Someone can lose their salvation?

[Matariel]

***Originally Posted by Seeking12 ***

If you believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, then you believe that, but I do not see that in Scripture.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

“He who believes **and is baptized **will be saved.”

Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins”.

I don’t know, sounds like baptism isn’t just an empty symbol like you suggest…

 

[Seeking12]

The quote from James is straight English, but it doesn’t contract the quotes you list above, It explains and exands it. There is no faith alone, nor are their works alone. Both are required. When you are baptised, you gain the necessary sactifying grace to be saved. However, you need to stay in the state of grace until death to be saved. If you lose your sanctification (holiness) through sin, then you need to be reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation. Staying in the state of grace requires both faith and works to demonstrate that faith. That’s what St. James is pointing out. That is why when Jesus is asked point blank in Matthew 19 (and the Mark and Luke corrolaries) what must be done to be saved, he answered follow the commandments. in Matthew chapter 6 and other places that works without faith are to no account, just as St. james says faith without works are dead. You need to have faith to do good works for the Glory of God, otherwise it is not sanctifying. so neither faith nor works is sufficient on their own and without sanctifying grace from the sacraments, neither is of any use for salvation

You are exactly right in this. St. James is attacking easy believism. That is what once saved, always saved is. Recognize that you are arguing exactly the CAtholic position now. You need to be obedient to be saved, doing the will of God.

you know, the Apostles did this too, they were given the ability to forgive sins in John 20.and they were also given the power to make a lame man walk.

I’m not here to argue; you believe the Bible teaches a works-salvation and I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is wholly the work of God. Something I think we both can agree on is that there are two different gospels in this dialogue.

 

[Matariel]

…you believe the Bible teaches a works-salvation and I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is wholly the work of God.

This kind of dialogue reflects badly on your Christian witness and your supposed desire for a chartible dialogue. You know very well tha the holy Catholic Church doesn’t teach a “works-salvation”…

 

[Seeking12]

I should think not. There is no such thing as “works-salvation”. No one can be saved by works. Since the Scripture is produced by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not teach this error, it stands to reason that you would not see it in the Bible.

Actually, it was Jesus who commanded this. It was not a “suggestion”. He stated clearly that one must be born from above through water and the Spirit in order to enter the Kingdome.

I believe I used the word “commanded”.

Baptism is the means by which His sacrificial death is applied to the person. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that, but there is baptism by water and the true baptism, which is the receiving of the Holy Spirit. They are not one in the same. I would say that receiving the Holy Spirit is the means God uses for the sanctification process of salvation.

It is interesting that all of the Apostles misunderstood this, and that Jesus was to weak or disinterested to correct their misperceptions. Do you believe Jesus was weak or disinterested?

It is also very wayward of Christ to teach the disciples to baptize with water, when He did not intend for it to have any meaning. Do you believe Baptism has no meaning?

 

[Seeking12]

This kind of dialogue reflects badly on your Christian witness and your supposed desire for a chartible dialogue. You know very well tha the holy Catholic Church doesn’t teach a “works-salvation”…

**
I’m sorry that you are offended; I do not attack someone’s faith, that is between them and God. The poster said that works are necessary, (post# 652) so I don’t know how else to state what they said. Maybe they do not understand the Catholic teaching?**

 

[guanophore]

I’m not here to argue; you believe the Bible teaches a works-salvation and I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is wholly the work of God. Something I think we both can agree on is that there are two different gospels in this dialogue.

No, Seeking, you are misunderstanding. The “works” that Catholics believe are required are those that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. We understand that these are not separated from the grace whereby we are saved through faith. That same grace is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. This is our spiritual worship by doing these good deeds prepared before hand that we should walk in them, we bear the fruit of the tree of grace.

I think you mistakenly believe they come from the flesh, which is not possible. One cannot please God in the flesh. One cannot do the works that God has prepared through the flesh either. It is God’s grace, working in us, that produces them all.

 

[paul_c]

**Do you believe that a command that Jesus gave is an empty symbol?

If you examine the Greek construction on the Acts 2, you will come to a different conclusion, which is consistent with Scripture.

I have already today addressed the dialogue with Nicodemus concerning the word “water”.**

What do you mean, you addressed the dialog with nicodemus concerning the word "water? All you did was bring up a John 5:8 and misinterpret what it said. That is hardly addressing the fact that John was talking about Baptism.

How can you explain away the simple meaning of Peter in Acts 2: 38"

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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

 

[Seeking12]

What do you mean, you addressed the dialog with nicodemus concerning the word "water? All you did was bring up a John 5:8 and misinterpret what it said. That is hardly addressing the fact that John was talking about Baptism.

I’m pretty sure I explained what “water” would have meant to a Jew, it was a purification practice of the OT Jews. If you look at Nicodemus’s response; you cannot conclude this is water baptism.

How can you explain away the simple meaning of Peter in Acts 2: 38"

**Look closely at the passage again and ask yourself, what is the object (noun) of the action verb “repent”? An easier way to understand this might be rephrase to give a proper English understanding; “Repent for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” **

 

[Seeking12]

No, Seeking, you are misunderstanding. The “works” that Catholics believe are required are those that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. We understand that these are not separated from the grace whereby we are saved through faith. That same grace is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. This is our spiritual worship by doing these good deeds prepared before hand that we should walk in them, we bear the fruit of the tree of grace.

I think you mistakenly believe they come from the flesh, which is not possible. One cannot please God in the flesh. One cannot do the works that God has prepared through the flesh either. It is God’s grace, working in us, that produces them all.

See post #660 & #652, I did not misunderstand what the poster said. Perhaps the poster misunderstand what the Catholic teaching is; I don’t know. Perhaps you might want to ask him about that.

 

[paul_c]

I’m pretty sure I explained what “water” would have meant to a Jew, it was a purification practice of the OT Jews. If you look at Nicodemus’s response; you cannot conclude this is water baptism.
His response is " How can this happen." How can you read that to negate this passages clear reading: John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water

You must be kidding, You are twisting the truth to support an invalid position here. Here is the whole passage Act 2: 37-41::

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 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 will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Clearly the first step is to believe, followed by baptism, followed by the gift of the holy spirit. Notice he says to those who are listening " save yourself" and the ones who accept his message are baptized.

Look, Seeker, when you find yourself distorting clear bible readings to make a point, you are no longer seeking the truth.

 

[moondweller]

No, Seeking, you are misunderstanding. The “works” that Catholics believe are required are those that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Yes, Catholicism does teach that those works “prepared beforehand” are a cause of salvation. Therefore Catholicism teaches a “works salvation;” a salvation based on WORKS.

But Paul states in Eph. 2:8-9 that God saves “by grace through faith; the gift of God, NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS.” Now you try to get around this by saying he meant “works of the flesh.” But Paul states emphatically, “by grace through faith…not as a result of works” - period. The only works by which God saves anyone “by grace through faith” is the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

He teaches through confirmation this same gospel of grace through faith alone to Timothy, and for him to join him in suffering for the truth of it:2 Tim 1:8 “Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with {me} in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.”

**We understand that these are not separated **from the grace whereby we are saved through faith.

But Paul does, and this is where you error and depart from “the gospel of the power of God” for which Paul suffered to teach. In Eph. 2:8-9 he teaches that salvation is “by grace through faith…not as a result of works.” In verse ten the “we” refers to those in verse eight and nine who "have been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works." IOW, he’s addressing in verse ten those who ARE (“have been”) saved by grace through faith (including himself) stating,Eph 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."It’s those who “have been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works” that are now God’s “workmanship,” that are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.” The “good works” are not FOR salvation but FOR the SAVED, already created in Christ Jesus.

You totally distort Eph. 2:8-10 to fit your “works salvation” gospel.

I think you mistakenly believe they come from the flesh, which is not possible.

You utterly fail to understand that they come from those who “have been SAVED by grace through faith,” and who are now “created in Christ Jesus” FOR (not “by”) them.

One cannot please God in the flesh.

True. Nor can one be saved BY works, period. Only saved and created anew in Christ Jesus FOR them.

One cannot do the works that God has prepared through the flesh either. It is God’s grace, working in us, that produces them all.

Actually, one cannot do the works “prepared beforehand” UNTIL he first “has been saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works” - period.

Salvation is “by grace through faith…not as a result of works.” And works are prepared beforehand FOR the SAVED, not (according to your gospel) for salvation .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

I have been reading your posts for some time and think that a fair summary of them would be something like, “The Cahtolic Church teaches that Catholics are saved only (or mostly) by works.”

“The context of my question was not demonstrating one’s faith through works, but turning completely away from works as having any basis for one’s salvation and embracing, by faith, the Person and sacrificial work Jesus Christ alone.Does turning away from works to faith in Christ and His sacrificial work alone for salvation oppose your church and qualify for excommunication? Would you consider this person a non-Catholic and to have lost his salvation?”

Now the question is arranged differently and there is usually a slight change in emphasis - but, they all seem to orbit around works vs faith. And, while numberous Cathoic posters have responded (quite well, I thought) that this is not the case - you continue to ask the same question as though not believing the answers provided.

In an effort to help resolve this matter, would you kindly produce actual evidence of dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Churhc that we are saved only by works. Honestly, such a reference would greatly clairify just what needs to be addressed. And, while I am quite confident that no such reference exists - you seem to be insisting that this is not the case. So, as I see it, the burden of proof is on you to produce the ‘smoking’ gun or dogam that positively establishes you point. This would be as opposed to one of your church’s founders claiming this is the case and offering no more proof then you have.

This is really the time for hard evidence to support you position - and, understand, this evidence must come from the CC that you are claiming says these things.

God bless

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m pretty sure I explained what “water” would have meant to a Jew, it was a purification practice of the OT Jews. If you look at Nicodemus’s response; you cannot conclude this is water baptism.

What you explained and what the text plainly says are two different things. Baptism purifies us from Original Sin.

**Look closely at the passage again and ask yourself, what is the object (noun) of the action verb “repent”? An easier way to understand this might be rephrase to give a proper English understanding; “Repent for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” **

Are you saying we should reword the works of scholars, to fit your personal theology? That’s what JW’s do - “In the beginning was A word.” Did the Apostles teach this? Is this what was taught by the Early Church?

Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration.

newadvent.org/fathers/2910.htm

 

[Seeking12]

You must be kidding, You are twisting the truth to support an invalid position here. Here is the whole passage Act 2: 37-41::

Clearly the first step is to believe, followed by baptism, followed by the gift of the holy spirit. Notice he says to those who are listening " save yourself" and the ones who accept his message are baptized.

Look, Seeker, when you find yourself distorting clear bible readings to make a point, you are no longer seeking the truth.

**What you are actually saying without realizing it; is that Scripture contradicts itself. With your current understanding you will need to reconcile the people that were saved prior to or without being baptized in water and there are several examples in the Bible.

The correct steps are repent, believe, receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized with water. Baptism with water does not give the true baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is an outward expression of the faith you proclaim in Christ. Look at John the Baptist baptism of repentance.

Keep in mind we have both be taught by different sources and apparently different gospels; so we may not ever agree; that’s is okay, because in the end God will do the sorting.**

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m pretty sure I explained what “water” would have meant to a Jew, it was a purification practice of the OT Jews. If you look at Nicodemus’s response; you cannot conclude this is water baptism.

Chapter 1. Introduction. Origin of the Treatise
Happy is our sacrament of* water,* ***in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! ***A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

 

[Seeking12]

What you explained and what the text plainly says are two different things. Baptism purifies us from Original Sin. That is a Catholic teaching; no indication in the Bible of 1) infant baptism and 2) washing away of original sin; the Bible does state that Jesus alone washes away sins and not by any sacrament. But that is your responsibility to discern.
Are you saying we should reword the works of scholars, to fit your personal theology? If I had to guess I would guess Catholic scholars. But not many, if any, evangelical fundamentalist would disagree with my understanding of Scripture. That’s what JW’s do - “In the beginning was A word.” Did the Apostles teach this? **Yes **Is this what was taught by the Early Church? Yes

newadvent.org/fathers/2910.htm

 

[qui_est_ce]

**What you are actually saying without realizing it; is that Scripture contradicts itself. ** Actually your theology cannot be reconciled with direct quotes in context (see posts on James and Epheisans)

[he correct steps are repent, believe, receive the Holy Spirit, then be baptized with water. Baptism with water does not give the true baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is an outward expression of the faith you proclaim in Christ. Look at John the Baptist baptism of repentance.

You may believe this, but it was not the belief of the early Christians. This sort of belief became prominent only within the last 200 or so years.

Seeking12:

Keep in mind we have both be taught by different sources and apparently different gospels; so we may not ever agree; that’s is okay, because in the end God will do the sorting.

It is never “Okay” to teach heresy. It is our duty to seek the Truth and LIVE it.

It is quite possible that your “gospel” is not the full Gospel of St. Jerome,which contains 73 books.
[/quote]

 

[qui_est_ce]

If I had to guess I would guess Catholic scholars. But not many, if any, evangelical fundamentalist would disagree with my understanding of Scripture.

This is a new theology that developed only within the past few hundred years. This was not taught by the Apostolic Church of Christ for over 2,000 years.
"quie:

That’s what JW’s do - “In the beginning was A word.” Did the Apostles teach this?

Yes

"quie:

Is this what was taught by the Early Church?

Yes

Please elaborate. You are saying Jesus is not THE Word, He is just A Word?

 

[Seeking12]

Actually your theology cannot be reconciled with direct quotes in context (see posts on James and Epheisans) You may believe this, but it was not the belief of the early Christians. This sort of belief became prominent only within the last 200 or so years.
It is never “Okay” to teach heresy. It is our duty to seek the Truth and LIVE it.

It is quite possible that your “gospel” is not the full Gospel of St. Jerome,which contains 73 books.

Which specific belief are you speaking of?; the water baptism washing away original sin? That does not exist in Scripture.
**
When I speak of two different gospels; it has nothing to do with the number of books, but rather the theology that you have come to take by faith in the Church and the theology I have learned. Although adding more books to the Bible that never met the original canonization, but rather added later to help positions to assist in refuting the charges leveled against the Church by the reformers. Would you agree that is a little suspicious?**

I think it is good

 

[Seeking12]

This is a new theology that developed only within the past few hundred years. This was not taught by the Apostolic Church of Christ for over 2,000 years. Please elaborate. You are saying Jesus is not THE Word, He is just A Word?

My apologies; I thought I was answering a question concerning the Apostles and Early Church in regards to water baptism. I have never seen a JW bible, but if it is as you indicated; I would not agree with the JW’s.