If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain

[De_Maria]

Your explanations betray your ignorance of the different views that evangelicals have on eternal security.

I don’t concern myself with the errors of men but only with the eternal truth of the Word of God.

Not all evangelicals believe in what you are claiming they believe.

Enough of them do that I can make a valid point against their theology.

Therefore, when I and other posters articulate a very evangelical understanding of salvation, faith, and works, you are confused because it looks very similar to Catholic teaching, and yet it contradicts what you’ve come to think the “evangelical” position is.

It is you who made it seem as though Evangelicals unanimously believed what you are teaching. But you have now admitted that you follow a more Catholic position on this matter than the average Evangelical. Although your position, is itself, an error.

I find that the Catholics on this forum tend to believe that all evangelicals believe in Once Saved Always Saved, and that is a universally held doctrine among evangelical churches.

It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do. Whenever the odd Evangelical appears who holds a slightly different variant of that belief, we can handle those argumens, case by case. Suffice to say, that if the variant does not agree with the Catholic Teaching, it is still in contradiction of the Word of God in Scripture, as well.

It is not, and many, many evangelicals find it an abhorrent theology.

That is good to hear. Now if they would only take the next step and embrace the Catholic Church, it would be wonderful!

Good talking to you, Itwin,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

I don’t concern myself with the errors of men but only with the eternal truth of the Word of God.

Enough of them do that I can make a valid point against their theology.

It is you who made it seem as though Evangelicals unanimously believed what you are teaching. But you have now admitted that you follow a more Catholic position on this matter than the average Evangelical. Although your position, is itself, an error.

It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do. Whenever the odd Evangelical appears who holds a slightly different variant of that belief, we can handle those argumens, case by case. Suffice to say, that if the variant does not agree with the Catholic Teaching, it is still in contradiction of the Word of God in Scripture, as well.

That is good to hear. Now if they would only take the next step and embrace the Catholic Church, it would be wonderful!

Good talking to you, Itwin,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Its not just a few evangelicals who believe what I do. And if you engage evangelicals with the generalizations that you have expressed on this thread, you will only confirm to them that, as a Catholic, you have no idea what you are talking about, and they will have no reason to listen to anything you have to say. When you comment on evangelical theology but really have no idea what evangelicals believe, you only make yourself look ignorant.

I don’t mean this to sound harsh or insulting to you. However, when you say, “It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do,” you need to realize how wrong you are. This is not a case of a few evangelicals dissenting from the overwhelming majority view. This is more the case of an even split. I don’t think you understand this, and until you do its not really possible to have a constructive debate with you.

 

[De_Maria]

Its not just a few evangelicals who believe what I do. And if you engage evangelicals with the generalizations that you have expressed on this thread, you will only confirm to them that, as a Catholic, you have no idea what you are talking about, and they will have no reason to listen to anything you have to say. When you comment on evangelical theology but really have no idea what evangelicals believe, you only make yourself look ignorant.

You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.

1. I’ve engaged Evangelicals and Protestants of every variety for about two decades now.
2. Normally, my generalized comments are right on the money.
3. When they aren’t, they simply correct me.
4. And then I disprove the errors in their specific and individual theology.

A perfect example is the discussion we’ve been having. Now that you’ve made your personal ideas clear, we have addressed them.

On the other hand, you began this discussion pretending that your views were the main line Evangelical view. Whether that is true or not, is besides the point. The fact remains that a significant number of Protestants and Evangelicals hold the position which you decry and which we initially began to confront.

I don’t mean this to sound harsh or insulting to you.

That’s ok. It is difficult to be 100% nonadversarial in an apologetical discussion where we each represent opposing views.

However, when you say, “It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do,” you need to realize how wrong you are. This is not a case of a few evangelicals dissenting from the overwhelming majority view. This is more the case of an even split. I don’t think you understand this, and until you do its not really possible to have a constructive debate with you.

I thought we were having a wonderful debate. I also addressed your current views. If you don’t believe that I did, then please reveal that which you think I didn’t address.

In either case, in the classic Evangelical position or in the one you claim now holds equal hold, there are elements which contradict Scripture and Catholic Teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

Its not just a few evangelicals who believe what I do. And if you engage evangelicals with the generalizations that you have expressed on this thread, you will only confirm to them that, as a Catholic, you have no idea what you are talking about, and they will have no reason to listen to anything you have to say. When you comment on evangelical theology but really have no idea what evangelicals believe, you only make yourself look ignorant.

I don’t mean this to sound harsh or insulting to you. However, when you say, “It may not be completely universal. But enough Evangelicals believe it that we may safely generalize that they all do,” you need to realize how wrong you are. This is not a case of a few evangelicals dissenting from the overwhelming majority view. This is more the case of an even split. I don’t think you understand this, and until you do its not really possible to have a constructive debate with you.

This is true, De Maria. You really don’t have a good understanding of Evangelicals, and you come across as not knowing what you’re talking about.

I hope this doesn’t seem as harsh as I’m afraid it might.

Here’s a thought… Instead of trying to tell other people what’s wrong about their beliefs, just clearly explain your beliefs.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In either case, in the classic Evangelical position or in the one you claim now holds equal hold, there are elements which contradict Scripture and Catholic Teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

A belief that a person can indeed walk away from God is arguably more “classically” Evangelical than a belief in OSAS.

 

[AbideWithMe]

On the other hand, you began this discussion pretending that your views were the main line Evangelical view. Whether that is true or not, is besides the point.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Um, Itwin wasn’t “pretending” anything if what he said is true.

And, it is true… a very large current of Evangelical thought doesn’t hold with OSAS, and never has.

 

[De_Maria]

This is true, De Maria. You really don’t have a good understanding of Evangelicals, and you come across as not knowing what you’re talking about.

I hope this doesn’t seem as harsh as I’m afraid it might.

Here’s a thought… Instead of trying to tell other people what’s wrong about their beliefs, just clearly explain your beliefs.

Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. All I’ve seen you do is hang on Itwin’s coattails in this thread.

Here’s another suggestion, if you don’t believe I understand Evangelical teaching, then tell me what you believe is the correct explanation thereof. And then I will show you how that version of Evangelical teaching is also against the Teaching of Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

A belief that a person can indeed walk away from God is arguably more “classically” Evangelical than a belief in OSAS.

How about the belief that God will condemn a faith alone Christian?

Matthew 25:31-46
King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

**44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.**

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[De_Maria]

Um, Itwin wasn’t “pretending” anything if what he said is true.

And, it is true… a very large current of Evangelical thought doesn’t hold with OSAS, and never has.

Then explain what you believe in its stead. Let us peruse the Scriptures to see if it holds water.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.

No, I’m not. And if I were making generalizations about Catholics you would rightly call me out on it.

1. I’ve engaged Evangelicals and Protestants of every variety for about two decades now.

The way you reduce the vast body of evangelical theology to simply OSAS makes it heard for me to believe that you are as familiar with evangelicals as you claim.

1. Normally, my generalized comments are right on the money.

This time, they are not.

1. When they aren’t, they simply correct me.

I did correct you. You then brushed my correction off as being my own form of idiosyncratic hybrid of Catholicism and evangelicalism.

1. And then I disprove the errors in their specific and individual theology.

Well, you certainly made your views known.

A perfect example is the discussion we’ve been having. Now that you’ve made your personal ideas clear, we have addressed them.

They are not all that personal. I’ve absorbed them growing up in a Pentecostal church.

On the other hand, you began this discussion pretending that your views were the main line Evangelical view

I certainly presented it as a major evangelical point of view. You have sort of presented OSAS as THE traditional and majority evangelical viewpoint. It is neither the traditional nor majority view.

Whether that is true or not, is besides the point. The fact remains that a significant number of Protestants and Evangelicals hold the position which you decry and which we initially began to confront.

The point is that it is not constructive for Catholics engaging in dialogue with evangelicals to assume that evangelicals adhere to OSAS, even after evangelicals explain that they do not adhere to OSAS. Throughout this discussion, I have constantly had to re-explain what I mean because the Catholics have always returned to interpreting my comments through the lens of OSAS and even asserted that beliefs that I and others have presented go against the tenants of evangelicalism. So, when you refuse to look at evangelicalism beyond OSAS, you never really understand evangelicalism at all.

In either case,** in the classic Evangelical position or in the one you claim now holds equal hold**, there are elements which contradict Scripture and Catholic Teaching.

This statement, especially the part I put in bold, illustrates what I mean. OSAS is not “the” classic evangelical position. My position is “classic” as well when you look into the history of evangelicalism.

 

[57Bill]

If it’s a valid baptism according to the RCC what’s all the fuss about?

 

[fred_conty]

Maybe someone might put it to a vote on CAFE in a post asking the evangelicals if they believe

1. permanant OSAS, never lost in this life
2. have OSAS on condition that the person does not fall back into a life of sin, since this would prove they never had it because of dead faith
3. OSAS slip/slide in and out of it thru sin and forgiveness, which is a constant life long struggle repeated in this life back and forth.
4. reject OSAS completely
5. some other form of OSAS

Just a thought.

 

[ltwin]

Maybe someone might put it to a vote on CAFE in a post asking the evangelicals if they believe

1. permanant OSAS, never lost in this life
2. have OSAS on condition that the person does not fall back into a life of sin, since this would prove they never had it because of dead faith
3. OSAS slip/slide in and out of it thru sin and forgiveness, which is a constant life long struggle repeated in this life back and forth.
4. reject OSAS completely
5. some other form of OSAS

Just a thought.

I had a good laugh reading these choices. Number 1 is redundant. Once Saved Always Saved means that one is permanently saved. Don’t you think number 3 is oxymoronic?

 

[ltwin]

How about the belief that God will condemn a faith alone Christian?

Matthew 25:31-46
King James Version (KJV)
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

**44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.**

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This doesn’t say what you want it to say. This can be read through the lens of faith alone since works grow out of faith.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. All I’ve seen you do is hang on Itwin’s coattails in this thread.

Here’s another suggestion, if you don’t believe I understand Evangelical teaching, then tell me what you believe is the correct explanation thereof. And then I will show you how that version of Evangelical teaching is also against the Teaching of Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria—

The area where I live was hit pretty badly by Frankenstorm Sandy, and I’ll be surprised if our electricity is restored before the week’s out. I’m posting from my tablet, and I’m trying to spare the battery on it.

I’m not “riding on Itwin’s coat-tails”. I’m just confirming from my own experience and familiarity with Evangelical belief and Evangelical history that he’s not making things up.

Ah, happiness is a warm puppy snuggled against my feet in a cold house.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria—

The area where I live was hit pretty badly by Frankenstorm Sandy, and I’ll be surprised if our electricity is restored before the week’s out. I’m posting from my tablet, and I’m trying to spare the battery on it.

I’m not “riding on Itwin’s coat-tails”. I’m just confirming from my own experience and familiarity with Evangelical belief and Evangelical history that he’s not making things up.

Ah, happiness is a warm puppy snuggled against my feet in a cold house.

Having survived three hurricanes, I can somewhat identify. Although, we suffered from heat more than cold.

All of us in the Catholic Church are praying for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

This doesn’t say what you want it to say. This can be read through the lens of faith alone since works grow out of faith.

Once works grow out of faith, it is no longer alone. Have you not read in Scripture:

James 2:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Faith without works, is alone.
Faith with works, is not alone.

It is very simple. I don’t know how you guys confound it so easily. Oh, and many Evangelicals have embraced faith and works also. But not as many as those who reject it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

Once works grow out of faith, it is no longer alone. Have you not read in Scripture:

James 2:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Faith without works, is alone.
Faith with works, is not alone.

It is very simple. I don’t know how you guys confound it so easily. Oh, and many Evangelicals have embraced faith and works also. But not as many as those who reject it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

We are justified by faith alone. We are not justified by what we do. We can’t do anything, no matter how awesome, to remove the stain of sin. It is faith that justifies. And it is faith that produces a change in us so that we bear fruit and are motivated to do good works. I agree that a dead faith (i.e. a faith not accompanied by action) will not justify. But it is faith that justifies. A faith that is real and living will be accompanied by action, but it is not the action that justifies. It is the faith.

 

[De_Maria]

No, I’m not. And if I were making generalizations about Catholics you would rightly call me out on it.

Yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. And I know that it is the only way to get out of your dilemma. A sort of sleight of hand. Draw attention to the “generalization” and away from the fact that all your argument has been shot down.

The way you reduce the vast body of evangelical theology to simply OSAS makes it heard for me to believe that you are as familiar with evangelicals as you claim.

See, that’s a straw man. I didn’t do that at all. I said that the vast majority of Evangelicals believe OSAS. I didn’t reduce their entire theology to OSAS.

This time, they are not.

They. Just not for you.

I

did correct you. You then brushed my correction off as being my own form of idiosyncratic hybrid of Catholicism and evangelicalism.

Which it is. You just don’t accept it.

Well, you certainly made your views known.

My views are easy to check on. I am Catholic and I hold Catholic views. It is you who admittedly disagree with at least 50 % of Evangelicals.

They are not all that personal. I’ve absorbed them growing up in a Pentecostal church.

Is Pentecostal synonymous with Evangelical? If they are not, how do you claim to speak for all Evangelicals?

I certainly presented it as a major evangelical point of view. You have sort of presented OSAS as THE traditional and majority evangelical viewpoint. It is neither the traditional nor majority view.

I have always qualified my statement with “those Protestants with whom I’ve spoken in the past twenty years.” It is still the majority view with those Protestants with which I’ve spoken recently. For the past two or three years, I’ve done most of my debating on CARM. Almost all of them describe themselves as Evangelicals. And I can count on one hand the ones that reject OSAS.

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - Wikipedia, the free …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_MinistryThe Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) is an evangelical Christian apologetics ministry founded … The proprietor of the website is Matt Slick.

It is the position of CARM that once a person is saved he cannot lose his salvation.

The point is that it is not constructive for Catholics engaging in dialogue with evangelicals to assume that evangelicals adhere to OSAS, even after evangelicals explain that they do not adhere to OSAS.

That is your point.

My point is that it is the most convenient argument to take. Most Evangelicals, whether you like it or not, are Baptist or of the variety which rabidly hate the Catholic Church, such as those on CARM and therefore abhor anything that smacks of Catholicism. Works, smack of Catholicism to them. The word is anathema to them.

I know and have met many Pentecostals as well, and I know that many of them don’t share the rabid hatred of the Catholic Church as those Evangelicals with which I normally debate. And when they tell me their salvation produces works theology, I prove to them, from Scripture, that faith and salvation are not the same thing. And that faith produces works unto salvation. And faith without works is alone and dead.

Throughout this discussion, I have constantly had to re-explain what I mean because the Catholics have always returned to interpreting my comments through the lens of OSAS

It is a form of OSAS. Until and if you can tell me point blank that a man who claims faith in Christ can be condemned because of his lack of works, you believe in a form of OSAS. As is proven by your denial that Matt 25:31-46 condemns faith alone.

and even asserted that beliefs that I and others have presented go against the tenants of evangelicalism. So, when you refuse to look at evangelicalism beyond OSAS, you never really understand evangelicalism at all.

1. I don’t really care about Protestant labels. I simply debate the doctrines.
2. The reason I don’t care about Protestant labels, is because Protestants have no central organization which will define precisely what an Evangelical or Pentecostal must believe. Every single one of you believes whatever you want. Your beliefs are between you and your Bible and you have no allegiance to any men or group of men.
3. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This statement, especially the part I put in bold, illustrates what I mean. OSAS is not “the” classic evangelical position. My position is “classic” as well when you look into the history of evangelicalism.

I’m looking forward to your response to the questions I asked in this message. That will tell me whether you truly believe in OSAS or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

My views are easy to check on. I am Catholic and I hold Catholic views. It is you who admittedly disagree with at least 50 % of Evangelicals.

And at least 50% of evangelicals agree with me. However, if you look at the numbers I cite below you will see that its significantly more.

Is Pentecostal synonymous with Evangelical? If they are not, how do you claim to speak for all Evangelicals?

I don’t claim to speak for all evangelicals. I do claim to speak as an evangelical. Pentecostalism is an evangelical religion. All Pentecostals are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are Pentecostals. You might think of Pentecostals as “evangelicals plus tongues.” There are other things that distinguish Pentecostals from other evangelicals, but tongues is probably the biggest.

I have always qualified my statement with “those Protestants with whom I’ve spoken in the past twenty years.” It is still the majority view with those Protestants with which I’ve spoken recently. For the past two or three years, I’ve done most of my debating on CARM. Almost all of them describe themselves as Evangelicals. And I can count on one hand the ones that reject OSAS.

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - Wikipedia, the free …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_MinistryThe Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) is an evangelical Christian apologetics ministry founded … The proprietor of the website is Matt Slick.

It is the position of CARM that once a person is saved he cannot lose his salvation.

Now I understand. You do most of your debating with evangelicals on CARM. Most of these evangelicals believe in OSAS, which is what I would expect from a forum like CARM that officially advocates for OSAS. However, CARM is not the evangelical magisterium.

My point is that it is the most convenient argument to take. Most Evangelicals, whether you like it or not, are Baptist or of the variety which rabidly hate the Catholic Church, such as those on CARM and therefore abhor anything that smacks of Catholicism. Works, smack of Catholicism to them. The word is anathema to them.

Your numbers are wrong. Read the Pew Forum’s Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population, published in December 2011. On page 67 it breaks down the numbers of Pentecostal, and evangelical Christians worldwide. Pentecostals = 279 million or 12.8% of the Christian population. Evangelicals (including Pentecostals) = 285 million or 13.1% of the Christian population. So, the vast majority of evangelicals today are Pentecostal Christians, not Baptists.

I know and have met many Pentecostals as well, and I know that many of them don’t share the rabid hatred of the Catholic Church as those Evangelicals with which I normally debate. And when they tell me their salvation produces works theology, I prove to them, from Scripture, that faith and salvation are not the same thing. And that faith produces works unto salvation. And faith without works is alone and dead.

It is a form of OSAS. Until and if you can tell me point blank that a man who claims faith in Christ can be condemned because of his lack of works, you believe in a form of OSAS. As is proven by your denial that Matt 25:31-46 condemns faith alone.

Belief in OSAS implies that I believe in OSAS. There is no middle ground here. Either I believe that once you are saved you are always saved or I don’t.** If I believe that a man forfeits his salvation by rejecting Christ or that continuing in sin adversely affects the believer’s faith on which his relationship to Christ depends, then I by definition do not believe in OSAS. ** The words in bold express the Pentecostal belief. For more information, you may like to read a position paper produced by the Assemblies of God on the Security of the Believer.

Elsewhere this denomination, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world and largest member church within the National Association of Evangelicals, has written:

In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible’s call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

1. I don’t really care about Protestant labels. I simply debate the doctrines.
2. The reason I don’t care about Protestant labels, is because Protestants have no central organization which will define precisely what an Evangelical or Pentecostal must believe. Every single one of you believes whatever you want. Your beliefs are between you and your Bible and you have no allegiance to any men or group of men.
3. Correct me if I’m wrong.

We’re not free to believe whatever we want. There are teachings that we must subscribe to when we join a church.