If Protestants wrote the Bible...humorous

[beeper]

No, it can’t be all three, but it can be the first two even in light of of James 2.
This is because scripture talks about salvation as a past, present and future event. We can be saved by faith alone for our initial salvation, by we must live a saving faith we we are going to continue on the path of Christ in our life’s.
Here is the link to Jimmy Akin’s article “Salvation Past, Present and Future.” which explains how salvation is not just a one time experience in our life.

I agree with you, it cant be all three…but according to Rome all 3can be possible. I don’t see how it can be even 2 of them based on James 2. If there are 2 ways of being justified then that goes against the one gospel presented in galatians 1. Sorry it was short…have to run…Nice talking with you

 

[savedsinner]

I agree with you, it cant be all three…but according to Rome all 3can be possible. I don’t see how it can be even 2 of them based on James 2. If there are 2 ways of being justified then that goes against the one gospel presented in galatians 1. Sorry it was short…have to run…Nice talking with you

No the Church does not teach that we are saved by works alone.

Catechism:
1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

The Catechism says good works WITH the grace of Christ.
That doesn’t mean alone, it means WITH.

Websters:

With- preposition

used as a function word to indicate a participant in an action, transaction, or arrangement

 

[CentralFLJames]

My question is:
Can a person be saved by a faith that is lacking in any kind of love?

No. One can have the kind of faith that moves mountains but unless he also loves God and Neighbor (the very definition of charity - the two are always paired) one can not ever enter Heaven.

The question really is: Can one really have faith without love?

I say “no”.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Scripture support for above question about faith without love:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6).

James

 

[beeper]

No the Church does not teach that we are saved by works alone.

Catechism:
1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

The Catechism says good works WITH the grace of Christ.
That doesn’t mean alone, it means WITH.

Websters:

With- preposition

used as a function word to indicate a participant in an action, transaction, or arrangement

I think we orginally misunderstood each other on how I was using “works alone”. I was saying that with all the rules governing invincible ignorance in the church, one can be saved without either faith or faith plus works…Yet if James 2 is talking about justification then how can there be so many ways to heaven if James really meant what most Catholics thinks he meant? James 2 never allows for all these other ways to be justified. Anyway, my overall point in discussing James 2 was to show that the RCC provides several gospels and not just one. Catholics defend James 2 to prove you need both faith plus works to be saved, but when you really look at what the church teaches on justification you don’t necessarily need just “faith plus works”. The fact that Rome says Protestants can be saved is evidence of more than 1 gospel…and more than that when you toss in all the ways someone can still be saved based on invincible ignorance. Thats one of the reasons I feel most Catholics have misinterpreted James 2. Sorry, its hard to explain myself in light of all the other messages that were posted in the forum…Your loving thoughts?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think we orginally misunderstood each other on how I was using “works alone”. I was saying that with all the rules governing invincible ignorance in the church, one can be saved without either faith or faith plus works…Yet if James 2 is talking about justification then how can there be so many ways to heaven if James really meant what most Catholics thinks he meant? James 2 never allows for all these other ways to be justified. Anyway, my overall point in discussing James 2 was to show that the RCC provides several gospels and not just one. Catholics defend James 2 to prove you need both faith plus works to be saved, but when you really look at what the church teaches on justification you don’t necessarily need just “faith plus works”. The fact that Rome says Protestants can be saved is evidence of more than 1 gospel…and more than that when you toss in all the ways someone can still be saved based on invincible ignorance. Thats one of the reasons I feel most Catholics have misinterpreted James 2. Sorry, its hard to explain myself in light of all the other messages that were posted in the forum…Your loving thoughts?

Beeper - your whole confusion stems from your personal need for a “salvation formula” or a “salvation slogan”. This is a Protestant phenomena that attempts to reduce the entire bible down to a few buzz phrases that are simple for the uneducated and those who don’t want to trust “the Church” teaching to believe in and put there faith in. NEVER make the mistake of thinking that just because The Catholic Church acknowledges that Christ MAY choose to make an exception here and there out of Mercy (i.e. the concept of “invincible ignorance”) that He MUST make an exception. My own view is that VERY FEW (if any) Protestants in this day and age are excused from the heresy they practise and spread through “easy Christianity”. What you claim to be another gospel being taught by Catholics is nothing more than Catholics trying to give some hope to non-Catholics who are born into their heresy and make every good effort to follow what they believe - even though it is wrong. This condition of ignorance is not however “invincible” in this day and age of modern information exchange where the true apostolic teaching of The Catholic Church is available everywhere to a person inclined to want to know the truth. Being lazy in pursuing the truth does not relieve anyone of the obligation to know the truth.

There is no escaping that fact that faith without works (charitable works of love) is DEAD and a false faith. PERIOD.

Any more more questions or are you going to continue in your obstinate denial of what you know in your heart is the truth?

James

 

[dbonneville]

beeper: I think because you have a slightly different framework which support and surround your definitions of some of the key terms, it seems like Catholics are talking out of both side of their mouths. I can see how it might look that way, kind of like a rorshach test: “do you see the butterfly?”…“well, kinda”.

there is no internal or external discrepancy for someone that is guided by the orthodox framework. there isn’t a glaring hole in the logic or some bizarre gap we are all just missing. if you don’t believe that the RCC is the real deal, as it says it is, there is simply no way to fill in that gap.

it’s truly, truly a paradigm shift. remember that scene in Indiana Jones where Jones has to take the “leap of faith” across the chasm? it looked like he was going to fall, but then the camera angle changes and he sees the path and tosses some pebbles on it. it’s a bit like that. once you see it from a different angle, you don’t see it the “old” way anymore.

It’s also like those “magic eye” posters. once you train your eye, you see what no one else can see. you have to trust that the object the description says is there, is in fact there. then your eye searches for it and finds it. lo and behold, you are able to describe in great detail what you see, and corroborate with others who confidently, in reality, are seeing the same thing you see.

the bottom line, I think, has been quoted in the last few posts. faith without love, a love that works, is not faith. love that does not love is not love. faith that does not express itself in loving works, just isn’t faith. now you can jump back to the thief on the cross and miss the point, or jump any place else, but it’s like putting down the magic eye picture and jumping to another just because you can’t see the one we have in front of us.

ask God to show you the “magic eye” picture of what many of us are saying. you will get confirmations, inexplicably, from some place or person you never expected. but to insist that Catholics have many different views, and that we don’t see the apparent inconsistency for 2000 years is a bit much. many of us just shake our heads and say “keep trying” or maybe take a break…if you are baptized and living right there is not that much (relatively speaking) at stake, especially if you don’t understand through no fault of your own. you really seem to be grasping at this. my own assurance would be that if you really, truly want to understand this, you can, but you have to be willing that the Catholic position is right, possibly, before you can possibly expect to fully understand it, so as to reject it based on that complete and full knowledge of what you are rejecting. that’s intellectual integrity, is it not? that’s the essence of scientific method - study the facts and let that guide you to the truth.

 

[dbonneville]

Any more more questions or are you going to continue in your obstinate denial of what you know in your heart is the truth?

yikes a little bit, though everything you said is true.

i know more people that are truly adamantly opposed to what they think is the catholic teaching, but in reality, is just a ridiculous facsimile constructed from multiple bad sources of information. i think we need to maybe fall back to the position that most protestants really don’t have a clue.

i love what Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, and I paraphrase loosely, that there aren’t 100 men in America that disagree with the RCC for what it really teaches, but countless millions that disagree with it for what it is falsely accused of teaching.

most certainly this is the case.

 

[beeper]

My own view is that VERY FEW (if any) Protestants in this day and age are excused from the heresy they practise and spread through “easy Christianity”.

There is no escaping that fact that faith without works (charitable works of love) is DEAD and a false faith. PERIOD.

I agree with you that Faith without Works is dead. However, your works don’t ultimately justify you before God. Anyway, I am getting completely different viewpoints from Catholics on this issue. So are you saying you don’t believe protestants in general are saved? Or better yet, what does Rome say on this issue. I hear guests on relevent radio say that protestants can be saved because they have had a Christian baptism, but even though they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church they can still be saved… If that is true, then Rome accepts different gospels. I am not looking for a formula, I just see the contradictions with Rome’s formula…especially in light of James 2. Thoughts?

 

[dbonneville]

There is only one Gospel. The official position of Rome is that baptism in the triune formula with water is valid. You aren’t saved, Prot or Catholic, until you are in fact saved, in heaven, after you die. We are being saved, and provided we cooperate with the graces afforded us, we remain in a state of reconciliation. We can walk away from that and we can walk toward that. There is no one simple formula that states it all in one sentence because it has different aspects. I can’t explain to you how a gas engine works in one sentence. There are many parts and factors. But considering the engine in its parts and the sum total of the cooperation of those parts, I see how the engine works. But salvation isn’t that complex. There are just a few parts and you need to see them all at one time.

So, Rome teaches that Protestants can be saved by being baptized and living for Jesus. There is no confusion there. They are part of the Catholic Church at that point since there is only one church, one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Their ignorance is a blessing, paradoxically. If it’s truly ignorance! Only God can judge that. That’s why we have to be gracious.

However, at the exact same time, Rome teaches that if a Protestant comes to the realization that Rome is right, and rejects it, that person can’t be saved. Now this isn’t some simple thing like you read a few words on a page and now, dang it, you know better. It describes someone who comes to a deep realization and rebels against it. It deals with a deep consciousness, not some trivial reading of a few words. If you keep studying, you eventually, unless you are intellectually impaired, will see this.

Put it this way. Let’s say a room full of people are staring at the magic eye picture on the wall. Some people are bickering that nothing is there. These are the Protestants. The Catholic, cavalierly, say they see something and are all in accord as to what they see. The Protestants think the Catholics are “adding to the picture” and “making things up” but the Catholics dryly describe amongst themselves what it is they see, with remarkable inexplicable consistency. New Catholic converts see the picture and describe the same thing that old timers see. Now, there are some Protestants in the room, who while bickering or erstwhile attempting to see the magic eye picture catch a glimpse of the image, however brief. In puzzlement, and fear, they recognize for a split second what the Catholics are talking about. For that split second, all their Protestant friends look really, really silly, for not being able to see the obvious. But, and here is the tricky part, for one reason or another this Protestant tries to write off what he saw as part delusion or dream, and pulls back out of fear of what might happen to him, or fears losing his friends, or whatever, and ignores his conscience and what he saw. This is the person who is in a difficult spot. He can no longer claim ignorance, and now has to deal with his unfortunate (or fortunate!) knowledge and make a decision and move closer to or further from his revelation.

As much as you want black and white on this, you aren’t going to get there by the method you are pursuing. It takes faith and trust before God will show you the “magic eye” and then you’ll realize your question, while it had a seed of faith, really isn’t the right question. The real questions are more like “do I have faith” and “am I able to receive what I’m given even if it’s not what I expect” and “can I be wrong?” or even the most important question: “do i trust myself?”

 

[dbonneville]

It’s funny…I was listening to John MacArthur on some youtube audio thing go absolutely nuts on Catholicism last week. He was unglued. At one point he said Catholics keep saying they “are so misunderstood” and that they keep “shifting everything” when you try to pin them down on this or that.

In light of this conversation, and my last post, John MacArthur is like the guy who is so upset and livid that he can’t see the “magic eye” picture, and that he can’t see what these bunch of relaxed non-sensational Catholic see, he just goes nuts out of frustration and rants, very unreasonably, about how confusing and shifting everything Catholic is. But he just can’t see what we are seeing - plain and simple.

To the Catholic, with settled brains and a stack of rather boring church history books, teachers like him just look…stupid. And really mean. The historicity of Catholicism is so well documented, it’s boring to review. There is no sensation in the early church period about what was orthodox or heretical. We know that all the heretical movement died out - no big deal.

The reality is that teachers like him are just blind. They are blinded by hatred of something that just doesn’t make sense. Their frustration vents out in these absurd teachings flush with circular logic and silly takes on basic facts of history. Like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These, in all reality, are modern inventions from the Reformation.

So, start with the possiblity of Rome being right, and see where it goes. Put your pope hat on and see what you come up with. You will come up with something other than “2-3 gospels” and it will surprise you one way or the other. If you say that you considered it with the pope hat on, and you still have “2-3 gospels”, many here will assure you that you didn’t do it right, meaning your method of investigation is flawed by preconceived notions.

 

[headin_home]

Beeper - your whole confusion stems from your personal need for a “salvation formula” or a “salvation slogan”. This is a Protestant phenomena that attempts to reduce the entire bible down to a few buzz phrases that are simple for the uneducated and those who don’t want to trust “the Church” teaching to believe in and put there faith in. NEVER make the mistake of thinking that just because The Catholic Church acknowledges that Christ MAY choose to make an exception here and there out of Mercy (i.e. the concept of “invincible ignorance”) that He MUST make an exception. My own view is that VERY FEW (if any) Protestants in this day and age are excused from the heresy they practise and spread through “easy Christianity”. What you claim to be another gospel being taught by Catholics is nothing more than Catholics trying to give some hope to non-Catholics who are born into their heresy and make every good effort to follow what they believe - even though it is wrong. This condition of ignorance is not however “invincible” in this day and age of modern information exchange where the true apostolic teaching of The Catholic Church is available everywhere to a person inclined to want to know the truth. Being lazy in pursuing the truth does not relieve anyone of the obligation to know the truth.

There is no escaping that fact that faith without works (charitable works of love) is DEAD and a false faith. PERIOD.

Any more more questions or are you going to continue in your obstinate denial of what you know in your heart is the truth?

James

THANK YOU JAMES FOR THIS VERY CLEAR & CONCISE
EXPLANATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.AND THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE, JUST DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO WORD IT.

I AM 59, CONVERTED CATHOLIC 2YRS AGO FROM 18 YEARS IN THE " ME & JESUS ONLY" CHURCH WHERE I OFFERED MANY PEOPLE INSTANT SALVATION BY THE-----“WORKS”-----OF THE SINNER’S PRAYER. I TRULY LOVED JESUS WITH MY WHOLE HEART AND THAT IS WHY I FINALLY OBEYED THE HOLY SPIRITS CALL TO TAKE UP MY CROSS & …FOLLOW JESUS BY BECOMING A MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH.

ISN’T IT STRANGE THAT CHRISTIANS DO NOT DEBATE THAT JESUS TURNED THE WATER INTO WINE, BUT CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE GOD WHO HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO ENDING TURNS THE SACREMENTAL WINE INTO HIS BLOOD AND THE BREAD INTO HIS
FLESH AND THEN SAYS IF YOU DON’T EAT HIS
FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD,YOU CAN’T BE HIS DESCIPLES.

I WILL USE YOUR SIMPLE ,BUT PROFOUND MESSAGE OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CHURCH THAT JESUS ESTABLISHED IN WITNESSING TO MY NON-CATHOLIC FRIENDS & FAMILY.

THANK GOD FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

GOD BLESS YOU

STEVE

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is no escaping that fact that faith without works (charitable works of love) is DEAD and a false faith. PERIOD.

I agree with you that Faith without Works is dead. However, your works don’t ultimately justify you before God. Anyway, I am getting completely different viewpoints from Catholics on this issue. So are you saying you don’t believe protestants in general are saved? Or better yet, what does Rome say on this issue. I hear guests on relevent radio say that protestants can be saved because they have had a Christian baptism, but even though they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church they can still be saved… If that is true, then Rome accepts different gospels. I am not looking for a formula, I just see the contradictions with Rome’s formula…especially in light of James 2. Thoughts?

OK - we are getting close here. Now we just have to talk through what you mean by “justification”. Agree that works do not justify initially but they are inseparable from a true faith in a soul that is truly transformed by grace over one’s life.

Thus, the theology of the Church holds that Christ’s passion not only merited the forgiveness of sin, but also the gift of grace. Grace, wrought by the Holy Spirit, is a gift that heals the soul and sanctifies it. Sanctifying grace, the grace that communicates supernatural life into the soul, is received through the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism marks the beginning of justification by forgiving all personal and original sin as well as communicating sanctifying grace. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, a person receives supernatural disposition to live and act with God’s call.

But after baptism one must also maintain that state of justification by not falling again into serious sin. If one does again commit a grave sin after baptism one must repent seek forgiveness again through the sacrament of confession and perform pennance. This restores the sinner’s justification each time he falls.

The Catholic Church generally believes its possible for Protestants to be saved if they are baptised according to the trinitarian formula. But “possible” is by no means a sure thing. My own personal opinion is that it is possible but not at all typical.

The other thing that Protestants need to get straight is the crazy idea that “one is saved” before they are judged. NO ONE is saved until God judges them to be saved. God is final authority on all matters. The whole protestant thing of “I am saved” is just so ridiculous that its pompous. Some of the Catholic Church’s most pious and revered saints (e.g. St. Francis) on their death bed were so humble and meek that they would never dare to assume a priori that they were “saved” simply because they “believed”. St. Francis confessed to his fellow brothers that he was hopeful that God would find him worthy of eternal life but was unsure if in God’s eyes He would be judged worthy.

The attitudes of “easy salvation” need to change and people need to get a grip that its not a game that we can take salvation for granted. Most people are living in sins of omission that they are not even consciously aware of. Every single idle word or any occasion of failure to love a fellow human or time where we did not fully use one’s God given talents in a positive way is a sin that will be accountable to God in every detail. “Being saved” is not something one can just go pick up off of an ecclesial assembly line of bible thumping preachers who are baptising people after they say “I believe”. Nope, we are all called to be saints and it takes a life dedicated to God and self sacrifice for God and fellow man.

James

 

[beeper]

There is only one Gospel. .

So, Rome teaches that Protestants can be saved by being baptized and living for Jesus. There is no confusion there. They are part of the Catholic Church at that point since there is only one church, one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Their ignorance is a blessing, paradoxically. If it’s truly ignorance! Only God can judge that. That’s why we have to be gracious.
However, at the exact same time, Rome teaches that if a Protestant comes to the realization that Rome is right, and rejects it, that person can’t be saved.

 

[beeper]

The whole protestant thing of “I am saved” is just so ridiculous that its pompous.

That is a misconception of Catholics towards protestants. When protestants say they are “saved”, they don’t mean “saved” like Catholics do. Obviously no one is actually saved until they walk thru the gates of heaven. Like you said, it all boils down to how justification is defined. Protestants think they have already been justified by faith (Romans 5:1) and are confident they will go to heaven if they die (and again thats never to downplay the role of works in the Christian life). Hence the verse. 1 John 5:13–These things I have written to you wo believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW you have eternal life. That is more along the line of what protestants mean by “I’m saved”. But to say both views of justification are allowed within God’s judgement is hard to swallow in light of how justification is used all throughout the Bible…and the fact that Paul states there is 1 gospel.

 

[dbonneville]

A couple things. Protestants confuse grace with forgiveness. Grace isn’t a forgiveness concept. It’s a power concept. Grace if power for living. Grace is batteries to perform work. It’s not a legal transaction. You are either in sin or in grace, objectively. You are either taking God’s free gift of grace and working out the reason for your being a new creation in Christ through deeds…or you are not, and instead use the batteries of sin to perform works that lead to death.

the ultimate justifcation before God depends on whether or not they believed in the RCC and rejected it.

No, not at all. It has to do with conscience. If they did not believe in the RCC through no fault of their own, they are not liable. God imparts a special grace to good-hearted believers who just don’t have the facts. The Protestants teach that if you don’t have the Gospel through no fault of your own, you are going to hell.

This is a dilema, right? If before Jesus came, you didn’t have to be a Jew to be saved (but only obey the 7 Noachide laws), this would mean then that at the moment Jesus died for our sins, all the people that died that day that never heard of Jesus started going to hell. Before then, it was OK, but since Jesus died and they didn’t hear about this, they automatically went to hell. Therefore, since the Gospel took about 70 years to get to 50,000 believers in the year 100AD, we can assume that everyone who died from about 30AD to 100AD who weren’t part of the 50,000 believers, who otherwise before Jesus would not have gone to hell, now, all went to hell.

That kind of logic is Protestant logic about salvation taken to it’s simple logical conclusion. That’s not right.

The Catholic church, as Judaism before it, says “hey, not so fast”. But do Protestants all of a sudden in 1517 know better? Now that is a leap of faith.

I’m not trying to avoid your question, but am struggling to find a way to nail down what appears to me to be the snag. You can’t eliminate conscience from the equation. Also, it seems you want to divide justification and sanctification into two distinct legal entities, which brings you to illogical conclusions, especially when you don’t factor in how all this is affected by what people know or don’t know about the truth.

Put a penny on the table and tell me what you see. You might see Lincoln. You might see the Memorial. If you flip the coin and ask me what I see, I’d see the opposite of what you saw. The only way to see both sides is to turn the coin over and talk about what is on side A or side B. Even if we get a video camera and show both sides at the same time, we have to look at one side or the other. Just because the front isn’t the back and the back isn’t the front, we don’t get confused and say “well, what is on this coin? Lincoln or the Memorial?” It’s both. No stress needed. We can talk about both, but it might be confusing to try to thread talking about Lincoln’s life details, and the details about the construction of the Memorial at the same time.

 

[dbonneville]

so that you may KNOW you have eternal life

Yes, you can know, but that doesn’t mean you can’t walk away from it deliberately. There are 2 kinds of basic Protestant theology of course, and this further complicates things. Of course I’m referring to the Calvinist / Armenian divide. If someone never does good works or falls away, the Calvinists just say that person was never saved to begin with, and if someone never works, they can still be saved - and not even know it - because they are part of God’s elect. This logic extends so far as to make the incredible leap that we don’t even need to evangelize because those that are going to be saved will be saved no matter what and those who aren’t going to be saved are not going to be no matter what. This theology is the only logical way, through predestination, to get rid of works altogether. This is Calvinism at it’s best. Some refer to this as hyper-Calvinism. At least, it’s internally consistent to it’s ultimate end. But it’s really just a bunch of circular reasoning, and certainly not based on any kind of historical understanding of the faith. It’s what you get you lift up Sola Scriptura, and you find proof texts to “prove” your theological pinings.

Armenians, like Pentecostals for instance, teach that you must obey and that you can lose your salvation.

So I guess you’d have to decide first what camp of Protestants you are in, and then work from there. If you are Pentecostal, or Wesleyan (both believe you can lose your salvation through disobedience) you’d be closer to a Catholic understanding of salvation. I thought this for years, and just a few weeks ago while chatting with a priest, he joked “Pentecostals are Catholic, but they just don’t know it”. Obviously a bit of humor given the context, but it underlies the point that some Protestant views are easier bridges to Catholicism than some. Hyper-Calvinism, in my opinions, is straight out of hell. “Once saved always saved” utterly irreconcilable with anything other than the theology of its inventor.

 

[Jack_245814]

 

[beeper]

The Protestants teach that if you don’t have the Gospel through no fault of your own, you are going to hell.

I guess I was never taught that if someone doesn’t have the Gospel through no fault of their own that they would go to hell. Also, I agree with you that you can’t just eliminate the conscience factor. This is a question both Catholics and non-Catholics get all the time… Does that person in the back hills of Africa go to hell even though he or she never personally knew Jesus?..Let me try to explain (and I may need to clarify) my position regarding consciousness, the question about the person in the back hills of Africa, and the fact I believe protestants don’t necessarily teach that you go to hell if you don’t hear the Gospel thru no fault of your own.

Again, I think this all goes back to God’s very simple plan to redeem mankind. God is holy, we are not. Because we have all sinned against God, we all deserve hell. Therefore the only way to be justified is to get that major problem solved…aka Jesus. (again, the sin is what keeps us from God, not good works etc.) Anyway what about the person in Africa. Well, isn’t that person in the same boat as everyone else?? He is a sinner, just like we are, and if he ultimately doesnt have his sins forgiven, he will go to hell if God’s judegment is perfect. Does God give us any clues as to what happens to such a person…of course he does and it has to do with that person’s conscious. Look at Romans 2:14-16. “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when according to the Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ.” Also look at Romans 1:20…“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT excuse.” The man in Africa is without excuse based on the fact God tells us that he knows the law (based on his conscience----thats why people feels things like “guilt”…they don’t need a Bible or Rome to tell them that they have done wrong against God) and God’s creation. So if the African trusts in God to redeem him from his sin (even though he doesn’t personally know Jesus) he will justified…(its funny that the African has no idea that Jesus will still interecede for him). Same for the people in the OT. They didnt personally know Jesus, but trusted in God that He would redeem them. The problem is, most of the Africans and OT people built a statue and worshiped that (Idolatory) instead of remaining faithful to God. But they definitely don’t get a free pass just because they didnt hear the Gospel…the Bible says the direct opposite. All are without excuse and need redemption from our sin that ultimately condemns us before God. That is why Jesus is so crucial and the only thing that can save us before God’s perfect judgement. To say that someone gets a free pass thru no fault of their own is to minimize the need for Jesus! Again, if people are justified based on the ignorance of not hearing the Gospel, then whats the point of the Great Commission? Everyone needs Jesus b/c everyone stands condemned already (John 3:18). So protestants dont believe if you dont hear the Gospel, you automatically go to hell. But yes, if someone denies God created the world and rejects the law written on his heart, then the judgement may not go so well.

 

[beeper]

“Once saved always saved” utterly irreconcilable with anything other than the theology of its inventor.

I understand where you come from on this. For me, once you have come to the realization that you are a sinner and are on a crash course with a God that is forced to condemn you because you have sinned against Him…why would anyone want to sin? I know there is temptation, but to keep living life as normal is insane.