, because I do believe that you are being sincere, and attempting to adhere to your own Catholic perspective

I’m sorry. You misunderstood what I said. When I said "dishonest way, " I was talking about the example you used (i.e. I lied to you when I said I forgot my wallet when I really didn’t forget), not that you are dishonest. In other words, in the example I was using “forgot” in a dishonest way.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

If someone falls out of grace (according to Catholic dogma), then he is NOT IN CHRIST, therefore, he would be performing works OUTSIDE OF CHRIST. That is works-based, and has nothing to do with faith. If that person fell out of faith/grace, then he is simply a seed that was never planted in good soil, and is therefore a false professor.

If someone one falls from grace, Pepcis,then the Catholic Church teaches that that person’s works are of no value because he is not in a state of grace. If he is not in a state of grace, then he cannot be saved no matter how many works he does. In order to be restored to the state of grace, the logical order is that you must believe and repent first and then confess. If you confess without faith and repentance, it is not a valid confession and you are not restored to the state of grace.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I maintain that the Bible does not give specific relief for us who would want to know what the Judge of all the Earth will do. I believe that God is a righteous Judge. Therefore, I rest in the assurance that God will know what to do, and that He will perform righteously.

When the Bible speaks of being saved, it is ALWAYS coupled with mental assent. I don’t know of a verse in the Bible that gives us assurance on babies going to heaven. Do you?

According to you, the Bible has unequivocally stated that a person can only be saved through mental assent. So it’s pretty specific when it comes to salvation. Do you disagree with the statement made by the Westminster Confession, that infants and those incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word can be members of the elect? Do you disagree with Calvinists that assert that some or even all infants that die in infancy are assured salavtion? So if the Bible unequivocally states that one is saved though mental assent, why can’t you say that infants will burn in hell since they are unable to make that mental assent?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And I would stand with YOU against him. Besides being terribly wrong in his interpretation regarding eschatology, he is wrong to state that belief in dispensational theology has anything to do with salvation.

On what do you base this claim?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Quent_Below]

Which means that a person is justified by faith alone. The problem with many people is that they choose to take faith and works as separate ways of assuring that you are saved, as if these are not connected. That’s because we all (Like James) understand that there are religious people who do many great and wonderful works, but are not really saved, because they do it for ostentatious show and recognition.

But James was treating the two words as grammatically separate events, and correcting people for this error by stating that TRUE faith is ALWAYS accompanied by works. That’s why John the Baptist told the Pharisees to “bring therefore fruit meet for repentance” (Matt.3:8), which is just another way of saying “If you’re truly saved, then why is it that you don’t have evidence of that salvation in good works?”

James made it abundantly clear that anyone who tried to separate TRUE faith from works was making the mistake of attributing a DEAD faith as capable of saving. But TRUE faith is incomplete without accompanying works.

So, then, works DOES NOT SAVE, but is merely an indication that TRUE faith is within the one who works.

It’s like saying that you have love for your wife, but you don’t ever prove that love to her. The proof of love is in the actions (works) of the lover, just as the proof of faith is in the actions (works) of the faith-holder. Works is not a means of getting to heaven, it is just EVIDENCE that you are on your way there.

“But TRUE faith is incomplete without accompanying works”. I like that expression, also coming from James. The word faith in the NT carries different meanings and that’s the full-bodied version. But my Catholic understanding is that saving grace starts it all. It’s everything. Without defining is comprehensively, grace is favor, the free and underserved help from God that we require. And the cooperation we give God in doing his works (any charitable work of man done under the influence of grace is really God’s work) is what joins our free will to our faith understanding. Collaboration may not be highly used in the Protestant community, but it resonates in the Catholic understanding of how our acceptance of God’s grace can indeed transform us.

I’ve heard the “evidence” only explanation of works, which just doesn’t ring with my more complete reading of the NT.

We’re encouraged for an abundance of good work, our works will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, recompense is granted according to our deeds, rewards can be great (under the influence of grace), full recompense, faith working through love, the measure with which you measure, etc. If Christ doesn’t expect us to be virtuous and fruitful in our faith, then I’m misreading his admonition about those who only call him Lord, without doing the will of his Father. Its part of the salvation package—the obedience of our full-bodied faith. Are we earning salvation? No way, Jose. We’re just “working” out our salvation, knowing it’s the gift of grace really working in us.

Good works crowd out bad works (sin) in our soul. I vote for staying in the race to the end, not believing anything gives me the privilege of coasting. Grace allows me to get back into favor; my cooperation engages my freedom in the spiritual warfare—it allows me to serve and glorify my creator and “remain in his kindness.”

 

[mikeledes]

These are the people that Peter is talking about. Peter says that these type of people quickly forget that the message they “accepted” was about how their sins were forgiven, and how they could be accepted into the heavenlies. But these people walk away.

that was never planted in good soil, and is therefore a false professor.

I’m sorry, but Peter says no such thing. He does not say that they forgot the message they accepted. He says the following:

**9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. **

He forgot that he WAS CLEANSED from his old sins, not the message of forgiveness.

The example of the sower says nothing about the state of their soul before God, except in the case of the one that never believes. It simply states that there are four basic groups:

1. Those who will never believe.
2. Those who believe for a while and then apostasize.
3. Those who believe and are overcome by sin.
4. Those who believe and persevere.

Obviously, the only group that will enter the heavenly kingdom is the last one. However, the passage does not say that those in the second or third group were never saved. In fact there are other passages that make it clear that a true believer can fall from grace. Besides John 15:2, 6, - which clearly describes those who fall from grace as being in Christ (i.e. "in Me) - you also have the following string of passages that refer to the same group of people:

Galatians 1:6

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Galatians 3:3

** 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? **

Galatians 4:9

**9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? **

Galatians 5:2-5

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

You cannot be be called by the grace of Christ, begin with the Spirit and be known by God, and be severed from Christ and fall from grace, if you never were saved, regenerated by the Spirit, united to Christ and in a state of grace to begin with.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

“
I’ve heard the “evidence” only explanation of works, which just doesn’t ring with my more complete reading of the NT…”

Exactly! The faith that saves is the faith that’s animated by the love of God and such a faith ( fides formata) produces works. But love and its works are not merely ancilliary to salvation or mere evidence of faith. Love is as necessary for salvation as faith and hence we are not saved by faith alone. Even one of the classic Protestant proof texts contradict faith alone:

Romans 10:9

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Here, Paul does not condition salvation on faith alone. He clearly states that the one who believes and confesses (which Protestants consider a work) will be saved. Paul doesn’t make “confession” ancilliary to salvation or an act that demonstrates one has already been saved. Rather, he conditions salvation on belief and this act.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I haven’t seen any compelling argument against sola fide.

I haven’t seen any compelling argument for sola fide.

I have a question. How do you define faith? How do you define repentance? Does your definition of repentance agree with the Westminster Confession definition of repentance:

Section II.–By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[una_fides]

“She” as in, all of the people who are in the controlling heirarchy of the Church. I can proclaim myself to be the official Pope, but that won’t make it so. All of the Church’s claims are based upon presumptions that emanate from Matthew 16:18. That, of course, is another argument for another day, another forum.

The Church does not base her claims of papal authority on a passage of Scripture. She bases her claims on historical continuance of the teachings and faith of the apostles to which Scripture provides additional evidence. The Church did not just pick up the Bible some time after AD 397 after she canonized it and then just said to herself that because of a passage in the gospel of Matthew that the successor of St. Peter thereby has authority as pope.

We have records of early Church fathers that clearly deferred to the bishop of Rome (the pope) as having the primacy over the other bishops. Nevertheless, the issue actually isn’t as much about the pope as it is with apostolic authority and the hierarchy of the Church. Christ appointed apostles who appointed bishops and vested them with their authority. The early Church fathers are unanimous about this fact. St. Clement of Rome lived during the days of the apostles, was likely mentioned in Scripture, and his writings were read in the early Church along side of Scripture and were later debated as to whether they should be included in the canon. He himself clearly states that the apostles appointed successors to take their place and succeed them in their ministry as heads of the Church. Please read this article: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

If you insist on putting it that way, which I’m sure you will, then the only true answer would be that she is not - assuming that those are the only two acceptable answers. But there is another answer: She is A church among thousands of the one Universal Church which Christ founded.

When did these other “churches” begin to emerge in history? Which can trace their roots continually throughout history back to the apostles themselves? The reality is, whether you admit it or not, these “churches” you refer to all began much much later in history. Christ also did not say that he was going to found his “churches” he said that he would build his Church (singular). Christ himself prayed for this universal (Catholic) Church that it would be one. We believe that Christ’s prayer is effectual and that the Catholic Church is the unified body that Christ founded from the beginning. The only historical argument you can make is that after the death of the apostles that the successors to the apostles dispersed throughout the world fell into universal heresy on the fundamental issue of how one is saved. All the individual Churches, which were part of the One universal (Catholic) Church all over the world all changed the teachings and all arrived somehow at the same conclusions pertaining to baptism, faith and works, loosing salvation through mortal sin, etc. Btw, that is the more educated protestant position. There are some who have tried to reinvent history and say that the heretics in the early centuries were really the protestants and held to the same protestant doctrines of today. This theory was somewhat recently invented by baptist pastors, not historians, in order to try to trace their records deeper into history to try to add more legitimacy to their message that historically was only a few hundred years old, which obviously pales in comparison to all the early Church fathers writing between 1700-2000 years ago! Even a simplistic study of the heresies in the early Church will very easily lay to rest such rediculous claims.

That’s because I don’t see that the church was in “absolute error”, nor do I think that people began to all of a sudden “discover the hidden teachings of the apostles”. The development and refinement of doctrine is an ongoing work.

Are you saying that how to get saved is a “development” and that the Church had somehow missed this most fundamental teaching for 1500 years until this doctrine was “developed” by Luther?

 

[Coder]

I am wondering what the Catholic response is when Protestants site John 3:16(“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”) in support of their “saved by faith alone” belief.

It is obvious that we are not to simply accept Jesus and say we have faith and then do nothing good as well as keep on sinning.

 

[una_fides]

I haven’t seen any compelling argument against sola fide. Using tradition as a means of interpretation is dangerous because you can essentially make the Bible say whatever it is that you want it to say. For that matter, it has been done - several times by the Catholic Church. The inquisitions and the crusades are two that come to mind.

Whether you admit it or not, you are interpreting Scripture according to your baptist tradition. You are hearing the doctrines, which you then interpret into the Scriptures. Why do you not see this? Tell me for example how Jehovah’s Witnesses continue their interpretations of Scripture? They believe them to be true, and when they read the Bible, they see it as reinforcing their beliefs. They are following a teaching tradition. Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Anglicans … you name the denomination, they are following the tradition of their predecessors or they are splitting off into their own private interpretations that differ and are forming another denomination. That’s how it works.
Also if you’d like to throw mud, the Salem witch trials were a serious protestant abuse. At Bob Jones University–baptist, fundamentalist–seriously anti-Catholic–until recently did not allow interracial dating and lost their tax exempt status as a result. They argued that the Bible said to keep the races separate because of the tower of Babel!

It would take me too long to defend and explain to you the inquisition and the crusades. They are made out to be much much worse than they were and both had legitimate means for being called: the defense and preservation of the faith and the defense and preservation of their homeland against Muslim invaders. There were abuses on both occasions, which were unfortunate abuses of free will of the individuals involved. They do not in any way undermine Catholic doctrine any more than a protestant who bombs an abortion clinic citing Scripture in his defense.

Depends on where I lived. Athens? Antioch? Jerusalem? Each local church has the authority over their individual members. I would agree with you that there should be a higher authority that the Protestant Church should look to here on earth, but the closest that comes to that is each denominations ruling conventions. Those are not always firm enough in their pronouncements to suit my understanding of the heirarchy and authority of the church.

I completely agree that there needs to be a higher authority to decide matters. Christ realized the same thing and for this reason he actually established the Church that way from the beginning. We see that Church exercising her authority in Scripture. In Acts, they called together a Church Council where Peter and the other apostles oversaw and decided the matter at Jerusalem. They did not leave the matter solely to the local Church in that instance because it was dealing with the heresy of the Judaisers, who claimed that Gentile converts needed to keep the law of Moses to be saved. They handed out the final decision. Guided by the same Holy Spirit, the Church has continued exercising that same apostolic authority in dealing with heresies for the past 2000 years. That’s how she compiled the books you now are reading in your Bible today.

I don’t always agree with how the conscience rules men, because some consciences are devoid of spiritual harmony. That is why I do appreciate the Catholic heirarchy.

Christ appreciated it too. That’s why he founded it from the beginning. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. He was a bishop and on his way to be martyred for his faith that he received from the beloved disciple. In about AD 108 on the way to his martyrdom he wrote the following:
“Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Here is some more about Ignatius: ewtn.com/library/MARY/IGNATIUS.HTM

True. That is why I do appreciate the heirarchy of the Catholic Church, because there is much harmony. But I much more appreciate the freedom of conscience that Protestants live under, because without that, there would be inquisition after inquisition.

I think I’m missing your connecting logic here. An authoritative heirarchy does not necessitate the overzealousness and sins committed by certain Catholics during the inquisition. One could also use the same argument to say that there should be no governments because of the potential for abuses of power and the potential for wars. If you haven’t already, I suggest reading up more from honest sources regarding what happened during the inquisitions. If I engage you on this specific matter further, we will really be getting off on a rabbit trail. Here is an article that can help: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp

 

[mikeledes]

Also if you’d like to throw mud, the Salem witch trials were a serious protestant abuse. At Bob Jones University–baptist, fundamentalist–seriously anti-Catholic–until recently did not allow interracial dating and lost their tax exempt status as a result. They argued that the Bible said to keep the races separate because of the tower of Babel!

Why start with the Salem witch trials when we have examples of religious intolerance and violence among the Protestant Refromers themselves? Today, people still refer to themselves as Lutheran and Calvinist, and yet Luther and Calvin are not shining examples of religious tolerance and non-violence. Martin Luther encouraged violence against the Jews:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

And Luther’s violent anti-Jewishness was a major influence in the development of anti-Semitism in Germany and he was cited by Nazis. Calvinist Geneva burmed Michael Servetus as a heretic. John Calvin was in favor of the execution, but he wanted it to be a death by decapitation. In the 16th century, Anabaptists were persecuted and killed by fellow Protestants. And how about the persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

I agree. The Bible does not contradict itself. The problem is whether those other passages that seemingly contradict 2 Peter 1:5-9 are being interpreted correctly. The assumption that you’re making is that your interpretation of those other passages are correct. If they were correct, then I highly doubt Peter would have used the language he used in 2 Peter 1:9.

The basic charge against me, if I understand both you and una fides, is that my interpretation is “peculiar” and unique - so much so, that you have never heard any other Protestant interpret it in this manner. But that is just not so.

The fact is, if you research Calvinist interpretations of 2 Peter 1:5-9, you will find that this passage is typically interpreted to mean that those people who do nothing to “add” to their faith, or not true Christians, and never owned that faith.

For example, Calvin says of those who forgot: “He now expresses more clearly that they who profess a naked faith are wholly without any true knowledge. He then says that they go astray like the blind in darkness, because they do not see the right way which is shewn to us by the light of the gospel. This he also confirms by adding this reason, because such have forgotten that through the benefit of Christ they had been cleansed from sin, and yet this is the beginning of our Christianity. It then follows,*** that those who do not strive for a pure and holy life, do not understand even the first rudiments of faith***.”

In other words, Calvin says that these people had not forgotten, but had never ever owned salvation, and that they “do not understand even the first rudiments of faith.”

True, he doesn’t go into great length setting the context for the word “forgotten”, but he doesn’t need to because he is not defending his interpretation like I am.

mikeledes:

However, there is nothining in 2 Peter 1:9 that indicates that “forgotten” should be interpreted figuratively.

I never said that there was. I am maintaining that the full context of the Bible makes it clear that it can only be interpreted to mean that these individuals had never owned salvation.

mikeledes:

In fact, you’re the first Protestant that I’ve heard make such a claim.

I am the first one that you have debated it with, I’m sure. But there is no other conclusion if you hold that these people were never true Christians. I’m not afraid of where logical conclusions lead.

mikeledes:

You believe it’s figurative not because the passage clearly indicates it, but because it contradicts the theological assumptions that you’re using to interpret the text.

Yes, theological assumptions that are supported Biblically, and can be read more literally than this passage. Like Jesus saying that any tree that doesn’t produce fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

mikeledes:

So if that theological assumption is wrong, then you’re interpretation of this passage is wrong as well.

Well, those implications stand for your position as well.

 

[PEPCIS]

If [a Catholic] falls from grace, Pepcis,then the Catholic Church teaches that that person’s works are of no value because he is not in a state of grace.

I’m not questioning that. That seems abundantly clear. But the real question is "How does one reenter a state of grace?

mikeledes:

If he is not in a state of grace, then he cannot be saved no matter how many works he does. In order to be restored to the state of grace, the logical order is that you must believe and repent first and then confess. If you confess without faith and repentance, it is not a valid confession and you are not restored to the state of grace.

So, if I understand this correctly, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to repeatedly put Christ to an open shame? (Hebrews 6:6)

 

[PEPCIS]

Do you disagree with the statement made by the Westminster Confession, that infants and those incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word can be members of the elect?

Yes.

mikeledes:

Do you disagree with Calvinists that assert that some or even all infants that die in infancy are assured salavtion?

Yes.

mikeledes:

So if the Bible unequivocally states that one is saved though mental assent, why can’t you say that infants will burn in hell since they are unable to make that mental assent?

Because I’m human. I WANT to believe that God will save all infants and those who are slow of mind. The Bible doesn’t teach that. However, God’s nature (as portrayed by the Bible) indicates that God is a righteous God, and that all of His judgments are righteous and true. I will rest upon those promises.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

And I would stand with YOU against him. Besides being terribly wrong in his interpretation regarding eschatology, he is wrong to state that belief in dispensational theology has anything to do with salvation.

On what do you base this claim?

I base it upon the fact that the Bible does not anywhere conclude or infer that when you come to Christ you must know every single doctrine perfectly. Even if Dispensationalism were true, there is no mention of that as an element of the gospel message. See I Corinthians 15:1-3

 

[mikeledes]

Yes.

Yes.

Because I’m human. I WANT to believe that God will save all infants and those who are slow of mind. The Bible doesn’t teach that. However, God’s nature (as portrayed by the Bible) indicates that God is a righteous God, and that all of His judgments are righteous and true. I will rest upon those promises.

So you believe that infants that die in infancy will go to hell? Is this a yes?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, theological assumptions that are supported Biblically, and can be read more literally than this passage. Like Jesus saying that any tree that doesn’t produce fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

That’s your claim that has yet to be proven. Other Protestants make a similar claim (Lutherans and Classical Arminians/Wesleyans) and come to a completely different conclusion. Yes, Jesus says that any tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and thrown in the fire and, according to John 15:2,6. that includes true believers.

God Bless,
Michael