Someone can lose their salvation?

[SHW]

The Royal Law argument.

Again, from Paul, "by the works of Law no flesh will be justified in His sight."

That is because the requirements for justification “by the works of Law” is perfection (Mt 5:48), that is why James says regarding the Royal Law, "for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of [transgressing] all [the Law]" (Jas 2:8ff).

Stumble once, and perfection vanishes, and it becomes unattainable.

I would wish you well in your works of Law unto salvation, but I’m certain you’ve stumbled in the Royal Law already by not loving the Lord your God perfectly at all times, and by not loving your neighbor perfectly at all times.

Hi Howie,

Please re-read my posts. You missed most of my points and Scripture proofs. The works of the law that Paul is speaking of is the Law of Moses. I also explained what James meant by transgressing the Royal Law. You choose to misinterpret his teaching so that it fits your doctrine, instead of seeing it as it is really taught and meant to be interpreted.

Try this Scripture for meditation:

1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

John claims that God’s commandments are NOT burdensome if you love God. In other words, we must obey them or else we do not really love God. We love ourselves instead of God if we do not obey His commandments.

You and Scripture also differ as to what is required in order to inherit eternal life.

Romans 12:1 “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”

Paul states that it is reasonable for us to be expected to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, in thanksgiving for His great sacrifice of Jesus’ death on the cross.

1 Corinthians 9:27 “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.”

Philippians 2:12 “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;”

1 Corinthians 11:1 “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”

I will imitate Paul and obey his commands.

I have the Sacrament of Reconciliation for forgiveness of my sins if/when I do not keep the Royal Law.

John 20:22-23 “And when He had said this, He breathed on them (the apostles), and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[paul_c]

That’s a cop-out, Paul, admit you can’t support your remark and be done with it.

I absolutely can support my statement. I told you in all honesty why I said that reformers can’t support a requirement for holiness for salvation and still maintain the concepts of OSAS or Sola Fide and I genuinely believe my statement is factual. This is not a game or debate club. We are here to discern the truths about our faith. Try thinking about what I said and why I said it instead of looking for an " I gotcha" moment.

 

[guanophore]

The truth is the truth and need not be glossed over because the reformers see it differently. Now it is very true that you can’t earn your way into heaven.

I was not suggesting such a thing. I am saying that the semantic differences make misunderstanding more likely.

The whole process starts with unmerited grace through baptism. But once you are baptized, you need to work on staying in the state of Grace.

What I am saying is that it will be much easier to help our separated brethren to understand this concept if you do not use language that cannot be found in scripture, or that appear to contradict what is in scripture.

Scripture does not say we need to “work on” our salvation.

Therefore, presenting the concept in this manner perpetuates roadblocks to understanding.

The reformers like to think that we have no responsiblity to work toward holiness. This is a great error on their part.

It is even more of an error on your part to believe such a statement. Most of your separated brethren do not believe what you assert here. they consider the responsibility to work toward holiness to be part of sanctification, rather than “salvation”. This is a semantics problem to which you contribute with your language.

 

[guanophore]

There’s no logical inconsistency, broski, but a lack of understanding on your part as to the meaning, weight and point of the 5 solas. The “onlys” are for emphatic emphasis.

That’s good. “only for emphatic emphasis”. I agree. They are good for nothing else!

No, on the other hand, they do serve to mislead many people.

(ISTM that there are as many disparate beliefs in Catholicism as there are individual Catholics in Catholicism. Which Catholic does one believe concerning Catholic teaching?)

I think it would be a mistake to attempt to discern the Catholic teaching from among those of disparate beliefs. You are right that there are many who claim to be Catholic that are really Protestant. They have abandoned the teachings of the Apostolic faith, and have excommunicated themselves.

One should look to the Church, the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ, to believe what the Church teaches.

 

[paul_c]

It is even more of an error on your part to believe such a statement. Most of your separated brethren do not believe what you assert here. they consider the responsibility to work toward holiness to be part of sanctification, rather than “salvation”. This is a semantics problem to which you contribute with your language.

Perhaps you can help me understand the Protestant view of this since I can never get an answer directly from them. How is sanctification different from salvation? As best I understand it from all these months on CAF, most protestants believe in Salvation by Faith alone and wll tell you that salvation has nothing to do with a man’s activity on earth. Rather, Jesus took on all our sins and all we have to do is believe to be saved. Now if this is in fact true, what is the meaning and role of sanctification?

This is not to say that individual Protestants don’t strive for holiness out of love for God and Man, because I know they do. I just don’t understand how this fits their sotierology. After all, Catholic sotierology requires personal holiness to reach heaven while Protestant sotierology appears to provide no benefit to the believer who is striving toward holiness versus one who merely beleives

 

[Howie01]

guanophore:

That’s good. “only for emphatic emphasis”. I agree. They are good for nothing else!

That’s not what I said guanophore.

However, thanks for providing another very clear illustration of the only way Catholics seem to be able to deal with points raised by non-Catholics—by deliberately misrepresenting them.

I see you’ve met Paul C?

guanophore:

I think it would be a mistake to attempt to discern the Catholic teaching from among those of disparate beliefs.

I disagree. That’s where the discerning Christian can see the true colors of the CC, that being, through her members in all their raging glory.

guanophore:

You are right that there are many who claim to be Catholic that are really Protestant. They have abandoned the teachings of the Apostolic faith, and have excommunicated themselves.

There you go again, misrepresenting what I’ve said—I’m sorry, make that what I haven’t said.

guanophore:

One should look to the Church, the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ, to believe what the Church teaches.

That’s what I’ve been doing by citing from the CCC.

What’s wonderful for me is the number of differing interpretations Catholics hold concerning what’s in the CCC on any given subject. I notice that in other areas of this forum as well, and also out amongst the Catholics in the world.

It seems that having a central, monolithic and infallible teaching magisterium is as fraught with interpretative pitfalls and is as divisive for your sect, as Catholics claim against sola scriptura.

I find that utterly refreshing, and refreshingly hilarious, and I want to thank all of you for making that truth so VISIBLE and REAL. :tiphat:

 

[moondweller]

You are right that there are many who claim to be Catholic that are really Protestant. They have abandoned the teachings of the Apostolic faith, and have excommunicated themselves.

Thank you!!! I asked this question many pages ago and never got a straight answer.

So it is true, in your opinion, that if a Catholic turns away from works completely for salvation and trusts instead, by faith, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on his behalf, alone, he is no longer to be considered a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself.

One should look to the Church, the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ, to believe what the Church teaches.

Which is the definition of a true Catholic.

 

[moondweller]

So moondweller, what does it really mean to be judged and rewarded based on works if it has no effect on salvation? Are you thinking they get a better place in heaven, or something to that effect?

It is stated in Scripture that the saved will receive rewards based on the value of their works (1 Cor. 3:10-15). The Scriptures don’t elaborate and I don’t speculate. But there is no “better place in heaven” since all true believers are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

What is Divinely gifted now, based on faith in Christ alone, is salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; justification (Rom. 3:24) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23).

 

[Howie01]

I absolutely can support my statement.

My friend, I’ve asked you to provide quotes from the reformers to which are referring, in which those reformers make the statements that you are attributing to them.

You refuse to do that; therefore, I must conclude that you absolutely cannot support your statement.
paul c:

I told you in all honesty why I said that reformers can’t support a requirement for holiness for salvation and still maintain the concepts of OSAS or Sola Fide and I genuinely believe my statement is factual.

It seems you don’t remember what you said. Let me help:
paul c:

The reformers like to think that we have no responsiblity to work toward holiness.

Please provide quotes from the Reformers you believe to hold that position that state that as their position.

My request is reasonable.

 

[moondweller]

Wherever he got it, how do you answer to this overwhelming Scriptural support for the necessity of Baptism for Salvation.

He’s a CPA, and one does not debate with CPAs since they give no real thought to anything.

And I will say right up front that the only exceptions for salvation without actual baptism involve situations where the person desired baptism but was not able to get it due to the circumstances in his / her life. But the intent absolutely needs to be there.

Is this according to revelation or speculation?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you can help me understand the Protestant view of this since I can never get an answer directly from them.

I hope that my sojourn amongst our separated brethren will be of some benefit!

 How is sanctification different from salvation?

For Catholics, there is no separation. We consider sanctification part of salvation. Our Reformed brethren have fallen into the error generated 500 years ago that these are separated.

They have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition, and as a result, instead of receiving the faith as taught by the Apostles, they are gleaning it as best they can through dedicated study of the Holy Writings. In scripture, salvation, as you have rightly noted, is referred to in many different ways. They take most of their doctrine from the epistles of Paul, marginalizing or ignoring other scriptures that might shed more light. I have been told by some Reformed on this board that Jesus really did not have much to say about salvation at all, and that we must look to the writings of Paul because he has the most cogent and organized explanation of the doctrine of salvation. Be that as it may…

Most or our evangelical separated brethren are steeped on Calvanism, or some derivation thereof. They are suffering from a deficient view of many elements necessary to properly understand salvation, such as the nature of man, the nature of the fall, the nature of grace, etc.

It is beneficial to address all these issues, which can be done without using the words “lose salvation”.

This verse is pivotal for most of them:

Rom 8:29-30
30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is called “the golden chain of salvation”. They believe that those who are to be saved are predestined (limited atonement) - Jesus only died for the elect, not everyone. He calls those He intends to save, and justifies them. This step is what most of them consider “salvation”. For Catholics, this is only the beginning of what it means to be saved, but for those influenced by Calvanism, it is the beginning, middle, and end. Then, once people are justified (OSAS) they are sanctfied (made holy by denclaration) and glorified. No one is called who is not then justified and glorified.

We can successfully enter the discussion at any one of these points you have raised. I just think we can enter it more successfully if we use language with which they are familiar. The phrase “lose salvation” will shut down the discussion because they have been taught that this is not “biblical”.

as I understand it from all these months on CAF, most protestants believe in Salvation by Faith alone and wll tell you that salvation has nothing to do with a man’s activity on earth. Rather, Jesus took on all our sins and all we have to do is believe to be saved. Now if this is in fact true, what is the meaning and role of sanctification?

Those who are saved are adopted sons of God, and are expected to bear the fruit of their new standing with God. Sanctification and the good works associated with it also bring rewards to the already saved person. Most are very committed to living a Holy and Godly life, they just do so because they believe they are already saved.

This is not to say that individual Protestants don't strive for holiness out of love for God and Man, because I know they do.  I just don't understand how this fits their sotierology.

It really does not, exept for the belief that these are the things a saved person should do.

After all, Catholic sotierology requires personal holiness to reach heaven while Protestant sotierology appears to provide no benefit to the believer who is striving toward holiness versus one who merely beleives

They believe there are “rewards” in heaven for good behavior.

 

[paul_c]

He’s a CPA, and one does not debate with CPAs since they give no real thought to anything.

For the record, I’m not a cpa, I’m an engineer and frankly, since when does diagreement mean I don’t think?

And I will say right up front that the only exceptions for salvation without actual baptism involve situations where the person desired baptism but was not able to get it due to the circumstances in his / her life. But the intent absolutely needs to be there.

Is this according to revelation or speculation?

This is Catholic Teaching straight from the CCC:
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[moondweller]

For the record, I’m not a cpa, I’m an engineer and frankly, since when does diagreement mean I don’t think?

I wasn’t talking about you. It was in reference to broski234’s post on baptism. He’s a CPA: "Cut and Paste Apologist."Anyone can go over to someone’s cite, cut what they wrote and paste it elsewhere. It requires absolutely no thought on the CPA’s behalf. Since the invention of the Internet we have thousands of this type of practicing, non-thinking, so-called “apologist” wondering around on forums.

This is Catholic Teaching straight from the CCC:
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I would categorize this as speculation.

 

[Howie01]

I wasn’t talking about you. It was in reference to broski234’s post on baptism. He’s a CPA: "Cut and Paste Apologist."Anyone can go over to someone’s cite, cut what they wrote and paste it elsewhere. It requires absolutely no thought on the CPA’s behalf. Since the invention of the Internet we have thousands of this type of practicing, non-thinking, so-called “apologist” wondering around on forums.I would categorize this as speculation.

CPA, I love it!

 

[moondweller]

They believe there are “rewards” in heaven for good behavior.

According to the Scripture, there’s no such thing as “rewards in heaven for good behavior.” Rewards are not based on “good behavior.”

 

[Howie01]

SHW:

Hi Howie,

Please re-read my posts. You missed most of my points and Scripture proofs.

No I didn’t.

SHW:

The works of the law that Paul is speaking of is the Law of Moses.

That’s not what you said initially; however, it’s good to see that you’ve come around to a right understanding of that. God bless the child who opened your eyes to that truth.

SHW:

I also explained what James meant by transgressing the Royal Law.

James’ explanation is very clear on its own. All you did was repeat what the author said, and then repeat it again with a rephrase.

SHW:

You choose to misinterpret his teaching so that it fits your doctrine, instead of seeing it as it is really taught and meant to be interpreted.

That’s quite a charge, coming from one whose catechism instructs him to interpret scripture "within ‘the living tradition of the whole church.’ "

Clearly it’s you whose publicly charged with interpreting scripture "so that it fits your doctrine" (cf CCC 113). (Hellooo!!!)

SHW:

John claims that God’s commandments are NOT burdensome if you love God. In other words, we must obey them or else we do not really love God. We love ourselves instead of God if we do not obey His commandments.

My friend, it is good to keep the commandments because, as you rightly understand John to say, it demonstrates love for God.

I need neither a reminder on that from you, or anyone else, nor do I need a lecture concerning that from you, or anyone else.

The point that I make concerning the keeping of commandments is that, it is not what justifies a body before God, but faith (Rom 3:20; 4:18). I’m convinced that a right understanding of that is crucial to ones eternal destiny; getting it wrong is fatal.

I believe it’s fatal because it’s to those who plead their works to Him—"Lord, Lord, didn’t I do this and that…"—that Christ clearly states, "I never knew you" (Mt 7:21; cf Lk 18:9-14).

SHW:

You and Scripture also differ as to what is required in order to inherit eternal life.

I see.

You couldn’t possibly be wrong because you’re Catholic, and you have all of that history.

However, history doesn’t determine truth, but the hard work of sound exegesis. :yup:

SHW:

I have the Sacrament of Reconciliation for forgiveness of my sins if/when I do not keep the Royal Law.

You have my condolences. Read the epistle to the Hebrews. In that you’ll find the demise of ritual sacerdotalism. After you’ve understood that, interpret it ”within the living tradition of your church, and then ignore the scripture.

I have neither a sacrament, nor a priest interposed between me and my God. But hey, that’s me, I take the Biblical approach:Psalm 32:3-5 (by King David)

*3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long.

4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer.

5** I acknowledged my sin to you,** and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; and you forgave the guilt of my sin.*

The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him. For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.”

—Clement, in his First Epistle to the CorinthiansSacerdotalism is so Old Covenant, you know, that ritual law Christ rendered obsolete.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
I absolutely can support my statement

.

My friend, I’ve asked you to provide quotes from the reformers to which are referring, in which those reformers make the statements that you are attributing to them.

You refuse to do that; therefore, I must conclude that you absolutely cannot support your statement.

Originally Posted by paul c
I told you in all honesty why I said that reformers can’t support a requirement for holiness for salvation and still maintain the concepts of OSAS or Sola Fide and I genuinely believe my statement is factual.

It seems you don’t remember what you said. Let me help:

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
The reformers like to think that we have no responsiblity to work toward holiness.

Please provide quotes from the Reformers you believe to hold that position that state that as their position.

My request is reasonable.

okay, lets look no further than this thread a few short hours ago.
Moondweller said this:

So it is true, in your opinion, that if a Catholic turns away from works completely for salvation and trusts instead, by faith, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on his behalf, alone, he is no longer to be considered a Catholic. He has excommunicated himself.

As you can see, Moondweller is advocating a sotierology that depends completely on faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, turning away form works completely for salvation. He’s suggested this many times in the past.

Now more to the point, Can you refute my thesis that you can’t simultaneously espouse a “By Faith alone salvation” while also holding to a reponsibility for personal holiness . If you require holiness, you require works and then its no longer “Faith Alone”. We believe you need both faith and holiness to get into heaven. Do you?

 

[Howie01]

Quote:

okay, lets look no further than this thread a few short hours ago.
Moondweller said this:

Quotes from Reformers, please; moondweller’s not a Reformer; he’s too young (no offense, MD).

The fact is, you can’t support your claim, but only twist in the wind concerning it.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
So moondweller, what does it really mean to be judged and rewarded based on works if it has no effect on salvation? Are you thinking they get a better place in heaven, or something to that effect?

It is stated in Scripture that the saved will receive rewards based on the value of their works (1 Cor. 3:10-15). The Scriptures don’t elaborate and I don’t speculate. But there is no "better place in heaven

" since all true believers are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

What is Divinely gifted now, based on faith in Christ alone, is salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; justification (Rom. 3:24) and eternal life (Rom. 6:23).

So Moondweller, the scriptures are pretty clear and consistent. You are saved by faith but rewarded at judgment based on works. This is shown in Romans 2, In Matthew 7, 19, and 25 and in James 2. We Catholics see that to mean that you are initially justifed by Faith (and this is scriptural:
Eph 1: 13-14 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit, which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory

and afterwards must do good works to stay in the state of grace. It is on those works which we will be judged.

On the other hand, you believe only the first part (saved by Faith) and really don’t know how to explain the judgment aspects. Doesn’t that raise red flags to you that your sotierology might not be correct?

 

[paul_c]

Quotes from Reformers, please; moondweller’s not a Reformer; he’s too young (no offense, MD).

The fact is, you can’t support your claim, but only twist in the wind concerning it.

Alright, lets stop this dancing around. I told you that I was speaking about you and Moondweller when I made the original statement. I backed it up with a quote from this morning from Moondweller supporting what I said. If you can’t accept that, so be it. And for completeness, I don’t have a quote from Martin Luther or another of the original reformers, because I wasn’t really talking about them, per se. It doesn’t mean those quotes don’t exist, I just haven’t searched for them.

Obviously this topic has touched a nerve with you. I don’t wonder why because it creates a major dilemma for you. If you truly believe in Salvation by Faith alone, there can be no requirement for holiness on the part of man because that would require more than just Faith, it would require works. The corrolary is that you don’t require holiness for the saved. This is not very palatible either, since I think we all agree that the Saints should be holy. So for you personally, are the saints required to be holy, doing good works, or not? I suspect you won’t answer this part of the note, although I am sure you will have something to say about my original quote…