Salvation Assurance: Myth or Reality for average Joe / Jane Catholic @ CAF

[Sean_Boyle]

I disagree. We believe that the Bible is the objective, authoritative word of God, not the opinions of men.

Your disagree with what. exactly? We believe that Christ was the objective, authoritative Word of God. We believe that Christ is the head of the Church. That is why the Church is call the bride of Christ not the Bible

The bible is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which you called “the opinions of men” by implication at the very least.

The Catholic Church decided under the authority of God, what was scripture and what was not. Where did the “opinion of men” come into these decisions made by the Church in respect to compiling the Bible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Notice that v 23 says “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:”

Jas 2:17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
Jas 2:18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Jas 2:20 **But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? **
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Robert_in_SD]

OK. Go ahead and explain what scriptures support their view.

I don’t need to do that. It is enough that we agree they would present scriptures to support their view. Do you think they would not try to support their POV with scriptures. Do you think they would not try to knock down your position (to the extent it disagrees with their own) by looking to scripture? This is my point. You both make arguments from scripture, yet they are not consistent. At least one of you is not correct, right?
Pastor Jim:

Actually, that’s not what the verse says at all.

I was not quoting the verse. I was explaining it to you from my Catholic perspective…

Notice that Paul says “I am nothing”, not “faith is nothing.” (He says he has faith… and is still nothing without charity. That is my point. Faith alone is simply not enough. Do you really think that St. Paul is saying one who is “nothing” is a person who is on their way to heaven? I think you really want this verse to mean something that the context does not permit.
Pastor Jim:

There is no place in this verse where we’re told that anything other than faith is required for salvation.

Not expressly. But it certainly is a very strong inference that faith alone (without charity) leaves one as “nothing.”
Pastor Jim:

Actually, you didn’t read the whole passage. Had you kept reading, you would have seen that even though the man says that he kept all of the commandments, he still was not saved.

I’ve read the passage. It’s not my position that keeping the commandments alone is sufficient for salvation. Grace is what is needed for salvation. One obtains grace by, among other things, keeping the commandments out of (and in response to) the love of Christ.
Pastor Jim:

This time, you jumped in in the middle of the passage. Let’s back up just a little.

Notice that v 23 says “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:”

Here, we see the Bible telling us that Abraham was saved by faith.

He believed God when he acted upon God’s command. It was the response not just the intellectual accpetance or belief alone. It was the response in faith that was counted as righteousness. Keep it clear that it is not the Catholic position to discount the necessity of faith. But it is the Catholic position to also recognize the importance of our response to the grace of God… faith working in love is what saves.
Pastor Jim:

Not sure what you mean by this. Eph 1:8-10

My mistake: Eph. 2:8-10:

[8] For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God –
[9] not because of works, lest any man should boast.
[10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This expresses the connectedness between grace leading to faith, and our response … that we should “walk in Christ” doing those good works prepared for us… nor for our own glory, but for Christ in whom we are created.
Pastor Jim:

No, you stated that I would say it. I have never and would never say that.

Show me where I said that you would say it? I questioned whether you would say something similar, and asked you to explain why you would not, but I never put words in your mouth. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Pastor Jim:

Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that I would know they didn’t repent because they’re not saved.

I’m not attributing anything to you personally. I’m suggesting that this is the logical outcome of OSAS doctrine.
Pastor Jim:

Had you bothered to ask instead of making something up and attributing it to me, I would have said that it is clear that he did not repent because to repent means to turn from sin and not do it anymore. In the examples you gave, he’s not only doing it, but doing it more.

I’m not trying to make this personal. Lets stick to the OSAS doctrine and how it is applied. So if repenrence is required for salvation, and if one didn’t repent - because one continues to sin - then it must be concluded that one who continues to sin is not saved. If this is not so, then what amount of sinning is a “saved” person allowed to commit? Or am I missing something?
Pastor Jim:

You can repent of sin in a general sense, yes.

That is not my question. We all agree that a sinner can hate sin. Let me be more clear. My question to you is, can a person repent of a particular sin that they have not yet committed - e.g. I repent of the sin of adultery, which I intend to commit next Friday. Such conduct does not seem logically possible to me, as repentence includes a firm resolve NOT to engage in the conduct being repented of.

So how is it that if repentence is required for salvation, and if one commits sins after being “born again” the repentence previously expressed is sufficient for salvation? Is there not a suspension of salvation until there is sufficient repentence of the later sin? If not, then the OSAS requirement of repentence is not consistently applied to all sin.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Actually is kind of ‘all inclusive’. One must first stand before the Father at Trial. ‘You are guilty’ as charged by God’s Laws. How do you plead ? One gives out all their excuses for why God should accept them. The Bible, however, clearly shows one they have no expectation of ever meeting God’s law and being worthy.

One next realizes they are under a Death Sentence. Their only advocate with the Father is Christ. Christ alone via the Cross has paid for their sins … if only they will repent, accept his salvation gift, and become disciples.

If they are willing to be adopted into God’s family, via spiritual marriage, one must pray aloud to the Father and EXPECT that Christ will heal them, adopt them, and bless them with H.S. If one doubts … Christ knows and can not act.

Its a marvelous portrait of divine love, forgiveness, grace, and son/daughtership adoption via Christ into God’s Kingdom. Many, many spiritual miracles of healing have occurred via the hearing of the Spiritual Laws [as taught in tracts by Campus Crusade for Christ … for an example]. Other tracts are also used … which basically teach the same process — by which man is joined to the Father, thru the outstreached arms of Christ.

So, the seed is effectively sown is this manner. Christ is always in attendance. He reaches down to sinful, broken man. Some will accept the holy hand, some will reach up but pull back, some will take hold briefly … but, later kick at the goads, for an early release from their Oath to the Lord. Some will persevere in H.S., and experience lifelong spiritual rebirths.

Is this the Catholic way ? Generally not it would seem … but, it is what’s most effective for Protestant conversions.

What you describe sounds more Catholic than Protestant to me. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I don’t need to do that.

No, you don’t have to, but if you’re going to make the claim, you really should back it up.

I was not quoting the verse. I was explaining it to you from my Catholic perspective…

You misrepresented what the verse says.

Faith alone is simply not enough. Do you really think that St. Paul is saying one who is “nothing” is a person who is on their way to heaven?

He’s not talking about Heavn.

I think you really want this verse to mean something that the context does not permit.

No, I really want you to stop butchering scripture.

Not expressly.

Not at all.

I’ve read the passage. It’s not my position that keeping the commandments alone is sufficient for salvation.

Your own words: "When the rich man asks what he must do to be saved, Jesus tells him to “keep the commandments. Mt 19:16-17. It is clear that his faith alone is not enough. We must have charity and keep God’s commandments.”

Grace is what is needed for salvation. One obtains grace by, among other things, keeping the commandments out of (and in response to) the love of Christ.

Which verse is that?

He believed God when he acted upon God’s command.

That’s right. He expressed his faith in his actions and because his actions showed that his faith was legit, God imputed righteousness to him.

It was still his faith that saved him, and not his works.
.

My mistake: Eph. 2:8-10:

You mean Eph 2:8,10 don’t you? Surely you can’t mean to include verse 9, which tells us that our works don’t save us!

I’m not trying to make this personal.

Then stop with the strawmen and attributing statements to me I did not make.

If this is not so, then what amount of sinning is a “saved” person allowed to commit?

No one is allowed to commit any sin. That’s what makes it sin.

My question to you is, can a person repent of a particular sin that they have not yet committed - e.g. I repent of the sin of adultery, which I intend to commit next Friday.

How can you repent of something that you intend to commit? If you were repentant, you wouldn’t be intending to commit it.

So how is it that if repentence is required for salvation, and if one commits sins after being “born again” the repentence previously expressed is sufficient for salvation?

Because God is not so stupid that He does not know the difference between somebody who commits sin as a matter of a momentary moral lapse, and someone who is serving sin.

 

[terryobrien80]

**Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let us raise the bar here to a little Christian charity, okay?

BTW: Read your inbox P. Jim**

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No, you don’t have to, but if you’re going to make the claim, you really should back it up.

I’m not making their claim. I’m saying they would support their claim with scripture. Don’t you see the problem? Both of you would point to the bible as support for your distinct positions. Both of you would ctry to convince the other of the correctness of his or her position. That is the only point I’m trying to make. I’m not supporting the pentecostal position. Do you really think that I need to present a scriptural argument in support of the pentecostal position to argue that a pentecostal wouls support his or her argument with scripture?
Pastor Jim:

You misrepresented what the verse says.

I did no such thing. I presented what I understand to be a correct understanding of the verse. What I presented was not consistent with your interpretation. But it was not a misrepresentation. Let’s set aside the personal attacks and focus on the doctrines, please.
Pastor Jim:

He’s not talking about Heavn.

He’s talking about a hypothetical state of being in “nothingness” for lack of charity… even though faith is present. Sound awfully inconsistent with being “saved.” Can one be simultaneously “saved” and “nothing?”
Pastor Jim:

No, I really want you to stop butchering scripture.

I’m not butchering scripture. Do you really think that a person who says they are “nothing” is simultaneously inferring that even though he is nothing he is “saved?” Because that is what you are implying when you say this scripture does not speak of salvation requiring anything more than faith.
Pastor Jim:

Not at all.

The passage speaks of one with faith, but lacking charity, as nothing. Does this not raise some inconsistent implications regarding salvation in the context of your theology?
Pastor Jim:

Your own words: "When the rich man asks what he must do to be saved, Jesus tells him to “keep the commandments. Mt 19:16-17. It is clear that his faith alone is not enough. We must have charity and keep God’s commandments.”

I’m not using this passage as a proof text for the propositon that keeping the commandments “alone” is sufficient. Jesus says keep the commandments. He does NOT say, “keep the commandments alone.” Charity is discussed in 1 Cor., supra. Commandments are discussed in Mt. Faith is discussed in Rom. Only through grace do we have faith, charity, and the ability to keep the commandments. That is my point.
Pastor Jim:

That’s right. He expressed his faith in his actions and because his actions showed that his faith was legit, God imputed righteousness to him.

Would he have imputed righteousness to Abraham absent his actions? I think the answer is “no.” Do you say different?
Pastor Jim:

It was still his faith that saved him, and not his works.

It was his faith working in love. All parts - faith, work, love, are necessary and obtainable only by God’s grace.
.
Pastor Jim:

You mean Eph 2:8,10 don’t you? Surely you can’t mean to include verse 9, which tells us that our works don’t save us!

I meant the whole part 8-10, including 9. Read it again. Our faith is received by grace and not by works. Our salvation is through faith. But what is faith that saves? Saving faith is a living faith that works in love. We agree that we do not initiate our own salvation. Christ is the initiator and the one who perfects. But we must respond to the graces that God provides. We are not just clay. We are persons created in the image and likeness of God, called to do good works as a new creation in Christ.
Pastor Jim:

Then stop with the strawmen and attributing statements to me I did not make.

I’ve not intentionally created any straw man arguments. Nor am I attributing to you any statement you did not make. I am focusing on the doctrines that you identify with… OSAS and sola fide. It’s not personal Pastor Jim. Please stop going there.
Pastor Jim:

No one is allowed to commit any sin. That’s what makes it sin.

But under the doctrine of OSAS, is it not true that one can commit sins after being “saved?” Indeed, it is almost a given that one will continue to sin even after being “saved.” How, then is it that one retains one’s salvation even though one commits sins for which one has not repented?
Pastor Jim:

How can you repent of something that you intend to commit? If you were repentant, you wouldn’t be intending to commit it.

My point exactly. Then how can one repent of all their sins and receive the absolute assurance of personal salvation in the middle of a life of sin? Are they not receiving forgiveness for sins they have not yet committed, and for which we both agree cannot be repented of yet?
Pastor Jim:

Because God is not so stupid that He does not know the difference between somebody who commits sin as a matter of a momentary moral lapse, and someone who is serving sin.

I do not accuse God of being stupid. But, please tell me, what is the distinction between a “momentary moral lapse” and “serving sin.” Is it merely a question of duration? Is it a question of seriousness? Just what is the distinction you created here? Are you suggesting that there are, perhaps, some sins which are not deadly, while others are deadly?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Jim
I disagree. We believe that the Bible is the objective, authoritative word of God, not the opinions of men. **

can you please explain what you mean by authoritative? i mean what does this say to you?

:byzsoc:

 

[Robert_in_SD]

**Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let us raise the bar here to a little Christian charity, okay?

BTW: Read your inbox P. Jim**

My apologies if I have been received as less than charitable. I am only trying to address the doctrines at issue here. I hold no ill will towards anyone participating in the discussion.

As an aside, I do not know Pastor Jim personally, but I have great respect for him for coming to this forum and presenting and defendung his faith. He placed himself on the firing line. That takes courage of conviction. Although our doctrines differ, that does not mean I cannot respect a man who lives what he believes. My regrets if the tenor of my prior posts did not reflect this respect, and the courtesy that it should afford.

I will try to maintain charity in my posts.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Della]

So, now that we’ve gotten over debating who’s theology is correct/incorrect (I hope!). The answer to the OP’s question (remember the OP, everyone?) is quite simple. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, those who die in a state of grace and in friendship with God are assured of their salvation. That’s it, that’s all, there’s nothing more that needs to be said.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I’m not making their claim. I’m saying they would support their claim with scripture. Don’t you see the problem? Both of you would point to the bible as support for your distinct positions.

The difference is that I can show you the scriptures I’m basing my argument on. You cannot show one verse to support what you claim their view is.

I did no such thing.

You did and I even demonstrated that you did so.

Can one be simultaneously “saved” and “nothing?”

Yes.

I’m not butchering scripture.

You are to exegesis what OJ was to Nicole.

Do you really think that a person who says they are “nothing” is simultaneously inferring that even though he is nothing he is “saved?”

In the context that he said it, yes.

I’m not using this passage as a proof text for the propositon that keeping the commandments “alone” is sufficient. Jesus says keep the commandments. He does NOT say, “keep the commandments alone.” Charity is discussed in 1 Cor., supra. Commandments are discussed in Mt. Faith is discussed in Rom. Only through grace do we have faith, charity, and the ability to keep the commandments. That is my point.

We don’t have the ability to keep the commandments. That’s precisely why Paul said that he found himself doing those things he knew he ought not to do.

Would he have imputed righteousness to Abraham absent his actions? I think the answer is “no.” Do you say different?

It was because of his faith. His actions were only an outward manifestation of his faith.

I meant the whole part 8-10, including 9. Read it again. Our faith is received by grace and not by works.

I’m glad to hear that you’re no longer defending the Catholic view that you are saved by faith.

I’ve not intentionally created any straw man arguments. Nor am I attributing to you any statement you did not make.

You’ve done so several times.

Please stop going there.

Then stop with the strawmen about my beliefs and putting words in my mouth.

But under the doctrine of OSAS, is it not true that one can commit sins after being “saved?” Indeed, it is almost a given that one will continue to sin even after being “saved.” How, then is it that one retains one’s salvation even though one commits sins for which one has not repented?

IF HE HAS NOT REPENTED, THEN HE IS NOT SAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND SO OSAS DOES NOT APPLY.

My point exactly. Then how can one repent of all their sins and receive the absolute assurance of personal salvation in the middle of a life of sin?

If they’re leading a life of sin, they haven’t not repented.

I do not accuse God of being stupid.

But, please tell me, what is the distinction between a “momentary moral lapse” and “serving sin.” Is it merely a question of duration? Is it a question of seriousness? Just what is the distinction you created here?

The distinction that scripture creates is that one serves sin willingly, as a slave serves a master. The other sins in a moment of moral weakness, recognizes his sin and is horrified by it, and immediately goes to God in repentance.

Are you suggesting that there are, perhaps, some sins which are not deadly, while others are deadly?

“Mortal” and “venial” sins are Catholic mythology, not Biblical teaching.

 

[Della]

Oh well, so much for the OP’s question. :crying:

 

[terryobrien80]

.
I’m assuming everyone read this already… …?
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

.

 

[SD_Catholic]

When did I say that they were wrong?

Why should I trust their opinions over the Bible?

1. You believe in OSAS… they didn’t… thus you’re saying they’re wrong.
2. Because it was more than likely their opinions which judged which books were actually inspired and which were not, so that they could determine which ones would be included in the Bible.

I think they understood Jesus’ teachings far better than you or I… so that’s why I trust their opinions when it comes to Scripture…

Why don’t you trust their opinions?

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

List all of the ECFs who were taught first-hand, in-person by the apostles, please.

Sorry, I’m not qualified to do that, but I’ll give 1… Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John the Apostle… I’m sur there were more but Ignatius’s outlook on it is pretty clear… perhaps you would like to see that?

SD

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Assurance of Salvation?

For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference—as far as salvation is concerned—how you live or end your life. You can heed the altar call at church, announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to. **

Isnt this kind of ironic? let me see if i understand this, ML left the CC because he claimed that many Catholics were commiting sins. the CC fell into apostasy because of the sins committed in the Church. yet they say that no sin can separate us from God. no matter what sins we commit we cannot loose our salvation.

How can they claim that the CC lost its way due to sin?
if anyone have a better way of putting it, please do so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The difference is that I can show you the scriptures I’m basing my argument on. You cannot show one verse to support what you claim their view is.

That’s twice I’ve seen you say this but still no scriptures are provided?

You are to exegesis what OJ was to Nicole.

Is this a charitable response? Maybe you need to read another post that was made in this thread, please see below:

By the way, isn’t there something in the rules about not calling other posters derogatory names?

Conduct Rules:

Article 2: Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.

I’m glad to hear that you’re no longer defending the Catholic view that you are saved by faith.

More charitability? Seems like ad hominem chosen wording to me.

“Mortal” and “venial” sins are Catholic mythology, not Biblical teaching.

1Jn 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
1Jn 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[BRB]

What you describe sounds more Catholic than Protestant to me. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace,
-Robert

Glory be … ecumenical reunion is not far off !!!

Several Pentecostal brethren, with a Non-denominational Campus Crusade Tract in one hand and King James Bible in the other presented God’s Plan of Salvation — and I was converted.

30 years later – a Catholic tells me my Protestant conversion was Catholic

 

[terryobrien80]

List all of the ECFs who were taught first-hand, in-person by the apostles, please.

Polycarp was taught by John - just off the top of my head

 

[BRB]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, those who die in a state of grace and in friendship with God are assured of their salvation.

True enuf …

Catholics actually can & should believe they are OSAS adoptees.

…if they don’t commit apostasy, stay confessed on daily basis, follow Beatitudes & the Big 10, and make an Oath to the Lord to remind them if they go more than 24 hrs w/o private confession.
This Oath will enable one to safely persevere to your end days.

@ 24hrs and 1 minute, you will get a reminder about that Oath made.

Also … always venerate your Mother Mary. The Holy Mother will never let you down !