Questions about when people get "saved"

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias, continued

Both the CC and the English government under King Henry the 8th. all functioned NOT as two separate entities but as one unified authority. Granted, there were known power-plays between the Bishops of the CC in England and King Henry the 8th, but in general the two entities were of the same mind and heart.
Tyndale saw that no one in England understood the gospel, including most of the clergy because the Sunday Mass was all said in Lain without a translation or an explanation. He wanted his countrymen to understand the teachings of Christ. It was that simple. So in 1523 he approached the Bishop of London named Cuthbert Tunstall with the hopes of becoming employed by him to translate the scriptures into the English language and thus the CC could preach it in English. But he was denied because the Bishop was not willing to undermine the pope in Rome who expected the Church to keep the scriptures in Latin. So the CC was not interested in Tyndale’s services and began to pay more attention to him and began to track him as much as possible.

There is no doubt that by this time Tyndale was a true protestant after the order of Luther. He became the enemy of the CC for sure. He preached in the streets despite the warnings to not do so. He could see how the political and religious control over the masses of people saturated every aspect of English life including the understanding of scripture and felt called to do something about it. This is what drove him to risk everything. As mentioned before he was Educated at Oxford and trained in eight different languages including Hebrew, Greek, and Lain. His inner circle knew he was head- and- shoulders ahead of, (academically) any local scholar of the day (even the Bishop of London) especially when it came to translating the bible. His inner circle of private followers also encouraged him to not wait for the CC to approve him. They never would. He needed to make copies of the scriptures to evangelize the entire nation but realized he couldn’t do it in England. He began to hide out in Germany and use their printing press to print and collect volumes of New Testaments all in the English language. Those bibles were then smuggled into the England.

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias continued again,

 

[tgGodsway]

Gorgias continued again,

At that time the CC got wind that Tyndale was planning to convert the entire nation to become Lutherans and they developed a resolve to capture him. The problem was they could not find him because he had escaped to Germany where he was printing his translation without interference. But the CC of England sent a man named John Hackett to Germany and found the printing press he used and the one man who was helping Tyndale. His name was Herr Quentel.
It was here that Tyndale began to hide out house to house realizing his life was critically in danger. A more cleaver spy also from the Church of England was then sent to Germany in 1531 to find Tyndale. His name was Harry Phillips a local bad guy. The reasoning was, we need a cleaver deceiver to find a cleaver deceiver.
Phillips succeeded in locating Tyndale and brought him back to England to stand trial for the crime of translating the bible into English, along with other various doctrinal positions such as believing in Justification by faith alone. His sentence was death by strangulation and then burned at the stake in a public square.
The so-called “changes” to words in the bible in favor of Protestantism were not true. The CC had all the political and religious power and Tyndale was a threat to their power.
He was a godly man who not only believed Jesus was the Christ, but loved the Lord God with all of his heart, soul, mind and body. He knew his preaching would eventually get him assassinated, but he chose to preach anyway.
Is there any remorse for this senseless killing of a man of God? How does the teachings of the New Testament validate William Tyndale’s assassination?
Why didn’t the CC use the 1st. John 4:1 test to see whether or not Tyndale was a heretic or true messenger of God? Obviously they were ignorant to the very scriptures they tried to bury.

Much of my resource came from a web site called schoolhouseteachers.com. There is an awesome video there called God’s Out Law depicting the life and ministry of William Tyndale. I recommend it to any serious and unbiased student of Church history.

 

[tgGodsway]

Lastly Gorgias, you responded to me saying, It saddens me that there seems to be no remorse over his life within the CC. I hope I am wrong about the remorse. One of God’s sheep died for his efforts to give the population the word of God.

You said,

Had he done so in a way that attempted to work within the Church, I would agree totally with you. Given that he acted against and in defiance to the Church… how should we regard him?

What you fail to understand is basic. You assume that God’s Church was, and is, the CC only. You assume that all of his voices to preach the gospel are only from the CC. You assume that interpretation of scripture is only possible within the CC. These assumption were proven wrong by the life, the ministry, and the death of one of God’s voices to reach England.

 

[Gorgias]

Good to see you back, @tgGodsway!

History tells us that the British people of William’s day did not have a translation in their language, (in general.) That is a historical fact. Why didn’t they? because it was against the laws of England.

Do you have a citation for this ‘fact’?

As mentioned, it was absolutely against the law of England (in the 1500’s) to own or even read an English translation of the bible period.

Again, a citation, please?

Let’s speak plainly: the Catholic Church never “banned the Bible”, as some are likely to claim. Rather, there were certain translations of the Bible that the Church banned, but that’s a different matter altogether. Typically, these ‘bannings’ occurred when a heretical translation of the Bible appeared among a splinter group of Christians. In combatting their heresies, the Church naturally wished true Bible-believing Christians to be spared from the erroneous teachings, and decreed that the heretical versions (regardless what language they appeared in) be banned.

When the CC found out what was going on they came and burned at the stake all the fathers of those children. These are documented historical facts.

You realize that these folks were followers of Wyecliff’s heretical movement, don’t you?

So in 1523 he approached the Bishop of London named Cuthbert Tunstall with the hopes of becoming employed by him to translate the scriptures into the English language and thus the CC could preach it in English. But he was denied … So the CC was not interested in Tyndale’s services

So, Tyndale was insubordinate as a cleric. Is that praiseworthy?

There is no doubt that by this time Tyndale was a true protestant after the order of Luther.

So, Tyndale was a closet schismatic. Is that praiseworthy?

His inner circle knew he was head- and- shoulders ahead of, (academically) any local scholar of the day (even the Bishop of London) especially when it came to translating the bible. His inner circle of private followers also encouraged him to not wait for the CC to approve him.

There we go, then. He listened to his sycophants and, on their advice, betrayed his religious vows. This is the kind of behavior that you defend as ‘saintly’?

At that time the CC got wind that Tyndale was planning to convert the entire nation to become Lutherans and they developed a resolve to capture him.

What should they have done with a priest who was actively attempting to convert people away from the Church?

Phillips succeeded in locating Tyndale and brought him back to England to stand trial

Are you certain? The information I’m seeing says that he was executed at Vilvoorde. I’m not certain you’re working from good info? Does the info at schoolhouse teachers have citations or is it just presented without attribution?

 

[MT1926]

Welcome back. @tgGodsway

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas

 

[hope]

Three years before his translation he was tried for heresy. Tyndale was not condemned for the act of translating the Bible into English but for an unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations. Clearing up another misconception is that it was not illegal to read an English translation but to read an unauthorized translation.
O.k.
What does this have to do with being saved?
What did Peter say under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when asked how to be saved. You must repent and be baptized. after speaking with Nicodemus what does Jesus do?

22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

There by confirming what He spoke to Nicodemus. So much speaks to the importance of baptism that I do not understand, other than their desire to undermine the Catholic Church’s authority, why there is a question that Baptism is necessary to salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

What does this have to do with being saved?

A couple hundred posts ago, in a discussion of whether his claim that we are directed to find authentic Scriptural teaching by finding it in “two or three places” in the Bible, @tgGodsway responded to a challenge that the scholarship that produces this heuristic is faulty by saying “my scholars or yours? Let me point you to Tyndale”, and at that point, we were off to the races…

 

[guanophore]

What you fail to understand is basic. You assume that God’s Church was, and is, the CC only. You assume that all of his voices to preach the gospel are only from the CC. You assume that interpretation of scripture is only possible within the CC. These assumption were proven wrong by the life, the ministry, and the death of one of God’s voices to reach England.

I think this is an interesting discussion, but it is off topic in this thread. If you decide to open a thread on it, I will respond to this post.

 

[Latin]

Latin:
None of these quotes comes from the Divine Providence section of the Catholic Encyclopedia that I checked on this website.

Divine Providence | Catholic Answers

Where are you getting your quotes from?

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.
Yes you are correct, I have quoted from both, Catholic Encyclopedia Divine Providence and Catholic Encyclopedia Predestination and mistakenly instead of Predestination I have written Divine Providence.
.
.
If a Christian doesn’t understand the following crucially important quotes CANNOT UNDERSTAND Predestination, Salvation and certainly cannot understand the Positive Predestination to hell so called: Predestination to grace.
.
.
In my opinion, even if Predestination to Grace is correct (which is NOT) we cannot even call them saved, as they are predestined to hell from all eternity, and also predestined to grace for a limited time (???), and God need to TAKE CARE that they all die in the state of mortal sin otherwise God would instantly lose His omniscience.
.

Do you understand MT all this connections?
.

When you read some articles MT, that Christians can lose salvation always referring to those so called Predestined to grace, yet they are in fact already predestined to hell form all Eternity.
.

But don’t be confused my wording and say God predestines no one to hell because in Catholic theology negative predestination to hell called “Decree the Divine reprobation,” means negative predestination to hell, if you MT familiar with Catholic Encyclopedia Predestination you know this.
.

The following quotes you referring to came out from the Catholic Encyclopedia Predestination as follows.

It is crucially important to understand every word of it, this is the reason I show you it again.
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation

.

According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination:
.
The majority of theologians STRONGLY CONTESTED not only positive predestination to hell/positive reprobation to hell, but they also STRONGLY CONTESTED even negative predestination to hell/negative reprobation to hell.

They also the same way automatically and STRONGLY CONTESTED the so called: Predestination to Grace. – The people Predestined to Grace are the very people who are ALREADY predestined to hell from all eternity.

.
Quote: Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it CANNOT be harmonized with the DOGMATICALLY certain UNIVERSALITY and sincerity of God’s salvific will.
.
For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the ABSOLUTE will of God “NOT TO ELECT” a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, “to EXCLUDE them from heaven” (Gonet), in other words, NOT to save them.
.
How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has DECREED from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation?
.
He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail’s him NOTHING.
.
Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to TAKE CARE that they die in their sins.
.

(An explanation for you MT if you may not clearly understand the above statement:
If a predestined to grace would die in the state of grace, would end up in heaven and God would instantly lose His omniscience, so God would have to TAKE CARE that every predestined to grace die in the state of mortal sin.) – In the brackets added.
.

Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us?

No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not “that any should perish, but that ALL should return to penance” (2 Peter 3:9).
.
Lessius rightly says that it would be INDIFFERENT to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be CERTAIN.
.
The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the SAME THING as damnation.
.
A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. End quote.
.
.
If you not exactly understand some part of it MT, please just ask and I explain it to you.
.

Did you know MT, according to Catholic teachings, those who are predestined to grace they are all already predestined to hell/“Decreed by the Divine reprobation,” from all Eternity?
.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination

Predestination | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

.

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[tgGodsway]

Do you have a citation for this ‘fact’?

Yes, I quoted the very biography made into a movie found on schoolhouseteachers.com Actually you can Google the background of William Tyndale and find so many resources all agreeing with the facts I laid out in my post. Of course it would mean you would have to get past the ,quote, “Catholic version” of what happened. This I doubt you will do.

You said,

Given that he acted against and in defiance to the Church… how should we regard him?

Much like the Pharisees who believed Jesus went against their traditional teachings, the CC of Tyndale’s day could not see the fact that God raised up other mouth-pieces to do the work of the ministry. The CC wanted to keep the Mass in Latin and keep the people ignorant of the gospel stories and epistles but God had other plans and He succeeded.

 

[tgGodsway]

Three years before his translation he was tried for heresy. Tyndale was not condemned for the act of translating the Bible into English but for an unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations. Clearing up another misconception is that it was not illegal to read an English translation but to read an unauthorized translation

Hope, you need to think about what you are saying, because Tyndale’s authority did not come from the CC. He may have been disqualified by them, but so what. His authority came from Jesus Christ and His Word, which over-ride the faulty beliefs if the blind leaders of Tyndale’s day.

Much like the Pharisees who rejected the teachings of Christ because it wasn’t consistent with their tradition, Tyndale had no obligation to answer to the CC when he did what he did. He appealed to a higher authority, to Christ and His Word. You forget that even the CC is a collection of sinners just like the rest of us. All able to be deceived and used by Satan if not stopped. In this case they were blind guides with condemnation in their hearts.

But think about it for a moment. He translated a Greek version of the N.T. into English, to which I argue was solid and accurate, by which he was labeled “heretic” all because he would not comply with the CC’s authority. So they decided to take matters into their own hands. They strangled him to death and burned him at the stake. Please give me just one N.T. reason to justify that? … especially in light of scriptures like, " Matt. 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” …

Tyndale was a believer in Jesus Christ. He believed Jesus was the eternal Son of God. He believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He loved God with all of his heart, soul, mind and body. He passed the 1st. John 4:1,2, test.

Where is the remorse for this tragic sin?

Tyndale wasn’t the one doing the persecuting, the CC was. It is shameful how these wicked men got away with what they did and sanctioned by the CC. Repentance is required by God, which I hope has already happened.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I quoted the very biography made into a movie found on schoolhouseteachers.com

Can you link the page that you’re citing? You’ve been linking to the main URL for Schoolhouse Teachers, but I can’t find the material to which you’re referring…

Actually you can Google the background of William Tyndale and find so many resources all agreeing with the facts I laid out in my post.

Actually, I have… and that’s where I’ve found the data that contradicts what you’re claiming. I suspect it’s a matter of different groups having skin in the game and thus, presenting the ‘facts’ with a variety of spin…

Much like the Pharisees who believed Jesus went against their traditional teachings

If this is your understanding of Jesus’ teachings, then I respectfully suggest you re-read what Jesus actually said. Jesus, in fact, agreed with the teachings of the Pharisees – He just had a problem with the example they set. It’s not until he talks to Sadduccees that Jesus begins to critique teachings.

the CC of Tyndale’s day could not see the fact that God raised up other mouth-pieces to do the work of the ministry.

And this is a “Bible-believing Christian’s” perspective? Jesus gives authority to His Church – as evidenced in the Bible – and doesn’t tell people “but you can go do your own thing if you want”… and Bible-believing Christians think that it’s OK to separate from Jesus’ Church? Based on what principle? Based on what three sources from Scripture that tell you that it’s ok?

The CC wanted to keep the Mass in Latin

And, is it not within the rights of the Church to regulate its own liturgy?

and keep the people ignorant of the gospel stories and epistles

That’s patently false. People knew the Gospel stories. They knew the teachings of the Church. The desire for vernacular Scriptures – in the time of the Reformation – was Luther’s desire that people might come to the conclusion he had reached, not a desire that each person read Scripture and come up with his own decision!

but God had other plans and He succeeded.

Somehow, I think God doesn’t want thousands of splintered denominations: “that all might be One”, remember…? Call me silly, but…

 

[hope]

You must know that we have different views. I do not see William Tynedale as being a just and holy man but one who was disobedient, breaker of vows and an enemy of Christ who attacked the Holy Church of God as did Paul. Unlike Paul however, he did not repent of his wrong doing. He suffered a just fate as did Ananias and Sapphira. Although you say he was a great scholar others see him as mediocre. What you don’t want to acknowledge is that his translation was bent to serve a particular purpose. It was a corrupt translation. The Bishop of London said he found 2000 errors in the New Testament alone. You may see him as a martyr but I see him, as do others, a traitor to be counted among the likes of Judas.

We will not agree and it is off subject there is much you have gotten wrong. Here is just one account.Tyndale’s Betrayal and Death
We should return to the subject of how are we saved.

 

[hope]

The CC wanted to keep the Mass in Latin and keep the people ignorant of the gospel stories and epistles but God had other plans and He succeeded.

Have you been to Church’s in Europe? The windows are bible stories so that the people could be taught scripture since illiteracy was at a high rate. I was amazed at how many stories there were in just one church.

 

[dchezik]

This is a good question! I can speak to this as I was formerly a fundamental Christian for 20 years who was ostensibly “saved.” Here’s some scripture for you: "For by Grace are you saved through faith and not of yourself, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians something, something.)
I believe the thinking is that once you get saved, Jesus enters your heart and you are guided by the Holy Spirit as to what to do. So often people describe it as “being led.” I had a Christian neighbor once who without being asked, shoveled my driveway off after a 11 inch snow. I asked why and he said, “I felt led by God to help you.” I thanked him profusely and then asked, “Uh, Did God happen to mention raking my leaves this fall?” Unfortunately he had not.
The question of salvation (“being saved”) is tricky because there is no outward manifestation of being saved. There are no lightning bolts announcing your salvation.

There are two basic views on salvation: 1. Once you’re saved, you’re always saved. (Baptist) This is called “eternal security.” The thinking is that although you can commit unlimited sin and still be “saved,” because Jesus “lives in your heart” (metaphorically of course) you won’t want to sin; and 2. If you deliberately sin and stop believing you can indeed lose your salvation. “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Assembly of God)
I think that considering the consequences of not being saved (an eternity of torment in a lake of fire), many Christians opt to be saved again and again (ad infinitum) just to make sure. I mean, what could it hurt? Is God going to say, “You idiot! You’re already saved!”?
So, if it bothers you (in the jargon they use, “if you’re under conviction”) go ahead and get saved again…and again…and again.

 

[hope]

It seems that this thread has wound down but there is one more point I would like to make.
Paul tells us In Romans 6:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his
He repeats this in Colossians 2:12.
In Galatians 3:27 he says For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
It is obvious that Paul blieves that baptism is necessary for salvation in being united with Christ.
Paul only echos what others say. Peter when asked how to be saved said to repent and be baptized. It is not the only time that Peter mentions baptism. He speaks of the ark saving 8 people and connects the ark as a type of baptism which he than state that baptism saves us now.
Jesus’ own command to baptize should not be ignored.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Jesus not only commands baptism but tells us that is the way they are made disciples. Confirming again the necessity of baptism.

 

[guanophore]

it would mean you would have to get past the ,quote, “Catholic version” of what happened. This I doubt you will do.

You seem to be assuming that the “Catholic version” is, by definition, erroneous.

Much like the Pharisees who believed Jesus went against their traditional teachings, the CC of Tyndale’s day could not see the fact that God raised up other mouth-pieces to do the work of the ministry. The CC wanted to keep the Mass in Latin and keep the people ignorant of the gospel stories and epistles but God had other plans and He succeeded.

What has become clear, tgG, is that the concerns expressed by the Chuch then have manifested themselves in the present. The very departures from the faith that attempts to prevent occurred. We now have every person acting as their own authority to interpret scripture and Sola Scriptura has created the gift that keeps on giving. Separation and division continues to occur, and the splinters get farther and farther from the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

Hope, you need to think about what you are saying, because Tyndale’s authority did not come from the CC. He may have been disqualified by them, but so what. His authority came from Jesus Christ and His Word, which over-ride the faulty beliefs if the blind leaders of Tyndale’s day.

You are right, tgG, this does boil down to an authority issue. Either God did not give His authority to the Apostles, as the Scripture indicates, or He failed in His promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”. Or possibly, the powerful Jesu we see in the book of Revelation became weak and ill for 1400 years so that He was unable to guide those He chose to shepherd the flock.

I agree with you that the authority of Jesus and His word override faulty beliefs. One of those faulty beliefs is that people can act independently of those that Christ has appointed.

by which he was labeled “heretic” all because he would not comply with the CC’s authority.

I think you are confused, tgG. Heresy is a departure from the faith that was handed down to us from the Aposles. Tyndale, as all those baptized, have an obligation to submit to the authority that has come down from the Apostles. Disobedience to authority does not necessarily equate to heresy. They are two separate problems.

" Matt. 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” …

It is not loving to allow people to pursue error. It is like watching someone heading for a cliff, and failing to say anything.