Questions about when people get "saved"

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Maybe I have been misunderstanding the meaning of “there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Is it not intended in that statement that the Church is the Roman Catholic Church?

There is only one Body of Christ. All who are in Christ are in His One Body, the Church.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Latin Rite is the largest, and most common in the West.

How then do individual Catholics even dare to say that non-Catholics are headed for hell or that “Protestantism” is wrong or sinful?

It is inappropriate and inaccurate. Such persons are disobedient to the teachings of the Church.

Your reponse is one of the most straight forward and understandable answers. Thank you for the clarification.

I will no longer feel a need to respond to posters who claim otherwise.

 

[tgGodsway]

I agree there are no righteous without Christ. Never once claimed someone could be righteous on their own merit. However, the context of Romans 3 is personal sin not original sin. You are taking what St. Paul says and forcing it to say “born into the family of Adam”. Which would mean original sin. Sorry but you can’t get a teaching on original sin from the text.

Not really. I have done no injustice to the Rom. 3 passage. I stand on my points.

 

[tgGodsway]

This statement confused me??? If “faith alone” is the only possible way for someone to be righteous in heaven then are you are saying no child under the age of reason or mentally handicapped person can get to heaven?

Let those children be judged according to their knowledge and deeds. They will be innocent. But faith alone is simply another way to say, “believe” only for eternal life. Again, the pattern is all over the gospel of John.

 

[ltwin]

Could you point to scripture that shows us the Spirit did His work without Baptism being done either before or after?

Cornelius the Centurion and the gentiles who heard Peter preached received the gift of the Holy Spirit without baptism in Acts 10. Peter himself says, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” They were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit.

I don’t quite understand your “prison” comment?

You keep saying that by not believing in baptismal regeneration I am limiting God’s ability to save children. It seems to me belief in baptismal regeneration is far more limiting.

Although I would never use such a harsh word to describe what you do, I would think the definition of Baptism being a prison would be still having to be baptized even though God provides you with no grace (or regeneration).

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but I do believe baptism is a means of grace if the person who is baptized has faith.

Why wouldn’t God want us parents to make the initial decision for our children, to ensure, if something were to happen to them, that they have eternal life?

If I believed that baptizing infants would result in automatic regeneration I would agree with you. Let me ask you a question. When a child is unbaptized and dies, what happens to his soul? And to extend it, what happens to the souls of babies who die in the womb?

 

[ltwin]

Because, it sounds like you are either denying original sin still exists

Nope. Evangelicals affirm the existence of original sin and that infants are born with it. Evangelicals would make a few points:

1. Infants participate in the redemption of mankind, Romans 5, 1 Timothy 4:10.
2. Romans 1:19-20 states that people who receive general revelation are without excuse because there is sufficient revelation of God’s existence in the natural order to hold all who witness it accountable. Infants and the severely mentally disabled are without this general revelation as they are unable to derive conclusions about God’s grace, glory or justice from nature, so this would be an excuse that God would take into account and a reason that he would not condemn them.
3. In Scripture people are always judged on the basis of sins committed consciously in the body (see 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Rev. 20:11–12). Our eternal judgment will be based on our rejection of divine revelation (whether that be general revelation or the revelation of Christ) and willful disobedience. Infants are not capable of such rejection and willful disobedience.
4. The story of David and the death of his son in 2 Samuel 12:15-23 supports the idea that at least some infants who die are saved. David is hopeful after the death of his son, saying “Since he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”
5. There is Scriptural evidence that some infants are regenerate in the womb, such as Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:15. While these passages do not mean that all infants who die are saved, they do provide support for the idea.

it sounds like you are saying… God regenerates the souls of babies, then once they come to an age of reason they either repent or they get unregenerated.

It’s quite simple to me. People who die in infancy are covered by the blood of Jesus. They have not awakened to conscience and fallen into actual sin. Their only offense is that they have inherited original sin. Yet, they too partake in the redemption of mankind, Romans 5, 1 Timothy 4:10.

Those infants who grow up to commit actual sins will need to repent and believe on Christ.

 

[ltwin]

I’m siding with guanophore on this one. The point being made is in regards to the mindset of the people being preached to. OT Jews believed their children were accepted into God’s covenant family at 8 days old. If this were no longer the case with Baptism it is hard to believe we see no evidence of this being questioned.

Why don’t we see the church mention baptism replacing circumcision in Acts 15? If it were true, surely the Council of Jerusalem would have discussed this correlation.

However, we do see a debate arise in the 3rd century as to whether or not the parent has to wait until the 8th day.

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Obviously a tradition developed in the church to baptize infants. I’m not disputing that. The question is how early. As early as the first generation? After the death of the Apostles? A hundred years later?

 

[ltwin]

By this, I guess you mean “church”? Or do you mean “saved”?

Respectfully, I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.

I explicitly wrote:

This covenant community–the Church, spiritual Israel–will not be like national Israel where men were marked as belonging to the covenant when they were not truly sons of Abraham in spirit

Not sure why this is confusing for you.

So while I don’t read much about this deliberately hazy “covenant community” in the NT, I do read quite a bit about the Church. And you join that by baptism.

1 Cor 12:13 (DRB): “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.”

Yes. Since we’re comparing circumcision to baptism, both are matters of the heart by the Spirit. It is essential that we are baptized into Christ, but that may not in all cases be accompanied by a baptism into water.

Now, I understand your Pentecostal doctrine doesn’t hold to total depravity either, but nonetheless your theology is ultimately derived from those who did. The residue of history, as it were.

We hold to total depravity, though in the framework of an Arminian, rather than a Calvinist (TULIP), theology. Mankind is totally depraved but God provides prevenient grace necessary to freely choose and exercise faith in God. Therefore, mankind still has freewill.

 

[guanophore]

Why don’t we see the church mention baptism replacing circumcision in Acts 15? If it were true, surely the Council of Jerusalem would have discussed this correlation.

The council was addressing specific issues that arose over mixed Jewish and Gentile communities. Baptism and circumcisiom were not at issue, but whether one needed to follow the Law of Moses Baptized converts were considered to be circumcised in heart. When the council wrote the letter of instruction, it addressed issues that were causing problems in the community. circumcision/baptism was not one of those.

Projecting what we want and need back into the historical record by saying “if it were true, then…it would have been written…” is not an appropriate standard to demand of the writings produced by the early Church. They were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

 

[ltwin]

The council was addressing specific issues that arose over mixed Jewish and Gentile communities. Baptism and circumcisiom were not at issue

Huh?

Acts 15:1

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

 

[Vonsalza]

I explicitly wrote:

ltwin:

This covenant community–the Church, spiritual Israel–will not be like national Israel where men were marked as belonging to the covenant when they were not truly sons of Abraham in spirit

Not sure why this is confusing for you.

Hazy vagaries like “covenant community” will generate confusion when used as loaded stand-ins for more accepted theological terminology like “the Church”.

I recommend you avoid using them in an environment where everyone can’t be assumed to also be a dispensationalist or convenant theologian. Like here. Obviously.

Yes. Since we’re comparing circumcision to baptism, both are matters of the heart by the Spirit. It is essential that we are baptized into Christ, but that may not in all cases be accompanied by a baptism into water.

A Catholic would agree since Catholicism recognizes baptism via blood and desire. But there’s still a baptism that replaces one by water only due to extraordinary circumstance. Barring such circumstances, a water baptism must occur.

But as an aside: “Matters of the heart by the spirit” - what exactly does that mean?

We hold to total depravity, though in the framework of an Arminian, rather than a Calvinist (TULIP), theology.

Respectfully, the Total Depravity of Calvin must not be confused nor conflated with the more partial depravity of Arminius. This is sloppy and confusion generating.

Now, I suppose there probably are Pentecostals who do believe in Calvinistic Total Depravity (One can find “Pentecostals” that believe in anything, as they’re free to do), but most are Remonstrants - as I think you agree. And I know from first hand observation that any student who attempts to equate the Remonstrant view of depravity with Calvin’s on a theology exam gets a big red “X” courtesy of Dr. Draper.

 

[ltwin]

I recommend you avoid using them in an environment where everyone can’t be assumed to also be a dispensationalist or convenant theologian. Like here. Obviously.

Do Catholics not have an understanding of the church as a covenant people?

But as an aside: “Matters of the heart by the spirit” - what exactly does that mean?

Let’s ask Paul in Romans 2:

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Respectfully, the Total Depravity of Calvin must not be confused nor conflated with the more partial depravity of Arminius. This is sloppy and confusion generating.

Now, I suppose there probably are Pentecostals who do believe in Calvinistic Total Depravity (One can find “Pentecostals” that believe in anything, as they’re free to do), but most are Remonstrants - as I think you agree. And I know from first hand observation that any student who attempts to equate the Remonstrant view of depravity with Calvin’s on a theology exam gets a big red “X” courtesy of Dr. Draper.

Arminians and Calvinists do agree on total depravity. That is not the source of disagreement even if Arminians have always been accused of not beleiving in total depravity. Article 3 of the Articles of Remonstrance is on the total depravity of humanity:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Roger Olson, author of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, pp.55-6 , writes:

Aminians together with Calvinists affirm total depravity because of the fall of humanity in Adam and its inherited consequence of a corrupted nature in bondage to sin. A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an optimistic anthropology.

 

[Vonsalza]

Do Catholics not have an understanding of the church as a covenant people?

Irrelevant. You’ve been around here long enough to know that this isn’t the way they frame their theology.

Vonsalza:

But as an aside: “Matters of the heart by the spirit” - what exactly does that mean?

Let’s ask Paul in Romans 2:

Well, we saw Paul use similar language.

Sooo… I’ll repeat myself since you still haven’t answered the question. “Matters of the heart by the spirit” - what exactly does that mean?

Arminians and Calvinists do agree on total depravity.

Incorrect. Objectively So.

John MacArthur on the Topic:
(from

)

John Calvin rightly interpreted the Bible to teach that man is totally depraved. What that means, is that, not every human being is as sinful as he could be or she could be, but that every human being is sinful to the point that they’re incapable of altering their condition. That is to say, total depravity means you can’t do anything to save yourself. You can’t even make a right choice. You can’t awaken your spiritual deadness. You can’t give life where there is death. You can’t come to a right conclusion on your own. Total depravity means that everyone, is by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own choices, incapable of redemption. That’s total depravity.

Arminius would say–Arminian theology, Palagian theology, as it’s also called–would say “man is capable.” That while man is, in the general sense, a sinner, he has capacities within himself to choose to be saved. That is the debate. I don’t think that’s biblical. I think we are dead in trespasses and sin, and dead people don’t make choices. Dead people can’t make themselves alive. So, I think there is a clear distinction there.

Now you’re obviously free to continue insisting that they’re the same and that John MacArthur and any other scholar I have readily lined up to rebut you is wrong. I’m not going to burden myself with educating you on this except for this: The way it was best demonstrated to be in school was that Calvin advocated a man who was “An Enemy of God”. Arminius advocated a “Wounded Man”.

These just aren’t the same - even if you really really want them to be.

 

[ltwin]

Arminius would say–Arminian theology, Palagian theology,

LOL. That is rich. Made my night. You cite John MacArthur who says Arminian theology is the same thing as Pelagianism. Why don’t you cite someone who really says what they think–that Arminians are sub-Christian, just like Catholics.

Well, if that’s the kind of scholarship you refer to, how can I possibly argue against that. LOL.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Arminius would say–Arminian theology, Palagian theology,

LOL. That is rich. Made my night. You cite John MacArthur who says Arminian theology is the same thing as Palagianism. Why don’t you cite someone who really says what they think–that Arminians are sub-Christian, just like Catholics.

Well, if that’s the kind of scholarship you refer to it, how can I possibly argue against that. LOL.

Given your dramatic up-tick in the use of “LOL”, it’s very obvious that I’ve hit you in a sensitive place.

I apologize for that. I like to keep emotions out of these discussions and I’ve obviously invoked some of yours. Again, sorry.

But they’re not the same, Itwin. They never have been. Arminianism is not “Four Point Calvinism”.

 

[ltwin]

Given your dramatic up-tick in the use of “LOL”, it’s very obvious that I’ve hit you in a sensitive place.

I’m laughing out loud because you are using as evidence a pastor who believes Arminians are Pelagians–a heresy that denies original sin and believes humans can choose good without God’s grace. I have no desire to be a Calvinist. Yet, your insistence that Arminians reject total depravity because the Calvinists say we must be Pelagians or at best semi-Pelagians is juvenile.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Given your dramatic up-tick in the use of “LOL”, it’s very obvious that I’ve hit you in a sensitive place.

I’m laughing out loud because you are using as evidence a pastor who believes Arminians are Pelagians–a heresy that denies original sin and believes humans can choose good without God’s grace. I have no desire to be a Calvinist. Yet, your insistence that Arminians reject total depravity because the Calvinists say we must be Pelagians or at best semi-Pelagians is juvenile.

It’s not.

Unfortunately for your argument, if God doesn’t do 100% of the salvific work - as the Calvinist requires - then that means man does some of it, even if that portion is merely assent.

For Calvinistic depravity, man simply does not have that capacity.

For Arminius, he does.

Name-call all you want in defense…

 

[ltwin]

Unfortunately for your argument, if God doesn’t do 100% of the salvific work - as the Calvinist requires - then that means man does some of it, even if that portion is merely assent.

God does do 100% of the salvific work, and the way he does this is through prevenient grace–with the help of the Holy Spirit, man chooses God but only because God gives him the ability. It’s obvious you were educated in a Reformed environment and have a distorted view of Arminian theology, but it would be irresponsible of me to not inform you that you are misinformed.

 

[Vonsalza]

God does do 100% of the salvific work

…man chooses God but only because God gives him the ability.

If this choice is resistible then behold your contradiction.

As such, these two understandings of human depravity cannot be the same.

QED.

 

[ltwin]

If this choice is resistible then behold your contradiction.

As such, these two understandings of human depravity cannot be the same.

QED.

There is no contradiction. Prevenient grace does not bend the will. It enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. This cooperation does not contribute to salvation. It is simply non-resistance to grace. It is allowing grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification and admitting that only Christ can save.

Therefore, Arminian theology does indeed uphold both total depravity and the possibility of resisting grace.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sorry Itwin.

You don’t get to say that “man has a choice” AND “God does 100% of the salvific work”.

This is a contradiction. Even if God must work to enable the man to have the choice, he still must choose and can choose either way.

The difference between these two views is essentially the difference between the Calvinist and Arminian views on human depravity.