Questions about when people get "saved"

[tgGodsway]

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”.

This is an interesting perspective. We both know that God gave His “authority” to the apostles. But He also gave that same authority beyond their office, as in the case of the 70 who were sent out. But that is neither here nor there. God’s authority is given to each based on one’s personal obedience to the word of God. You can be an upstanding member of the Church, compliant to all the rules, but that doesn’t automatically mean you have God’s authority. The Pharisees saw themselves as an elite group of Jewish authorities, compliant to the Law, yet they had no authority from God and no authority over Christ. How is that?

The idea that Tyndale acted as some kind of loose cannon is a perspective only held within the CC. Tyndale was one stone in this universal structure, yet in his day of reform, his message resonated around the world to a movement that would overtake Europe for the next 200 years. Tyndale was obedient to the message of the Apostles in word and deed.

 

[jfz178]

I think it’s better to be “invested” than “saved.”

 

[tgGodsway]

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

The schoolhouse teachers.com is a resource website for home school teachers. My wife has taught all 7 of our children for over 21 years. You may have to pay an annual fee to get into the sight, I can’t remember. But click the “video” tab. it should take you to a list of videos. Tyndale is just one of a full resource.

 

[guanophore]

This is an interesting perspective. We both know that God gave His “authority” to the apostles. But He also gave that same authority beyond their office, as in the case of the 70 who were sent out. But that is neither here nor there.

On the contrary, it is both here and there! When you read the documents of the early Church, it becomes clear that the authentic Church, founded by Christ, is identified by those He placed in authority, and their successors. Those who separated themselves from that authority were not considered valid. They were considered heretics, apostates, etc.

God’s authority is given to each based on one’s personal obedience to the word of God.

Perhaps you can give some support for this assertion?

I do agree that personal obedience to God enables each believer to walk in His authority. But this is not separate from the authorities God has appointed in the Church. Both are true at the same time. No one who is walking under the authority of Christ will rebel against His One Body, the Church.

This brings us back to what is “Church”. There are many deficient definitions of Church floating around, one of them being “the body of beleivers on earth”. This definition of church is not consistent with what the Apostles taught.

You can be an upstanding member of the Church, compliant to all the rules, but that doesn’t automatically mean you have God’s authority. The Pharisees saw themselves as an elite group of Jewish authorities, compliant to the Law, yet they had no authority from God and no authority over Christ. How is that?

Authority is given by one who has it, to one who is chosen. You are in error when you say their authority was not valid. Jesus affirmed that the Jewish leaders sat in Moses’ seat (teaching and governing authority) and that the people should listen to them. This principle has never been revoked by God. Obedience to the authority appointed by God does not depend upon their behavior.

 

[guanophore]

The idea that Tyndale acted as some kind of loose cannon is a perspective only held within the CC. Tyndale was one stone in this universal structure, yet in his day of reform, his message resonated around the world to a movement that would overtake Europe for the next 200 years. Tyndale was obedient to the message of the Apostles in word and deed.

I do believe that Tyndale was sincere in his believe, and that he did what he felt in his mind and heart was right. He was fully committed to his course, and died for it.

I also agree that his message, along with Luther and others that propogated this message, did resonate around all of Europe and still does to this day. The fragmentation of the Church continues, and each individual becomes their own authority to interpret the Scriptures. If there is a disagreement in how it should be understood, then some members will go down the street and open a new church in a different storefront.

Each time a fracture and re-interpretation occurs, the recipients of the reconstructed framework slip further and further from the Apostolic faith.

 

[Gorgias]

The schoolhouse teachers.com is a resource website for home school teachers. My wife has taught all 7 of our children for over 21 years. You may have to pay an annual fee to get into the sight, I can’t remember. But click the “video” tab. it should take you to a list of videos. Tyndale is just one of a full resource.

OK… so, apparently you have to be a member to get access to their materials. So, we’re back to square one: can you provide citations for the assertions you’re claiming as facts?

 

[tgGodsway]

and their successors.

The key word here in your statement is the word successors… There was only one who replaced Judas in the 1st. Century. The qualification to actually take Judas place was in the fact that he (Matthias) would have to be an eye-witness to the resurrection. see Act 1:3, 22.
After that, this specific group was sealed in heaven never to be replaced. Rev. 21:14

However, the office itself with a lessor authority was to continue to function in the Church, The Apostle Paul laid out five of the highest offices in the Church to the Church at Ephesus. The office of Apostle was exactly as the Greek word indicates, it is one who is SENT.
I believe this office is still needed and used today.
Over time some have watered down it’s meaning and relabeled it as a missionary office, I do not.

But a successor to the original twelve Apostles is a concept outside of scripture.

 

[guanophore]

The key word here in your statement is the word successors… There was only one who replaced Judas in the 1st. Century. The qualification to actually take Judas place was in the fact that he (Matthias) would have to be an eye-witness to the resurrection. see Act 1:3, 22.

After that, this specific group was sealed in heaven never to be replaced. Rev. 21:14

Yes, the college of 12 Apostles has a specific purpose and place on earth as in heaven. But replacing Judas was only the first of ordination and the passing of legitimate authority from one generation to another. We see in the book of Acts how deacons were selected and ordained.

However, the office itself with a lessor authority was to continue to function in the Church, The Apostle Paul laid out five of the highest offices in the Church to the Church at Ephesus. The office of Apostle was exactly as the Greek word indicates, it is one who is SENT.

I believe this office is still needed and used today.

Over time some have watered down it’s meaning and relabeled it as a missionary office, I do not.

What evidence do you have that the offices were “less”? While I agree that there could not be more “Apostles”, the Apostles, including Paul, passed Apostolic authority to successors.

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.” 2 Tim 2;2

How do you imagine that this occurred?

“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.” 1 Tim 4:14

What makes you think that the successors of the Aposltes did not have “all authority”?

“These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.” Titus 2;15

Where did “all authority” originate?

“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” Titus 1;5

I think we are in agreement that Paul had his Apostolic authority from Jesus, but perhaps where Catholics see this authority passed on to bishops such as Timothy and Titus, who are then instructed to ordain elders/presbyters (priests) your paradigm must depart, otherwise you would have to accept that what Catholics have is what we have received from the apostles.

 

[tgGodsway]

The fragmentation of the Church continues, and each individual becomes their own authority to interpret the Scriptures

I hear your concern but the Church has never been fragmented in the way that you think. In the first century, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that in HIS DAY there was no unity of the faith and of knowledge of the Son of God. This didn’t mean that the Church ceased to be or that parts were simply not the Church at all.
In the very context of Paul’s writings about the five highest offices, he said that these offices were given to the body
"for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, v13 till we ALL come to the unity of the faith, (Paul included himself not yet having total unity)… and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. v14 that WE (self inclusive again) should no longer be children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine … Eph, 4:12-14.

His point was narrow and clear. Unity of the faith comes to each local body as the apostle, the prophet, the evangelist, the pastor, and the teacher all equip us in the word of God.

What if these offices are not within our affiliation? That can only stifle and slow the unity of the faith. This applies whether you fellowship in the CC or in any protestant Church.

 

[guanophore]

His point was narrow and clear. Unity of the faith comes to each local body as the apostle, the prophet, the evangelist, the pastor, and the teacher all equip us in the word of God.

I agree that unity comes from adherance to the Truth. To the extent that we all embrace the Truth revealed by God we will be in unity with one another. These roles/gifts exist to bring about our understanding, experience, and knowledge of the truth.

But for Catholics, the Church is not about “fellowship”. Fellowship is something that exists in the Church, but primarily the Church is the Body of Christ, of which He is the Head. The Church is incarnational, with divine elements and human elements. The Holy Spirit is her Soul. She is much more than the “body of believers on earth”, as the defninition has deteriorated.

 

[tgGodsway]

The fragmentation of the Church continues, and each individual becomes their own authority to interpret the Scriptures. If there is a disagreement in how it should be understood, then some members will go down the street and open a new church in a different storefront.

What is the difference between the CC who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life, from, the Methodist who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life, from… the Baptist who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life?

Catholic’s say, we had it first! Methodist say we have it better than Catholics! Baptist say we have it more accurately than both Catholics and Methodist …

Paul said, " for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and division among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? v4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another says, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? v5 Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? v6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. v7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

v8 Now he who plants and he who waters are ONE, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 1st. Cor. 3:3-8

Those within the CC, and those within the protestant Church who exalt their body or collective body, are sinning. Paul said that every body who calls upon the name of the Lord are ONE BODY.

 

[guanophore]

What is the difference between the CC who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life, from, the Methodist who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life, from… the Baptist who collectively has their own slant on doctrine and Church life?

I think the primary difference is that the Catholic “slant” was handed down to us from the Apostles, where the other ecclesial communities created theirs some 1500 years after the fact after separating from Apostolic Tradition.

Catholic’s say, we had it first! Methodist say we have it better than Catholics! Baptist say we have it more accurately than both Catholics and Methodist …

Yes. I was baffled too until I went back and read the pre-Nicean fathers.

Paul said, " for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and division among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? v4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another says, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? v5 Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? v6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. v7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

v8 Now he who plants and he who waters are ONE, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 1st. Cor. 3:3-8

Those within the CC, and those within the protestant Church who exalt their body or collective body, are sinning. Paul said that every body who calls upon the name of the Lord are ONE BODY.

This is a good point. The deposit of faith that was given to the Church is not connected to any one person, and creating such affiliations, although of human nature, is not to the glory of God.

The Lord’s body is One. There are some dead members connected to it, some sinful members, some saintly members. But part of the problem is in how we understand the nature of His One Body, the Church. The reason that Catholics stay that the Church is infallible is because of her divine elements, not the human. Christ, who is the Head, and the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church, cannot err. Jesus has promised to guide us into “all Truth”.

We can’t all be in the Truth. Either baptism is salvific, or it is not. Either those who have go before us in Christ are alive in heaven, or not. Either Jesus is the author of Sola Scriptura, or He is not. Jesus made the Church the pillar and foundation of the faith, or not.

 

[MT1926]

Tyndale was one stone in this universal structure, yet in his day of reform, his message resonated around the world to a movement that would overtake Europe for the next 200 years. Tyndale was obedient to the message of the Apostles in word and deed.

I don’t mean to jump into the middle of this conversation about Tyndale, but when I read this quote something seemed a little off to me. Then I remembered some things you said at the beginning of our conversation…

Not all protestants agree with me, or us, (a reformed view) on these narrow points of salvation. Many post-protestant groups look at salvation more like you do.

I’m sure you understand that both Catholic and so called Protestant views agree against it, at least in part. Only the truly reformed view that have survived the reformation continue to hold it’s central view.

You seem to hold Tyndale in very high regard, so much so that you make the claim that you believe he was obedient to the message of the Apostles. However, you also have told us that you don’t agree with many of the protestant reformers and that only the truly reformed point of view is “obedient to the message of Apostles”.

Regardless of the back and forth over what the Catholic Church did and didn’t do to Tyndale, the one thing we can be certain of is that he was preaching a Lutheran doctrine which included infant Baptism and Mary ever virgin and a Lutheran real presence in the Eucharist, etc…

You’ve already told us that your position is opposed to all of these…

So was Tyndale being obedient to the message of the Apostles or are you being obedient to the message of the Apostles? You can’t have it both ways.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

So was Tyndale being obedient to the message of the Apostles or are you being obedient to the message of the Apostles? You can’t have it both ways.

God Bless

Very good catch @MT1926!

 

[Wannano]

tgGodsway:

Tyndale was one stone in this universal structure, yet in his day of reform, his message resonated around the world to a movement that would overtake Europe for the next 200 years. Tyndale was obedient to the message of the Apostles in word and deed.

I don’t mean to jump into the middle of this conversation about Tyndale, but when I read this quote something seemed a little off to me. Then I remembered some things you said at the beginning of our conversation…

Not all protestants agree with me, or us, (a reformed view) on these narrow points of salvation. Many post-protestant groups look at salvation more like you do.

I’m sure you understand that both Catholic and so called Protestant views agree against it, at least in part. Only the truly reformed view that have survived the reformation continue to hold it’s central view.

You seem to hold Tyndale in very high regard, so much so that you make the claim that you believe he was obedient to the message of the Apostles. However, you also have told us that you don’t agree with many of the protestant reformers and that only the truly reformed point of view is “obedient to the message of Apostles”.

Regardless of the back and forth over what the Catholic Church did and didn’t do to Tyndale, the one thing we can be certain of is that he was preaching a Lutheran doctrine which included infant Baptism and Mary ever virgin and a Lutheran real presence in the Eucharist, etc…

You’ve already told us that your position is opposed to all of these…

So was Tyndale being obedient to the message of the Apostles or are you being obedient to the message of the Apostles? You can’t have it both ways.

God Bless

Could you refer us to the post # where he said that about the Reformed?

 

[Reuben_J]

He was referring to a quote. Just press the arrow of the quote, which is pointing upward, you will be led to the quote and everything in the post (including post #).

 

[Wannano]

He was referring to a quote. Just press the arrow of the quote, which is pointing upward, you will be led to the quote and everything in the post (including post #).

Thanks, I never noticed those arrows before, but then I am a bit of a computer dinosaur.

I see a discrepancy in the conversation above but it is not my place to point it out. It is not my conversation!

 

[Reuben_J]

No problem. The new Forum format need a lot to get used to.

 

[Latin]

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.

God bells you Hope and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.

For God to do His part of our baptism is absolutely necessary for our salvation but NOT our part to do in our water baptism.
.

In our baptisms there are two parts to do, God’s part to do and our part to do.
.
God is the One who saves us by doing His part in our baptism.
.
God’s part to do in our baptism ALWAYS PRECEDES our part to do in our baptism which is our acts in our water baptism.
.

Our part to do in our water baptism is the SYMBOL of our salvation NOT the cause of our salvation.
.

Our water baptism COULD NOT be the cause of our salvation, because at the time as God’s children predestined to heaven we perform our parts of our water baptism, we are already IRREVOCABLY SAVED by our Initial Justification which is God’s part to do in our baptism.
.

God’s part to do in our baptism (Initial Justification, etc.) ALWAYS PRECEDES our water baptism.
.

So, LATER when we do our water baptism, we are ALREADY irrevocably saved.

.

How could be the cause of our salvation when at this point we are ALREADY IRREVOCABLY SAVED?
.
Of course baptism of desire and baptism of blood the same way also the symbols of our salvation.
.
.

CONCLUSION

a. Our Savior is God, and our water baptism is the symbol of our salvation NOT the cause of our salvation.
.
b. As God’s children elect, our IRREVOCABLE SALVATION ALWAYS PRECEDES our water baptism. – So it CAN NOT be the cause of our salvation, it can be only the SYMBOL of our salvation, IT IS NOT SALVIFIC.
.
C. God’s INTENT, POWER, and ACTS in our baptism is SALVIFIC, God is the One who Saves us.
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation

.
Definition of SALVIFIC

: having the intent or power to save or redeem
• the salvific life and death of Christ
• —E. A. Walsh

Definition of SALVIFIC

having the intent or power to save or redeem… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

.

salvific
[sal-vif-ik]
Spell Syllables
• Word Origin

adjective

of or relating to redemptive power.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

.
.

salvific

Also found in: Wikipedia.
sal·vif·ic
(săl-vĭf′ĭk)
adj.
Having the intention or power to bring about salvation or redemption.

salvific

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of salvific by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

.
.
.
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT by James Akin
.
Protestants who say … Catholics believe we must do good works in order to become justified — a position which was explicitly condemned at Trent, which taught “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (Decree on Justification 8).

Catholic theology teaches we do not do good works in order to be justified, but that we are justified in order to do good works, as Paul says: “[W]e are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10 ).

Justification is the cause, not the consequence, of good works.

However, these Protestants are still confused about the fact that Catholics do not teach we are made only partially righteous in justification.

The Church teaches that we are made totally righteous — we receive 100% pure righteousness — in justification.

Thus Trent declares:
“n those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death . . . but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven” (Decree on Original Sin 5).

You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven.

**There is no magic level of works one needs to achieve in order to go to heaven. **

One is saved the moment one is initially justified. End quote.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.HTM
.
.

I have posts on this thread where I explain baptism in fine details in the light of the related HIGHEST LEVEL teachings of the CC, posts # 322 – 328, if you have time and you like to have a detailed information on baptism please read it.
.
If you Hope have any questions concerning baptism or any questions in the related teachings in the above posts # 322-328 please ask and I answer your questions or the questions of any readers of the CAF.
.

God bells you Hope and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin