SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[twb1621]

So enlighten me on the Catholic postion regarding th relationship of faith and works.

Ben, I have to ask you why you are going over this again when you already understood and agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching in one of my previous explanations of this to you? If you need to read it again let me know and I will repost it for you but try to keep in progression rather than falling back to issues you already had resolution with. Maybe of you retain the post for yourself to refer to it would be helpful. Do you need to review this again? Just say the word my brother…

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Ben, I have to ask you why you are going over this again when you already understood and agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching in one of my previous explanations of this to you? If you need to read it again let me know and I will repost it for you but try to keep in progression rather than falling back to issues you already had resolution with. Maybe of you retain the post for yourself to refer to it would be helpful. Do you need to review this again? Just say the word my brother…

Peace

I would like to read it!

 

[twb1621]

I would like to read it!

Sure guan, I quote my previous post #5 of this thread.

Ben, this is the post quote that you said you understood and fully agreed with in your response post #7 for your review:

twb1621>
Salvation is through faith, yes, and according to the teachings of Christ, it is the expression of faith through works of love in charity, with humility, in the love of Christ. If you do not understand this, please ask for supportive passages to help clarify it for you. Consider the following passage from James;

James CH2; 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. 19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus (Notice the level of frustration James experience’s as reflected here), that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Now consider the following examples Christ gives us as works of love and the fact that without them, we can loss the gift of salvation;

Matthew CH25; 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The works we speak of are works of love in charity toward others, humbly, not boastfully, in the love of Christ. These works are well explained through examples Christ gave us above. They are not by any means an attempt to “earn” salvation, but rather to live up to our responsibility to the salvation gifted to us through the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

Ben, note also;

James CH2; 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

Romans CH2; 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

 

[PauloBaskovi]

A few pages before there was talking about the RICH LORD. Well most of us skip a really important word!!!

16 And, behold , one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do , that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which ? Jesus said , Thou shalt do no murder , Thou shalt not commit adultery , Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not bear false witness , 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him,** If thou wilt be perfect**, go and sell that thou hast , and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful : for he had great possessions.

I just thougth that was important to know cheriooo

 

[Bengoshi]

Again, thanks for the answers.

Now, in regards to thinking about it so we can really know if we are saved or not, there are probably those who would rather not know. I mean, if you can find out if you are saved or not, and you find out you are not saved, that is a terrible knowledge to have. To know, absolutely know, that you are not simply going out of existence when you die, but, on the contrary, suffer in fire eternally. That is a heavy mind trip, and to these people, God is not a good God, but a bad God, a fiend.

In respect to the idea of limited atonement, if it is true, then Christ did not die for everybody. And if you are not among those He died for, then whether you accept Him as Lord and Savior or not, makes no difference, because He is not your savior anyway.

To those who would know or find out that thery are not saved, the only thing they need to do is to put their trust in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross to save us from our sins.

I didn’t even raise the issue of limited atonement. It would be quite long to discuss it at this juncture. It would also depend on your understanding of the doctrine of limited atonement. The term itself is not that helpful.

 

[Bengoshi]

I find it interesting that I asked you to help me understand this passage, and instead of giving me your thoughts, you have forwarded those of another bible student. What makes Gill’s ideas more authoritative than the ones we received from the Apostles?

In my own words, this is what the passage means. It is as if Paul was comparing his sufferings to those of Jesus. He is saying that he is filling it up in his own flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s suffering. In other words, what Paul hasn’t experienced/suffered yet that is tantamount to the same sufferings as that of Christ, he still needs to “fill it up”. It is like Paul saying that his sufferings are still nothing compared to Christ’s and he is still in a way, trying to catch up to it.

 

[Bengoshi]

Ben, I have to ask you why you are going over this again when you already understood and agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching in one of my previous explanations of this to you? If you need to read it again let me know and I will repost it for you but try to keep in progression rather than falling back to issues you already had resolution with. Maybe of you retain the post for yourself to refer to it would be helpful. Do you need to review this again? Just say the word my brother…

Peace

I wasn’t the one who opened up this issue again. I just replied to it. The problem is, some people do not read all the posts and instead reply/comment on an older post that has already been answered.

 

[twb1621]

I wasn’t the one who opened up this issue again. I just replied to it. The problem is, some people do not read all the posts and instead reply/comment on an older post that has already been answered.

I understand, and I am happy to hear you do have this issue out of the way with an agreement in its understanding then. I would very much like to hear your thoughts in regard to the following as I feel it refers to the most profound obstruction you have in recognizing the true fullness of Christ in the Catholic Faith. That being your heavy reliance on other men’s opinions over the Gospels in their entirety, or in other words, you rely too heavily on the opinions of mere men without being able to recognize they mistakenly base their opinions on only selected verses in the gospel while not giving attention to those verses they come in conflict with. It is the conflict that proves the inaccuracy of their opinions and interpretation, not conflict between the verses. Please reply to the following;

Originally Posted by Bengoshi

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
So what? The only difference is that I don’t consider anyone to be infallible unlike Catholics. Moreover, the author based his conclusions on Scripture.

My brother, this is exactly what you want to be cautious of when you refer to someone’s opinion without the necessary familiarity of Scripture. In this post you say “the author based his conclusions on Scripture”, but that does not mean it does not conflict in his interpretation or understanding. I am sure he bases his opinions on scripture to some degree but the fact it conflicts with other verses shows his misinterpretation or failure to take all scripture into account in the formation of his conclusions. Since the birth of Protestantism, every single protestant faith bases their opinions to some degree on Scripture. None of them base their conclusions on ALL of Scripture, which is why there are so many opinions and so many verses in Scripture that are left ignored.

It should not be “good enough” to anyone for him or herself to adopt a faith that promotes itself on only part of Scripture while disregarding or ignoring the remainder because it conflicts with interpretation or because verses can not be understood due to the misinterpretation of other passages. This is the common practice of protestant born faiths and a direct sign of misinterpretation. Most scholarly non-Catholic converts to Catholicism return home to the Catholic Faith after entering into greater depths of their education, most often after becoming familiar with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The number of preachers, bishops, ministers, pastors, reverends, and so on that are converting to Catholicism is ever growing because many of them are realizing through their advanced educations there are questions and changes in doctrines and flexibility in interpretations in their own faiths that should never exist. They seek answers, finding them most frequently in the writings of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and the commonality of the writings of the Fathers make it evident that the Catholic Church has consistently proclaimed the Full teachings of Christ since the beginning and throughout history. They sought for answers were most commonly they had little to no real knowledge in their educations. But the fact is, years of advanced education is not necessary to find answers to the question of validity in a particular faith, most non-scholarly Christians need only read scripture and begin reading the writings of the ECFs to find the true Church of Christ with the fullness and entirety of His Teachings, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, is Christ, and His Church is the Catholic Church

 

[Eques_Mariae]

If I may I would like to insert my own little argument in defense of the Catholic Church’s opinion as follows:

 

[Eques_Mariae]

What if a man declares that Jesus is his personal savior and is baptized, and yet goes and commits the sin of murder or some such serious crime, and does not repent. Is he saved?

In my mind it would be preposterous to say that this man still will inherit the kingdom:

19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21 (Underlining is my own.)

One could argue that this man did not fully believe that Christ was his Lord, and that he was not originally committed to the Lord. But wouldn’t that be saying that his actions show whether or not he is truly dedicated to the Lord, saying that if he truly gave himself to the Lord, he would not do such things? This would almost be like what Catholics believe.

One would then have to fall upon the conclusion that a man can be committed to Christ at one time, and then turn away from that resolve, and forfeit the kingdom through this decision. This is where you come to what Catholics believe. You have been saved once and for all by Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, but you can forfeit the right to it. You cannot gain heaven through your works, but you can lose it through your works.

It would be right to say that Catholics have no assurance of salvation, in the sense that they don’t know definitively that they will not reject in the future the salvation that was given to them by Christ. They have assurance, however, that this salvation has been given to them and will carry them into eternal happiness unless they decide to turn away from it through the use of their free will.

 

[Eques_Mariae]

A little addition to my last post:

13Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Luke 8:13

 

[Philthy]

In my own words, this is what the passage means. It is as if Paul was comparing his sufferings to those of Jesus.

Comparing them to Christ’s sufferings in what way?

He is saying that he is filling it up in his own flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s suffering.

Filling up in what way? Filling up how - By his own efforts? Filling up why - For what reason?

In other words, what Paul hasn’t experienced/suffered yet that is tantamount to the same sufferings as that of Christ, he still needs to “fill it up”.

Why does he “need” to fill it up? For whom does he “need” to fill it up? Is there an eternal consequence for not doing so? If not, then why would he “need” to do it?

It is like Paul saying that his sufferings are still nothing compared to Christ’s and he is still in a way, trying to catch up to it.

Why would he even try to catch up? Without considering and explaining these simple questions, your interpretation leaves this section of Scripture as basically meaningless.

Still not holding my breath!

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

In my own words, this is what the passage means. It is as if Paul was comparing his sufferings to those of Jesus. He is saying that he is filling it up in his own flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s suffering. In other words, what Paul hasn’t experienced/suffered yet that is tantamount to the same sufferings as that of Christ, he still needs to “fill it up”. It is like Paul saying that his sufferings are still nothing compared to Christ’s and he is still in a way, trying to catch up to it.

Could you please explain how ANY of what you said clarifies why Paul describes Christ’s afflictions as being somehow lacking? It seems like you have, instead, rationalized that Paul was describing his own afflictions as “lacking” in comparison to Christ’s, when he was clearly referring to Christ’s afflictions and not his own.
Let’s see the verse again and see if Paul is talking about his own afflictions being lacking or Christ’s:
Col 1:24
Youngs Literal
24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,

ESV
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh **I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions **for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

NIV
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

NAB
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and **in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ **on behalf of his body, which is the church,

Your interpretation is clearly at odds with what is said in all of these translations…

ISTM that Paul’s sufferings are united to Christs and accomplish, through that union, the things which Christ did not accomplish with his own suffering.

Blessings!

 

[guanophore]

To those who would know or find out that thery are not saved, the only thing they need to do is to put their trust in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross to save us from our sins.

This is certainly the right beginning for salvation. After that, we must “work out” our salvation, and our faith is perfected by our works.

 I didn't even raise the issue of limited atonement. It would be quite long to discuss it at this juncture. It would also depend on your understanding of the doctrine of limited atonement. The term itself is not that helpful.

No, neither the term, nor the theory.

Since the Apostles did not teach this doctrine, it is quite a long distance from the One Faith, committed once for all to the saints.

In my own words, this is what the passage means. It is as if Paul was comparing his sufferings to those of Jesus.

How do you get “compare” out of this?

Col 1:24

24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,

Where you read “compare”, I am reading “fill up the things lacking”.

In other words, what Paul hasn't experienced/suffered yet that is tantamount to the same sufferings as that of Christ, he still needs to "fill it up". It is like Paul saying that his sufferings are still nothing compared to Christ's and he is still in a way, trying to catch up to it.

How does Paul suffering in his own flesh benefit the Body?

 

[mackbrislawn]

To those who would know or find out that thery are not saved, the only thing they need to do is to put their trust in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross to save us from our sins.

I didn’t even raise the issue of limited atonement. It would be quite long to discuss it at this juncture. It would also depend on your understanding of the doctrine of limited atonement. The term itself is not that helpful.

Some believe in limited atonement (particular redemption) and some not. You did not bring up the issue of particular redemption but it is explicit in Synod of Dordt reformed theology. The way you talked about being saved or not, implied to me that that form of theology was what you were talking about. Otherwise, perhaps you meant, not saved yet. In that case, it should be obvious–one who has not accepted Christ as his savior is not saved yet. And one knows if he has accepted Christ or not!

You may not be the one to have put this question to, but it is one I have, and was hoping you could answer it.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Question: “Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler he could be saved by obeying the commandments?”

Answer: To understand Jesus’ response to the rich young ruler’s question—“What must I do to be saved?”—we must consider three things—the nature of the rich young ruler, the purpose of his question, and the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At first glance, it appears that Jesus is saying that the young man, and by extension all people, must obey the commandments in order to be saved. But is that really what He was saying? Since the essence of the salvation message is that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), why would Jesus offer the rich young ruler an ‘alternative plan’?

The story of the rich young ruler is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels, Matthew 19:16-23, Mark 10:17-22 and Luke 18:18-23. The man is described as a “ruler” which means a prince or magistrate of some sort. Since no Roman ruler would address Jesus as “teacher” or “master” it is assumed that this man was a ruler in the local synagogue. This man had “great wealth” (Luke 18:23), and the impact of wealth is the lesson Jesus was teaching to His disciples. He was using this man as an example of the corrupting power of riches and its detrimental effect on the desire for eternal life. The fact that the man was young (Matthew 19:20) and already wealthy would seem to indicate that he had enjoyed a life of riches and ease and had become accustomed to it. When he comes to Jesus asking about eternal life, Jesus uses the opportunity to teach about money, not about salvation by works.

The first thing Jesus says to the man’s greeting “Good teacher,” is to remind him that no one is good except God. Jesus was not denying His own divinity. Rather, He saw beneath the flattery to the man’s heart which was self-seeking and self-promoting. He was attempting to curry favor with Jesus by falling on his knees before Him (Mark 10:17), complimenting Him, and ascribing to Him a divine attribute he never really believed Jesus possessed. Perhaps realizing his hypocrisy was perceived by Jesus, the man ignored His question, “why do you call me good? Only God is good.” Jesus, knowing the man’s heart and his self-righteousness, recited some of the Ten Commandments and told the man to obey them. This was not a refutation of His earlier teachings on salvation by faith. Jesus said this, no doubt, to try him and to convince him that he had by no means kept the commandments, and that in supposing he had he was deceiving himself. At this point, Jesus said the one thing that, knowing the man’s heart, would convince him that he was, after all, a wretched sinner in desperate need of salvation. Jesus points out the young man’s weak spot, his wealth.

The man’s heart condition was made poignantly clear by Jesus’ command that the man sell all and follow Him. His face fell and he went away sad because he could never part with his great wealth, not even in exchange for eternal life. By claiming he had kept the Law, the man was declaring that he had obeyed the first commandment to love the Lord supremely and above all things, including wealth. He was also saying he loved his neighbor more than himself. But if he loved God and fellow-creatures more than he did his property, he would be willing to give up his wealth to the service of God and of man. But that was not the case. He had made an idol of his wealth and loved it more than God. He had not kept the commandments from his youth, nor had he kept them at all. He rejected even this last opportunity to do good with his treasures and seek his salvation by obeying God, choosing to turn away from the Savior and not renew his inquiry about eternal life. He probably never returned.

By His words to the rich young ruler, Christ did not mean to say that any man would be saved by the works of the law, for the Bible teaches plainly that such will not be the case (Romans 3:20, 28, 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:9; 2Timothy 1:9). Rather, he was using the man’s wealth which had corrupted his heart, as an example to the disciples and us.

My head swims. Now I know how Jehovah’s Witnesses learned to interpret scripture!

 

[Eques_Mariae]

My head swims. Now I know how Jehovah’s Witnesses learned to interpret scripture!

Yeah, isn’t it better just to interpret scripture in the way that makes the most sense?

P.S. Hint: Bengoshi, no one is arguing that anyone is justified through works. If you really make the effort to understand the Catholic position on faith and works, it will really help your quest for truth (which I hope you are on.) Try reading what Patrick Madrid or Scott Hahn have to say on this issue.

 

[dcana]

Yeah, isn’t it better just to interpret scripture in the way that makes the most sense?

P.S. Hint: Bengoshi, no one is arguing that anyone is justified through works. If you really make the effort to understand the Catholic position on faith and works, it will really help your quest for truth (which I hope you are on.) Try reading what Patrick Madrid or Scott Hahn have to say on this issue.

Sorry to just jump in here. I’ll argue that. Scripture says “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (KJV) The translators didn’t want to use the word “works,” of course (although the Greek used means “works”), because it didn’t fit with their theology of “we are justified by faith alone and not by works.” The Bible says we are justified by faith and works, so that’s what I’ll go with. But doesn’t Paul say that we are not justified by works? Yes, he does. Does the Bible contradict itself? That is totally impossible. The interpretations must be faulty. Could it be that they are using the same word, ie “saved,” in two different ways, in two different contexts?

As for an “assurance” of salvation that us Catholics don’t have, it’s probably been already said but I’ll say it anyway. Just because one *thinks *they have some assurance of salvation does not mean that they actually *have *an assurance of salvation. Oh, how much could be clarified if people would only consider the multiple meanings of the word “salvation”! The Revolt would be over. I would recommend anyone to read Jimmy Akin’s The Salvation Controversy to explore this question. It is both excellent and short. For example, being “saved” at some point in time is NOT the same thing as entering Heaven, as in, “he who perseveres to the end [read: of one’s life] will be saved.” One has one’s life of faith to live in between the “being saved” at some point and entering heaven (or not) the “moment” after death.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[twb1621]

Sorry to just jump in here. I’ll argue that. Scripture says “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (KJV) The translators didn’t want to use the word “works,” of course (although the Greek used means “works”), because it didn’t fit with their theology of “we are justified by faith alone and not by works.” The Bible says we are justified by faith and works, so that’s what I’ll go with. But doesn’t Paul say that we are not justified by works? Yes, he does. Does the Bible contradict itself? That is totally impossible. The interpretations must be faulty. Could it be that they are using the same word, ie “saved,” in two different ways, in two different contexts?

As for an “assurance” of salvation that us Catholics don’t have, it’s probably been already said but I’ll say it anyway. Just because one *thinks *they have some assurance of salvation does not mean that they actually *have *an assurance of salvation. Oh, how much could be clarified if people would only consider the multiple meanings of the word “salvation”! The Revolt would be over. I would recommend anyone to read Jimmy Akin’s The Salvation Controversy to explore this question. It is both excellent and short. For example, being “saved” at some point in time is NOT the same thing as entering Heaven, as in, “he who perseveres to the end [read: of one’s life] will be saved.” One has one’s life of faith to live in between the “being saved” at some point and entering heaven (or not) the “moment” after death.

Just my 2 cents.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is certainly welcome and let me add to your reference to Paul when he refers to “works”; When Paul refers to the invalidity of “works”, he is referring to the works of the law (OT), not the works of charity in humility for the love of Christ. This is a major misconception Protestant born faiths think the Catholic faith refers to when we refer to the necessity of works in fulfillment of our faith. We speak of the necessity of works of love toward one another in charity and performed in humility in the love of God, not the works of the law that Paul refers to.Therefore there is no contradiction at all in scripture as to the invalidity of the works once required in the OT and the works of charity required to express and complete our faith according to the teachings of Christ. This is evidenced by the previous posts which include scriptural references attesting to works.

 

[Junebug999]

Okay. Thanks for the answer.

Now, how does one know if he is saved? How does God let us know of that assurance? And why does He withhold that assurance for those who are saved but don’t
know it?

And how does the mental state and anxiety of those who are saved but don’t know it differ from that of the damned?

During my 55 years as an evangelical Baptist I had “assurance” based on a “feeling.” I did this because I was supposed to believe this way. It’s sad because until the scales fall from their eyes they cling to their beliefs based on their feelings. They have no Church authority and are blown here and there by the shifts of doctrinal wind that their current evangelical gurus/scholars write about. It’s sad. I think only prayer that “God’s will be done in their lives and that they be open to God’s will being done in their lives” can assist them b