Sola fide discussion with baptist dad

[Shaolen]

He as given this quote from a d.l. Moody

“God, being a perfect God, had to give a perfect Law, and the Law was given not to save men, but to measure them. I want you to understand this clearly, because I believe hundreds and thousands stumble at this point. They try to save themselves by trying to keep the Law, but it was never meant for men to save themselves by.” D.L. Moody

How should a catholic respond to this

 

[fhansen]

He as given this quote from a d.l. Moody

“God, being a perfect God, had to give a perfect Law, and the Law was given not to save men, but to measure them. I want you to understand this clearly, because I believe hundreds and thousands stumble at this point. They try to save themselves by trying to keep the Law, but it was never meant for men to save themselves by.” D.L. Moody

How should a catholic respond to this

This is absolutely true-and there’s no argument with it from the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

**1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19

1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:
If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one’s life.20

1967 The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.” It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
**

The difference in theologies is in whether or not God expects us to fulfill the Law. In spite of the fact that we cannot be justified by a merely external fulfillment of the Law, the Law is nonetheless still right; it outlines basic righteous behavior for man. Under the New Law, the Law of grace, we’re still expected to fulfill it, but the right way, by the means of love, which fulfills it automatically. **"…Love fulfills the Law". **(Rom 13:8) In Catholicism this righteousness is still expected of us as being that which makes us just, or justifies us, rather than being justified by faith alone. St Basil of Cesarea put it this way:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

In Catholicism, God still wants His creation restored to its order or justice-He wants His will to be done and sin to ultimately be finished with, but only as we will it also, only as we come to agree with His will, having created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection” as the catechism puts it.

 

[adf417]

He as given this quote from a d.l. Moody

“God, being a perfect God, had to give a perfect Law, and the Law was given not to save men, but to measure them. I want you to understand this clearly, because I believe hundreds and thousands stumble at this point. They try to save themselves by trying to keep the Law, but it was never meant for men to save themselves by.” D.L. Moody

How should a catholic respond to this

What is he implying this quote is saying? Catholics agree we cannot save ourselves by our works or any other way.

Peace!!!

 

[Shaolen]

For anyone wondering. Here’s how the conversation ended. My brother said:

““The answer is because there are still differences in both our positions.” is you saying “he is not one of us” to Jesus. Luke 9:50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” I am not against you Len. I agree with a lot of your beliefs. You agree with a lot of mine. I think this conversation is proof of that. From this point forward, why don’t you stop trying to stop me from “chasing out demons” even though I’m not Catholic? Your time can be better spent trying to get non believers to join your church than convincing me to become a Catholic. This is Satan’s way of keeping both of us from doing God’s will.”

Most of the end of the discussion he tried to make it seem like our positions were identical. He then threw this idea of “Jesus doesn’t want us to work out these minute details of the faith, it doesn’t matter which church as long as its Jesus”. Hes tried to pull this on me in past discussions (usually at the end when he has exhausted his arguments). So I borrowed an answer from Dr. David Anders from earlier this month on catholic answers radio and said:

"No its not. You’re taking that passage out of context to fit your idea that the bond of our unity should be the bare minimum. We find this list of doctrines that are the bare essentials of the faith, we agree on those and that’s what’s necessary. It’s an interesting idea you propose, but its one the earliest protestants explicitly rejected. If you were to sit, not with me, but with John Calvin or Martin Luther and you articulated the position you just said, well Luther literally would’ve run you out on a rail. He refused fellowship with Ulrich Zwingli, and they agreed on a great many things. But because they disagreed on the nature of Christ in the Eucharist, Luther absolutely rejected Zwingli as a heretic and would have nothing to do with him

John Calvin tried to mediate between them making a truce on the Lord’s Super. In that he said its absolutely essential that the protestant movement come together in the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, both because our division on this is a source of scandal to the world (this part in particular addresses why Christian unity might take precedence over non believers), and that the simple people are waiting for us to come to agreement so they know what to believe. Second, because this is a matter that’s absolutely essential for salvation.

Well most protestants today would just balk if you told them that a proper understanding of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. They’d reject it. They don’t realize their own tradition maintained that absolute uniformity in the faith was an ideal that scripture put forth and a moral necessity.

But it is something that scripture calls for. 1 Corinthians 1:10 st Paul says “I insist that you agree on absolutely everything.” And again when he gives rules for liturgical behavior, dress and so forth he says “if anyone has another practice, know that we have no other practice, nor do the churhes of God.” So he appeals to the catholicity of the church not only on matters of dogma but even down to the fine details of litergical propriety. So this is something the early church understood. It’s something the earliest protestants understood

And the idea that we only need to find agreement in a sort of small set of essentials, that’s something that you really don’t find floated until about the 18th century. The revivalist George Whitfield is one of the first people to put this idea forth that “hey if we have a personal relationship with Jesus and we’re born again that’s all that really matters.” But when putting that idea forth he was really cutting against the grain of 1800 years of Christian history, protestant history as well. Why did he put that forth? Because the manifest disagreement among protestant sects was so massive there was no way they’d come together, and everyone would have to recognize it. But that’s not a notion that’s supported by sacred scripture or Christian tradition.

That being said, you and I do share some fundamental things in common. I think that’s fantastic, its one of those forces impelling us to catholic unity. So lets keep on talking. Find those points of commonality, discuss the points where we disagree and see if we can come to a union of minds on those as well."

He had nothing more to say after this. Thanks to everyone who helped me. This was truly an experience as I never thought that the sola fide issue was both this hard, this complicated, and this close to what we believe. This is also probably the most charitable discussion I’ve had with them (believe it or not) most discussions could only be described as arguments. It usually gets heated and they wind up accusing me of Mary worship of worshipping the pope or some other crazy accusation. God bless you guys and God bless catholic answers forum!

 

[TxGodfollower]

But it is something that scripture calls for. 1 Corinthians 1:10 st Paul says “I insist that you agree on absolutely everything.” And again when he gives rules for liturgical behavior, dress and so forth he says “if anyone has another practice, know that we have no other practice, nor do the churhes of God.” So he appeals to the catholicity of the church not only on matters of dogma but even down to the fine details of litergical propriety. So this is something the early church understood. It’s something the earliest protestants understood

Interesting Paul says “churches of God”, not “the church of God”. Doesn’t sound very universal.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting Paul says “churches of God”, not “the church of God”. Doesn’t sound very universal.

We still recognize the various churches from various cities in various parts of the world as constituting individual representations of the one Church established by Christ, universal in the unity of their teachings, as they did from the beginning: the church of Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Ephesus, etc.

 

[Shaolen]

Interesting Paul says “churches of God”, not “the church of God”. Doesn’t sound very universal.

On the contrary. This sounds extremely universal. Even if you take this in today’s context of "churches of God " to be including all protestant churches etc, this passage st Paul is calling for complete uniformity in all of them saying that the churches of God have no other practice. Since we can look at Protestantism today and see that that’s not true, they have varying ideas all over the board, we can then conclude that something isn’t right. If I were protestant and I read that passage I’d have a huge urge to want to unite the teachings and practices as st. Paul commands.

 

[TxGodfollower]

On the contrary. This sounds extremely universal. Even if you take this in today’s context of "churches of God " to be including all protestant churches etc, this passage st Paul is calling for complete uniformity in all of them saying that the churches of God have no other practice. Since we can look at Protestantism today and see that that’s not true, they have varying ideas all over the board, we can then conclude that something isn’t right. If I were protestant and I read that passage I’d have a huge urge to want to unite the teachings and practices as st. Paul commands.

There are distinctions in all groups, even Catholicism. Some say the mass has to be in Latin, others say it doesn’t. Different preferences are common anywhere there are people. I believe unity is very important; however no group is willing to give up anything in order to re-unite. Everyone holds their doctrine as the truth and those that disagree are (at best) lost misguided brothers and sisters. We are so caught up in labels for our faith (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Orthodox, Methodist), when there used to be just Christian. I am amazed at how to some the title of another group becomes essentially a curse word. Every group is responsible for causing and prolonging this division, yet no one wants to clean up the mess, unless everyone else admits that the dispute was 100% their fault.

Last week we remembered Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Untied States and the progress he made for racial equality. I remember reading his speech. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like, if we moved past the titles and acted as Christ called us to.

 

[Shaolen]

So it seems my dad has now re-entered the sola fide discussion saying

“Len, do you believe that God lies? Must you continually “justify” yourself to keep salvation? That would be what He would be doing if He told you today you are saved, but takes salvation away from you next week, because you did not do enough good works or offer enough tithes and offerings. We know that no amount of good works can make us righteous enough to enter heaven. If so, the Jews, God’s chosen people, would be saved and we would not. God sent Jesus to be the only way to get to heaven, for Jews and Gentiles. But, beware, if you say you believe in Jesus and you want salvation, but you harbor evil in your heart, or your intent is to get saved so you can get away wit doing bad things. For God knows wha’s in your heart and you will not receive His Grace, you will not get saved. Do not confuse belief with faith; for as you alluded to all the demons in hell believe in Jesus, so does the devil himself. But they don’t put their faith in Jesus for their salvation. Part of faith is trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. The demons don’t. We should try. But we are all sinners, starting at birth, and we are weak and will sin, again. But God knows that and still gives His Grace.”

Can you guys give some feed back on how to address this? I have some ideas. He’s still confusing our position of works as works of ourselves without God’s grace. There’s an anology that goes like this

You’re stranded in the ocean with a storm over head. Jesus comes on a boat and tosses you a rope (which represents God’s grace). The action of grabbing the rope is the work. And we have faith that he will pull the rope and we will be brought on the boat. If there was no rope (grace), then grabbing (the work) can’t save us. Likewise we can see the rope and have faith that he will pull us in but without the work of grabbing that work we will still not be saved.

Is this a useful analogy for this situation? What else would you guys respond with to what he has said?

 

[fhansen]

So it seems my dad has now re-entered the sola fide discussion saying

“Len, do you believe that God lies? Must you continually “justify” yourself to keep salvation? That would be what He would be doing if He told you today you are saved, but takes salvation away from you next week, because you did not do enough good works or offer enough tithes and offerings. We know that no amount of good works can make us righteous enough to enter heaven. If so, the Jews, God’s chosen people, would be saved and we would not. God sent Jesus to be the only way to get to heaven, for Jews and Gentiles. But, beware, if you say you believe in Jesus and you want salvation, but you harbor evil in your heart, or your intent is to get saved so you can get away wit doing bad things. For God knows wha’s in your heart and you will not receive His Grace, you will not get saved. Do not confuse belief with faith; for as you alluded to all the demons in hell believe in Jesus, so does the devil himself. But they don’t put their faith in Jesus for their salvation. Part of faith is trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. The demons don’t. We should try. But we are all sinners, starting at birth, and we are weak and will sin, again. But God knows that and still gives His Grace.”

Can you guys give some feed back on how to address this? I have some ideas. He’s still confusing our position of works as works of ourselves without God’s grace. There’s an anology that goes like this

You’re stranded in the ocean with a storm over head. Jesus comes on a boat and tosses you a rope (which represents God’s grace). The action of grabbing the rope is the work. And we have faith that he will pull the rope and we will be brought on the boat. If there was no rope (grace), then grabbing (the work) can’t save us. Likewise we can see the rope and have faith that he will pull us in but without the work of grabbing that work we will still not be saved.

Is this a useful analogy for this situation? What else would you guys respond with to what he has said?

Sin separated man from God to begin with, and God’s purpose has never been to ignore injustice now, as if sin no longer mattered, as if His will no longer mattered. The purpose of the New Covenant is not only to forgive sin but to also to ultimately restore justice to His world, to help us to “go, and sin no more”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Shaolen. You mentioned (here with a minor syntax alteration) . . . .

So he stated this . . . .

. . . Titus 3:5—“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

TITUS 3:5 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . .

This verse above tells us WHY Jesus saved us . . . and . . .
(in a sense) HOW Jesus saves us.

---

This verse tells us WHY Jesus saved us . . . and . . .
HOW (in a sense) Jesus saves us.

TITUS 3:5 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . .

Titus 3:5 is basically saying:

God the Father did NOT say: “Well Jesus, people are just so deserving down there on earth, therefore I am sending you down to earth as a man to save them BECAUSE they did good enough works performed in righteousness to deserve this.”

A natural “faith” cannot make you “DESERVE” Jesus’ work either.

Humanity has NOTHING at its disposal (on its own) to “deserve” this infinite gift of Christ’s saving work.

---

This verse tells us WHY Jesus saved us . . . and . . .
(in a sense) HOW Jesus saves us.

TITUS 3:5 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . .

“by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”

You can easily figure out what "by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” means (Baptism).

JOHN 3:5 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

(Steve Wood has said: “Just remember and repeat: John 3:5/Titus 3:5, John 3:5/Titus 3:5, John 3:5/Titus 3:5, John 3:5/Titus 3:5, John 3:5/Titus 3:5”)

Below an excerpt from 1st Peter 3:21.

1st PETER 3:21 21 Baptism, . . . , now saves you, . . .

ACTS 2:38 38 And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

---

(Baptists are actually “Anabaptists”—they DENY the regenerative effects of Baptism. I would point out the above things over and over whenever Titus 3:5 is mentioned. Baptists will think of a million excuses [not in the relevant texts of Scripture] why these verses don’t mean exactly what they say they mean.

At that point in your discussion it might be worthwhile telling them: “Us Catholics are just going to affirm what is stated in Scripture, while you Baptists will just have to follow after “traditions of men” and keep “interpreting” these verses.”

These are useful phrases because Baptists are (I was) taught that these phrases apply to the Catholic Church and NEVER to Baptists!).

---

A summary from our local area men’s Bible study:

Biblical Summary of Some of the Effects of Baptism

• People who believe and are Baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16).
• People are made disciples of Jesus by being Baptized AND taught to OBEY ALL that Jesus commands (Matthew 28:18-20).
• People who repent and are Baptized receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
• We are called to be Baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 also).
• We need to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).
• We need to keep in mind, people who are not born of water and Spirit cannot even SEE the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5).
• Baptism now saves us (1st Peter 3:18-21).
• We were Baptized into one body (1st Corinthians 12:13).
• Do you not know that all of us who have been Baptized into Christ Jesus were Baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3).
• We were “saved . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
• Baptism “wash(es) away your sins.” (Acts 22:16).

 

[fasolislithuan]

Another interesting quote:

“And being consummated, he became, to all that obey Him, the cause of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9).

It doesn’t say “to all that have faith in Him” In the term “obey” are included faith and works (and other issues)

Obedience is, here, another requirement for eternal salvation. As faith, good works, baptism, to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, etc… All are requirements. The protestant theology (soteriology included) is deadly damaged for an “either/or” mindset. There are a lot of passages in the Bible that tie salvation with faith, but also with another requirements (Matthew 25:31-46; John 6:53-54; 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Hebrews 5:9 etc…) . In light of all of these other passages is a bad exegesis to defend salvation by faith ALONE. You only can defend this if you ignore another unambiguous biblical verses. It would be also a deficient exegesis to defend salvation by good works ALONE, by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ ALONE, by baptism ALONE, by obedience ALONE or by whatever-we-can-think ALONE.

But protestants also defend “Bible ALONE”, and my private judgement of the Scriptures ALONE. All is alone. Bad, bad exegesis

I only can remember when Jesus says: “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by **every word **that proceedeth out of the mouth of God..” (John 4:4)
And we all know that Mat 25, John 6, 1Peter 3, and Hebrews 5 are also words from mouth of God.

 

[fhansen]

You’re stranded in the ocean with a storm over head. Jesus comes on a boat and tosses you a rope (which represents God’s grace). The action of grabbing the rope is the work. And we have faith that he will pull the rope and we will be brought on the boat. If there was no rope (grace), then grabbing (the work) can’t save us. Likewise we can see the rope and have faith that he will pull us in but without the work of grabbing that work we will still not be saved.

Yes, in Catholicism we can’t be saved without God because without Him there is no rope. But we’re not forced to grab the rope. As St Augustine put it,
**“He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent.” **

Grace can be rejected, as the Catechism teaches:
**1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42
**

 

[Shaolen]

I’ve replies using a lot of what you guys said and also my analogy. I’ll let you guys know if he or my brother responds. Thanks again for your support

 

[Simon27]

The way I look at it, James, as one of the 12 Apostles, spent time with Christ, whereas Paul, God love him, didn’t. I’d (and I am) apt to put more stock in what James has to say, than Paul concerning what is or isn’t holy. Perhaps that’s a wrong way to look at it but…I can’t change what I believe. Sure, Paul had a lot more to write, and was in love with faith vs works, but I just lean towards what James has to say more than Paul does.

One of the parts of the Bible, concerning scriptural debate, that has stuck with me the most was the exchange of words between the devil and Christ. “it is also written…it is also written…it is also written” I feel this is a great part of the Bible to look at regarding scriptural debate and using the Bible to suit ones self or their beliefs, regardless of what’s truly right (which, I’d argue only God knows for certain). I feel it teaches some very powerful lessons.

 

[ericc]

So it seems my dad has now re-entered the sola fide discussion saying

"Len, do you believe that God lies? Must you continually “justify” yourself to keep salvation? That would be what He would be doing if He told you today you are saved, but takes salvation away from you next week, because you did not do enough good works or offer enough tithes and offerings.

We need to continuously justify not because of lack of good works, but because we continually sin. It is sin that prevents us from entering heaven. And not doing the right thing can be considered sin James 4:17. So one can sin by active participation or by omission. Ezekiel 18:24 says:

But when a righteousness man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteousness deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

It is so clear that one can lose his salvation if he doesn’t persevere. It is so clear that OSAS is false. One will not be admitted to heaven if he is unclean, period. There is not one that remain sinless after they think they have been saved. So even one have become righteous in the past (like reciting the Sinner’s Prayer or accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour) all these righteous deeds will NOT be remembered if one turn bad at the end.

The Church supply us with the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confess and repent and the Eucharist to strengthen our soul. Protestants do not have these to help them along the way. What a pity. Catholics after Confession do have a lighter load to bear whereas a Protestant never really know whether his sins have been forgiven or not. He didn’t get to hear “Your sins are forgiven” So he continues to shoulder the weight of those sins, not knowing whether His Father in heaven has taken it off him or not.

We know that no amount of good works can make us righteous enough to enter heaven. If so, the Jews, God’s chosen people, would be saved and we would not. God sent Jesus to be the only way to get to heaven, for Jews and Gentiles.

Jews under the system of Law is saved differently (and imperfectly) from those under the system of grace.
Jews under the law system could still be saved because the Old Covenant is a valid and binding agreement between God and the Jews. However some keep the letter of the law and not the spirit for which Jesus condemned. In the system of law, God is viewed as obligated to pay the Jews for their works. Keep these laws and I will be your God. It is an impersonal view of God, as an employer who owes legal obligations. “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but his due.” Rom 4:4. Works done in a system of law do NOT justify.

In a system of grace, works done DO justify. We are seeking a personal relationship with God and acknowledge that he owes us nothing. We know in the system of grace, God will reward us according to His kindness and mercy. God is not obligated to pay anyone for his work because no one can do anything for God that is deserving of payment. But we know God work through us to do good. We do good works to please God, not ourselves. Because we love God. We do things to delight those we love don’t we? Not to seek payment. Even as children we do thing to please our parents, because we love them. Not because we demand them to buy us that IPhone latest model because of what we did. Even if they did buy for us that Iphone, it is out of love, not obligation. Because the works of love from your children pleases you. That puts them in good standing in your books, until they rebel or demand payment for the things they have done for you. You can hear the miffed wife saying to the husband " I thought you did all these TLC deeds because you LOVE me, but actually you did all these just to get into my good books so that you can go out with the boys tonight…" Not sure I illustrated the point correctly, but I hope you get the gist of it. Works done out of love justify. Not otherwise.

But, beware, if you say you believe in Jesus and you want salvation, but you harbor evil in your heart, or your intent is to get saved so you can get away wit doing bad things. For God knows wha’s in your heart and you will not receive His Grace, you will not get saved

But grace is freely given, even to Saul when he is out persecuting Christians. He knew what was in Saul’s heart on his way to Damascus. Yet grace was given, and Saul cooperated and repented.

Do not confuse belief with faith; for as you alluded to all the demons in hell believe in Jesus, so does the devil himself. But they don’t put their faith in Jesus for their salvation. Part of faith is trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. The demons don’t. We should try. But we are all sinners, starting at birth, and we are weak and will sin, again. But God knows that and still gives His Grace."

The last sentence seems to contradict what he wrote in the previous paragraph. See underlined.

 

[TxGodfollower]

The Church supply us with the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confess and repent and the Eucharist to strengthen our soul. Protestants do not have these to help them along the way. What a pity. Catholics after Confession do have a lighter load to bear whereas a Protestant never really know whether his sins have been forgiven or not. He didn’t get to hear “Your sins are forgiven” So he continues to shoulder the weight of those sins, not knowing whether His Father in heaven has taken it off him or not.

I know I am forgiven for all the sins I have committed, and I know they are many. I don’t need someone to audible say ‘your sins are forgiven’ to know this fact.

 

[adf417]

I know I am forgiven for all the sins I have committed, and I know they are many. I don’t need someone to audible say ‘your sins are forgiven’ to know this fact.

Nothing wrong with this for many instances Tx until we, as one body, apply this standard to all of the members.

You see there are many who get great comfort in audibly hearing the words from God. Most new adult Catholics I know have expressed, with great joy, how their burden has been lifted like never before after their first holy confession.

Peace!!!

 

[ericc]

I know I am forgiven for all the sins I have committed, and I know they are many. I don’t need someone to audible say ‘your sins are forgiven’ to know this fact.

How do you know that your sins have been forgiven? Sins can be retained.

 

[Shaolen]

So my dad replied almost as if he didn’t read what I said.

“If it’s a “free gift” (salvation) works are not required. Otherwise, it’s not “free”. As sinners, God will condemn us to hell. however, if we love God and Jesus, believe, have faith He will save us, we will receive God’s Grace and be saved. But, again, beware those who would pretend. He knows your heart. Don’t say you believe, just to get salvation, but keep evil in your heart”

How can I tell him about the role of our works in salvation in a way he will understand?