Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[cloudman]

So, it’s possible for someone to think he has assurance of salvation, but not really be saved?

Huh?

Sure, it is possible. Aren’t there many who will say “Lord, Lord…”?

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, it is possible. Aren’t there many who will say “Lord, Lord…”?

So then how does one distinguish whether one is a faux believer and not really saved vs a true believer?

One can look at his works and *think *God has changed his inner person, but be fooled–you acknowledge this.

So what’s the way one knows if he’s not a faux believer, if both can think God has changed his inner person.

 

[PRmerger]

I will admit the possibility that I don’t quite understand Roman Catholicism.

Firstly, cloudman, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. There are 23 Rites of Catholics all in communion with the successor of Peter in Rome. Only one Catholic Rite is Latin (Roman).

If I misrepresent Roman Catholicism, then I apologize. Is it not a belief of Roman Catholicism that it is the church and not the individual that interprets scripture?

This, again, is deficient.

The teachings of the CC come from Christ–from His Word which has been given to us through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

The Church is the guardian and, yes, final interpreter of God’s Word (including Scripture), but Catholics are free to interpret Scripture and, indeed, are instructed to read the Scriptures within the living Tradition of the whole Church.

So, to say that Catholics would, in contrast to the Bereans, accept a teaching “without even approaching the OT texts” is a statement made out of ignorance.

To say that Catholics would not approach the Scriptures is bordering on contempt for Catholicism, so I accept your apology.

 

[cloudman]

So then how does one distinguish whether one is a faux believer and not really saved vs a true believer?

One can look at his works and *think *God has changed his inner person, but be fooled–you acknowledge this.

So what’s the way one knows if he’s not a faux believer, if both can think God has changed his inner person.

I cannot answer questions of “how”. I just know that we can have assurance. Personally, I believe it is a gift of God for a believer to have certainty of their own salvation. We see this certainty in 1 John 5:19.

The fact that it is possible for someone to be deceived into thinking that they have certainty does not necessarily have to end at the conclusion that no one can have certainty. A person can have certainty according 1 John 5:19. We also see that people can be deceived into having assurance in Matthew 7:22.

Both texts are true because both texts are in scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I cannot answer questions of “how”. I just know that we can have assurance. Personally, I believe it is a gift of God for a believer to have certainty of their own salvation. We see this certainty in 1 John 5:19.

And yet there is this great impediment to assurance of salvation; namely, the faux believer.

The existence of those who think they’re saved but aren’t (and you have acknowledged their existence) demolishes this Assurance of Salvation theology with much certitude.

 

[cloudman]

Firstly, cloudman, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. There are 23 Rites of Catholics all in communion with the successor of Peter in Rome. Only one Catholic Rite is Latin (Roman).

OK…I suppose I learn something new everyday.

This, again, is deficient.

The teachings of the CC come from Christ–from His Word which has been given to us through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

The Church is the guardian and, yes, final interpreter of God’s Word (including Scripture), but Catholics are free to interpret Scripture and, indeed, are instructed to read the Scriptures within the living Tradition of the whole Church.

Wouldn’t you agree, however, that once the CC has laid down its final interpretation that it is really pointless for the individual to go back and hold the church accountable for what it teaches in the same way that the Bereans held Paul accountable to the scriptures?

 

[cloudman]

And yet there is this great impediment to assurance of salvation; namely, the faux believer.

The existence of those who think they’re saved but aren’t (and you have acknowledged their existence) demolishes this Assurance of Salvation theology with much certitude.

I do acknowledge the existence of people who think that they are saved, but aren’t really saved. I also acknowledge the possibility of the assurance of salvation. They both can exist.

Jesus did say, however, that his people can be known by their fruits. So, the people who think they are saved, but are not really saved are the people who are not gauging their assurance on the basis of the fruit in their lives.

The question that you should be asking is this one:

Is it possible for a person to bear fruit without being grafted into the root?

 

[Bible_is_truth]

I am trying to understand some more how protestants think a little.

If I said to a protestant, “Christ died that I might have eternal life”, what would they think that means? How would they say that in Christ’s death we are granted salvation?

Hi . As a Christian Non Conformist.
My reply is, Christ died as the final sacrifice, before one had to go to the High priest, sacrifices were made, now I believe that as Jesus died on the cross as the last sacrifice .,amongst other things that happened,the Curtain in the Temple was torn in two. The Curtain I believe was very thick and High, a sharp sword would take a man a long time to cut through, the significance of the torn curtain ( this was where the priest would be and he alone was allowed to go in for contact,if you like to God ) was to open the way to God through his son Jesus ,we believe that as Jesus said ,I am the way the truth and the Life ,Jesus is the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek,who lives forever,unlike the priests before , Christ’s Death has conquered sin and death, as he rose in body, if he rose in spirit as the Jehovah’s witnesses believe ,then there was no resurrection ,else why would Jesus say,a spirit cannot eat and drink as you see me do .(Nor can you touch a spirit,as the doubting Thomas did.) Mary recognised Jesus as My Lord and Saviour,yes he was obedient to her as a Human Mother ,now he sits at the Right hand side of the Father, we do not see that he is under her authority as he is Lord, and not as a Human parent bond now. The mystery as humans see the Trinity are for us all in one ,or as the sea has many drops it comes from the same body as I see it.No man has the power to forgive sin ,Jesus was the only living person who did that. So I can go on , in a nut shell we come to Jesus for forgiveness and accept why he came and died for us,and know after we repent ,even though we all live in sin, we try not to do the wilful sins,otherwise we then take Christ’s death in vain. Jesus made the new covenant with man and we are all called to him even the worst offender .( this may offend some ) I believe that Christ’s Love and calling is for all, Yes even Hitler , the difference is that many chose not to accept his Love and who he is . Plus many are called ,Few are chosen. -------
More if required .

 

[PRmerger]

Wouldn’t you agree, however, that once the CC has laid down its final interpretation that it is really pointless for the individual to go back and hold the church accountable for what it teaches in the same way that the Bereans held Paul accountable to the scriptures?

This presupposes that the Church teaches something that contradicts Scripture.

I can assure you that she does not.

 

[PRmerger]

I do acknowledge the existence of people who think that they are saved, but aren’t really saved. I also acknowledge the possibility of the assurance of salvation. They both can exist.

The person who believes that he’s assured of his salvation appears no different from the person who only thinks he’s saved but actually isn’t.

That’s a huge problem.

Huge. :sad_yes:

 

[cloudman]

This presupposes that the Church teaches something that contradicts Scripture.

I can assure you that she does not.

So, then how is this different than what I originally said? If the church teaches something, then why go verify it in scripture if the church never contradicts scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus did say, however, that his people can be known by their fruits.

Indeed.

And yet, no one would argue that Mormon "fruit’ is quite good–they are among the most charitable, family-oriented, Christian-values upholding people.

However, Mormon theology is quite heretical, is it not?

So, the people who think they are saved, but are not really saved are the people who are not gauging their assurance on the basis of the fruit in their lives.

Could you rephrase this, please? I’m not understanding.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Jesus did say, however, that his people can be known by their fruits. So, the people who think they are saved, but are not really saved are the people who are not gauging their assurance on the basis of the fruit in their lives.

Why not base the assurance of salvation on the fact that Christ alone died for our sins and was raised for our justification and we have been baptised into it?

Oh wait, I forgot, we can’t do that. Because we don’t have any way to know He did that for us

 

[PRmerger]

So, then how is this different than what I originally said? If the church teaches something, then why go verify it in scripture if the church never contradicts scripture?

Because the Scriptures affirm and confirm that which the Church proclaims.

 

[cloudman]

Indeed.

And yet, no one would argue that Mormon "fruit’ is quite good–they are among the most charitable, family-oriented, Christian-values upholding people.

However, Mormon theology is quite heretical, is it not?

Could you rephrase this, please? I’m not understanding.

Absolutely…Mormon theology is based on the same promises that the serpent used to tempt Eve.

What I am saying is that people who mistakenly think they are saved become mistaken because they gauge their salvation on false gauges. For example, Southern Baptist churches are full of people who think that they are saved because they “said the prayer.” “Saying the prayer” however is not the way to gauge evidence of one’s salvation.

If someone is using the proper gauges, however, the evidence does not lie. If the fruit is there, then it is there. That is proof of one’s salvation.

 

[cloudman]

Why not base the assurance of salvation on the fact that Christ alone died for our sins and was raised for our justification and we have been baptised into it?

Oh wait, I forgot, we can’t do that. Because we don’t have any way to know He did that for us

Have you ever read the encounter that Jesus had with the fig tree? A person can have every indication of being a fig tree, and yet never bare fruit. What is the fate of that fig tree?

What do you think will be the fate of the person who has every indicator of being a believer, yet does not have any fruit? Will they not suffer the same fate of that of the fig tree?

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely…Mormon theology is based on the same promises that the serpent used to tempt Eve.

But they have good fruit.

So, clearly, judging someone’s fruit is not a great way to gauge one’s salvation, right?

What I am saying is that people who mistakenly think they are saved become mistaken because they gauge their salvation on false gauges. For example, Southern Baptist churches are full of people who think that they are saved because they “said the prayer.” “Saying the prayer” however is not the way to gauge evidence of one’s salvation.

If someone is using the proper gauges, however, the evidence does not lie. If the fruit is there, then it is there. That is proof of one’s salvation.

So what’s the proper gauge?

We’ve already established that it’s not by good fruit.

How does one know if one is assured of his salvation, given the fact that one could be fooled into believing he is, when he actually is condemned.

 

[PRmerger]

What do you think will be the fate of the person who has every indicator of being a believer, yet does not have any fruit? Will they not suffer the same fate of that of the fig tree?

What good fruit did the Thief on the Cross have?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Have you ever read the encounter that Jesus had with the fig tree? A person can have every indication of being a fig tree, and yet never bare fruit. What is the fate of that fig tree?

What do you think will be the fate of the person who has every indicator of being a believer, yet does not have any fruit? Will they not suffer the same fate of that of the fig tree?

The fig tree doesn’t have any relevance to the question of the assurance of salvation. Understand that it is a metaphor for the nation of Israel. The Pharisees based their entire relationship to God on whether they obeyed the Law, cloud!

I agree that good fruit follows faith. That is clear. What is seriously troubling about your theology is that you are basing your assurance on the fruit, rather than in the cross of the one who planted the tree.

 

[cloudman]

Because the Scriptures affirm and confirm that which the Church proclaims.

I see…but why would someone need to affirm and confirm what the church says if the church is never mistaken in its proclamations?