SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[Philthy]

Yes, you are right. Good works will definitely “earn” us rewards in Heaven. What I meant when I said that it doesn’t merit us anything is with regard to salvation. Salvation is an act of God alone, however, our good works will determine the rewards we will receive once we’re in God’s presence in Heaven.

So, just to be clear, if we are among those who are saved who somehow do no good works, our experience in Heaven will be completely void of reward?

 

[paul_c]

So, just to be clear, if we are among those who are saved who somehow do no good works, our experience in Heaven will be completely void of reward?

Very good point. I was always under the assumption that in heaven, everyone is blissfully in the presence of God. What further reward is there? Seriously. What are the nature of these heavenly rewards the evangelicals speak of ?

 

[twb1621]

Ben, why are you still avoiding the posts I presented you. Be honest, are you having difficulty explaining them against what you believe? Respectfully, please respond to those posts or explain why you will not.

Peace my brother…

**Bengoshi… **

**In the post I wrote to you quoted above it came off as though I was innapropriately insisting you respond which I wish to appologize for. My intention was to bring your awareness to those previous posts you asked me to re-post to you so that you may respond to them and when you did not respond, I was attempting to draw that to your attention. **

When I said to “explain why you will not,” I was speaking in the sense of allowing us to discuss what issue you may have felt conflict or confusion with if that be the case, in hopes of clearing that up with you. Of course I would like to continue that part of this discussion but please accept my appology for any misunderstanding that may have come to pass as a result of my presentation in the above quoted post.

Peace my brother and hope to hear from you when you are able.

 

[Bengoshi]

Who is Barnes? What makes him competent or authorized to interpret the bible? He starts off by claiming that deeds means character, ignoring the examples that Paul gives in the passage, which clearly are works or lack of works. Why do you read this guy? He’s simply bending the truth to make it fit his view of God, rather than bend his view of God to fit the truth.

He is a respected Bible commentator. Please read it again, he does recognize that we will be rewarded according to our works.

Again, who is Gill and what makes his intepretations authorized or believable?
But at least this guy recognizes that you will be rewarded according to your works. He just doesn’t recognize that there is merit in doig what god made you to do. He, therefore, denies free will.

He is also a well-known and respected Bible expositor. Seems like it is pointless to discuss with someone who denies the scholarship of distinguished theologians just because their interpretation are different from Rome’s.

This wasn’t a parable. This was the reporting of an incident that took place. A rich man asked Jesus what it took to enter heaven. He was given the answer “follow the commandments.” This can not be explained away. When the man wanted to go further, Jesus said to be PERFECT, you must give away what you have and follow him.

My mistake. I meant the STORY of the Rich Young Ruler.

Look. You can read the Bible as its meant to be read: as straight forward truth. Or you can persist in twisting it to say something you want it to say.

Lets look at the motivations of the two camps:

The Catholics believe that men have a role in their salvation and that this means that every individual needs to work on his holiness: avoiding sin and loving God and neighbor. While recognizing that Salvation is impossible without God and the saving actions of Jesus, we also recognize that God gave man free will and the choice to pursue heaven or hell. It motivates man toward Good and love, which is what is desired by God.

The Reformed position that you are espousing says that man has NO role and no responsibility for his salvation. It effectively eliminates man’s free will and makes him a puppet rather than a participant in the world he lives in. It renders all moral teaching worthless because by implication, man will only follow what he was made to follow. It tends toward irresponsibility, because indeed, under this theology, man has no responsibility for that which really matters: his salvation. Further, it puts God in the position of arbitrarily condemning some while rewarding others for things they have no impact on. Where is the just God of the bible in that? And lets not revert to the tired line of " who can Judge God". While it is true that God understands much that we do not, it is equally true that the fundamental moral truth that it is not just to condemn an innocent man is well within our ability to understand.

What theological truth would you put forward if you were God? One that motivated men to do his will or one that says “nothing you do matters?”

Your assertions that the Reformed position tends towards irresponsibility does not follow (non sequitur). If you look at Reformed theology in practice, you will not see this amorality/immorality you speak of. Christians do good deeds because of their love and gratitude for God’s salvific grace. Our entire motivation for doing good and loving others is God’s love itself. Since we have already been saved by the grace of God, then our good works are no longer selfish in nature. It is just the result of an outpouring of love that God lavished on us first. that “when we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

As to your question, you assume that we can put ourselves in God’s place. That reasoning is in itself wrong. We cannot. And yes, I still dare to reason that God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). We can never be presumptous to think that we can put ourselves in the place of God.

Lastly, no Reformed Protestant would ever say that “nothing you do matters” because it does. As pointed out in my the commentators I quoted above, our deeds/works matter in determining our rewards in heaven but not whether we will get to heaven or not.

 

[Bengoshi]

Ben, why are you still avoiding the posts I presented you. Be honest, are you having difficulty explaining them against what you believe? Respectfully, please respond to those posts or explain why you will not.

Peace my brother…

Please be patient. Your posts are quite long and, honestly, I’ve already answered a lot of them and I just don’t want to repeat myself. The book I recommended to you does talk about Christian unity. St. Augustine himself said that “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

Haveing one mind does not mean that we exactly all think alike. There are things which God did not fully reveal to us but only those things which He thinks we need (cf. Deut. 29:29). The presence of various Protestant denominations does not necessarily mean that we consider those who disagree with us on non-essential doctrines as anathema or non-Christians. We still consier ourselves to be part of the One body of Christ. Of course, the cults are altogether different for they deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Seems like it is pointless to discuss with someone who denies the scholarship of distinguished theologians just because their interpretation are different from Rome’s.

What distinguishes them for us is that they have departed to a greater or lesser extent from the Apostolic faith. We read them with this in mind.

Your assertions that the Reformed position tends towards irresponsibility does not follow (non sequitur). If you look at Reformed theology in practice, you will not see this amorality/immorality you speak of. Christians do good deeds because of their love and gratitude for God’s salvific grace. Our entire motivation for doing good and loving others is God’s love itself. Since we have already been saved by the grace of God, then our good works are no longer selfish in nature. It is just the result of an outpouring of love that God lavished on us first. that “when we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

I think the moral irresponsibility that has evolved out of the Reformed tradition is quite far from the lifestyles and intentions of the original framers. There are modern evangelical “free” churches that don’t seem to understand that the fruit of the Spirit (righteous living) automatically follows the regenerated soul. In fact, I am having a discussion with one of them right now on another thread. He thinks that no amount of immoral behavior will influence a person’s status as “saved”. He believes that praying the sinners prayer seals the deal forever, so whether a person lives a righteous life is really irrelevant.

As to your question, you assume that we can put ourselves in God’s place. That reasoning is in itself wrong. We cannot. And yes, I still dare to reason that God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). We can never be presumptous to think that we can put ourselves in the place of God.

This is the reason we cannot assume that anyone is saved in this life. Only god can decide, and He does not decide until we complete this life.

Lastly, no Reformed Protestant would ever say that “nothing you do matters” because it does. As pointed out in my the commentators I quoted above, our deeds/works matter in determining our rewards in heaven but not whether we will get to heaven or not.

Well, not an educated one, anyhow! The good tree bears good fruit, therefore, from a Reformed perspective, the saved person will demonstrate good works. If one does not, it is likely they do not have saving faith.

 

[guanophore]

St. Augustine himself said that “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

He did, but just like everything else, it must be taken in context. Augustine was Catholic, and everything he considered “essential” was what the Catholic Church preserved from the Apostles. This concept has been taken out of the context in which it was written, and used to justify the rejection of doctrines that Augustine considered essential.

Haveing one mind does not mean that we exactly all think alike.

I agree with you. I think it means more that we all BELIEVE alike.

There are things which God did not fully reveal to us but only those things which He thinks we need (cf. Deut. 29:29). The presence of various Protestant denominations does not necessarily mean that we consider those who disagree with us on non-essential doctrines as anathema or non-Christians. We still consier ourselves to be part of the One body of Christ. Of course, the cults are altogether different for they deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the Bible.

Yes, but the problem here seems to be that there is no “list” in the Bible of which doctrines are essential. Therefore, every denomination can define them for themselves. Clearly, we are not all of the same mind.

 

[Bengoshi]

So, just to be clear, if we are among those who are saved who somehow do no good works, our experience in Heaven will be completely void of reward?

It is simply impossible for those who have been truly saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ to not do good works. The good works are evidence of a Christian’s faith.

 

[guanophore]

It is simply impossible for those who have been truly saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ to not do good works. The good works are evidence of a Christian’s faith.

Scripture refutes such a notion repeatedly. I agree with you, good works are evidence of a Christian’s faith, and not doing them is a faith problem, however, born again Christians fall from grace, and do end up living in the flesh.

 

[Bengoshi]

Very good point. I was always under the assumption that in heaven, everyone is blissfully in the presence of God. What further reward is there? Seriously. What are the nature of these heavenly rewards the evangelicals speak of ?

Question: The Bible teaches that as a Christian, when we die we receive different degrees of rewards in heaven. And, I’d like to know if you could expound on those different degrees, but also, if there are different degrees of suffering in Hell?

Answer by Dr. John MacArthur:

I think “yes” to both of those questions. There will be varying degrees of reward in heaven. That shouldn’t surprise us: there are varying degrees of giftedness even here on earth. To get a good glimpse of what heaven might be like, look at the church. From the moment of your redemption, the Lord put His Holy Spirit within you, and according to I Corinthians 12, He gave you certain spiritual gifts, right? He gave gifts to all of His church. They differ. What are gifts? They are varying capacities for ministry, varying capacities for service to God in His church. And I think the same thing will be true eternally; I think in eternity, we will all be given according to our abilities and according to our faithfulness–varying capacities for glorifying, serving, and worshipping God.

So, I think that it’s going to be based upon two things. One would be the sovereignty of God, who will choose to give as He wills, as in I Corinthians 12, as He gives spiritual gifts in this life to the church, in whatever way He chooses to do that–that’s a sovereign thing. And secondly, I think there is another component, and that has to do with faithfulness here. I believe our eternal reward will be in some way determined by the level of faithfulness we have had here.

Now, there are a number of reasons why we assume this. One of them was this conversation that Jesus had with the mother of James and John, who said, “My boys want to sit on your right and left hand when you come into the kingdom,” and He said, “It’s not for Me to give that; it’s for my Father to give that.” And there He said, there are going to be some people elevated. Somebody’s going to be on my right, somebody’s going to be on my left, and some others are going to be down the line here–It’s not for Me to decide that; It’s the Father. But, then He went on to say the criteria by which that is going to be decided is faithfulness unto death. So, I think the greatest reward in the future is awarded for the most faithful people, and that probably plays itself out in those who were faithful unto death: the martyrs, those who gave their life. You could give your life in living, as well as give your life in dying, couldn’t you? And you know what I mean by that. You could make the self-sacrifice to the maximum extent even while you’re alive, where you sacrifice everything else and be what Paul called a “living sacrifice.”

So, I think there is definitely going to be, in heaven, varying levels of service, just as there are with the angels: there are archangels, and there are cherubim and seraphim, and principalities and powers and rulers, and all of those varying levels of angelic hierarchy. I think in eternity, we are all going to be sorted out within that eternal worshipping community and given varying capacities and varying responsibilities, which are determined by the sovereignty of God and our faithfulness here. That’s why John says, “Look to yourselves that you lose not the things you have wrought, but that you receive a full reward.” It is possible that you could be faithful, and the Lord be ready and prepared to give you a full reward, but by some sin in your life towards the end of your life, you could begin to forfeit and those things would be taken back off the list, added to the “wood, hay, and stubble” kind of thing, and your reward would be less.

What is it? Is it going to be some people with bigger crowns? No. We’re not going to be going around saying, “Hah! I got a big one; you got a little one!” It’s not going to be that. Whatever we get, I believe in the picture of the 24 elders, we take our crowns and cast them at the feet of the Lord. But, I don’t believe they’re going to be anything that’s visible. I think it’s going to be a capacity for serving God fully and completely. I don’t think you’ll have any sense of loss or any sense of missing anything, because each individual’s capacity will be reached to its maximum. But, I think what we want to do is have the greatest capacity for worshipping God, as His sovereignty would give us and as our faithfulness would warrant.

Now, in terms of the other, there will be degrees of suffering. Hebrews 10 says, “How much greater suffering will come to the one, who has trodden underfoot, the blood of the covenant, and counted it an unholy thing, done despite to the Spirit of grace.” To put it simply, it means this: the more people know about the gospel and reject, the greater degree of suffering they will experience–when they trample underfoot the blood of the covenant. That is to say, the pagan who never heard anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ will not suffer the degree that the apostate would, who heard it all, understood it all, and blatantly rejected it all.

 

[Bengoshi]

**Bengoshi… **

**In the post I wrote to you quoted above it came off as though I was innapropriately insisting you respond which I wish to appologize for. My intention was to bring your awareness to those previous posts you asked me to re-post to you so that you may respond to them and when you did not respond, I was attempting to draw that to your attention. **

When I said to “explain why you will not,” I was speaking in the sense of allowing us to discuss what issue you may have felt conflict or confusion with if that be the case, in hopes of clearing that up with you. Of course I would like to continue that part of this discussion but please accept my appology for any misunderstanding that may have come to pass as a result of my presentation in the above quoted post.

Peace my brother and hope to hear from you when you are able.

Apology accepted. Thank you for your charity. I’m sorry I couldn’t get back to answering your post immediately as they require a longer answer and as I have said in my previous post, I’ve already answered some of them earlier in the thread from which this one spun off.

God bless!

 

[Bengoshi]

Very good point. I was always under the assumption that in heaven, everyone is blissfully in the presence of God. What further reward is there? Seriously. What are the nature of these heavenly rewards the evangelicals speak of ?

bible-knowledge.com/rewards-in-heaven/

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Who is Barnes? What makes him competent or authorized to interpret the bible? He starts off by claiming that deeds means character, ignoring the examples that Paul gives in the passage, which clearly are works or lack of works. Why do you read this guy? He’s simply bending the truth to make it fit his view of God, rather than bend his view of God to fit the truth.

My point is that these scholars don’t impress me. They are simply expressing thier own opinions. And yes, I deny the scholarship of those that disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which ultimately has the benefit of Apostolic teaching and authority. Where they disagree with church, they are in error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
This wasn’t a parable. This was the reporting of an incident that took place. A rich man asked Jesus what it took to enter heaven. He was given the answer “follow the commandments.” This can not be explained away. When the man wanted to go further, Jesus said to be PERFECT, you must give away what you have and follow him.

You ignore the main point of my comment, which is that Jesus clearly said that to earn eternal life, you must follow the commandments. This directly conflicts with you theology of Faith alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Look. You can read the Bible as its meant to be read: as straight forward truth. Or you can persist in twisting it to say something you want it to say.

I like that you say that you do good works out of love for God. This is how Catholics would describe it as well. But what if you don’t do good works? Doesn’t that mean you don’t love God. and if you don’t love God, how can you be saved?

As to your question, you assume that we can put ourselves in God’s place. That reasoning is in itself wrong. We cannot. And yes, I still dare to reason that God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). We can never be presumptous to think that we can put ourselves in the place of God.

Fine. So how can you say you are assured of heaven, without putting yourself in the place of God?

Lastly, no Reformed Protestant would ever say that “nothing you do matters” because it does. As pointed out in my the commentators I quoted above, our deeds/works matter in determining our rewards in heaven but not whether we will get to heaven or not.

First of all, I have clearly showed you from scripture that your works do indeed impact your salvation. You have not proven that they don’t. Secondly, what matters compared to getting into heaven or going to hell? What kinds of rewards are you thinking you are earning if its not gettig into heaven, where there is eternal bliss from being in the presence of God.

 

[Bengoshi]

What distinguishes them for us is that they have departed to a greater or lesser extent from the Apostolic faith. We read them with this in mind.

Well, that is indeed a problem…

I think the moral irresponsibility that has evolved out of the Reformed tradition is quite far from the lifestyles and intentions of the original framers. There are modern evangelical “free” churches that don’t seem to understand that the fruit of the Spirit (righteous living) automatically follows the regenerated soul. In fact, I am having a discussion with one of them right now on another thread. He thinks that no amount of immoral behavior will influence a person’s status as “saved”. He believes that praying the sinners prayer seals the deal forever, so whether a person lives a righteous life is really irrelevant.

Well, he’s just wrong. The salvation of a person who has not been transformed by the grace of God is indeed questionable. It is a heart issue. We call that “easy believism” which is a false gospel.

This is the reason we cannot assume that anyone is saved in this life. Only god can decide, and He does not decide until we complete this life.

Yes, we cannot presume to know the mind of God; but the thing is, God already revealed to us those who are and will be saved, i.e. those who put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for us (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:9-10).

Well, not an educated one, anyhow! The good tree bears good fruit, therefore, from a Reformed perspective, the saved person will demonstrate good works. If one does not, it is likely they do not have saving faith.

Correct!

 

[Bengoshi]

Yes, but the problem here seems to be that there is no “list” in the Bible of which doctrines are essential. Therefore, every denomination can define them for themselves. Clearly, we are not all of the same mind.

Those which the Bible isn’t clear about are the non-essentials. Even the doctrine of election and reprobation/predestination, which we are arguing about is a non-essential one. I mean, we can definitely hold on tho a certain position but it should not cause us to divide on it. Those of the Reformed position would not call Arminians as non-Christians. We are still of the same Body even though we disagree on this issue.

 

[guanophore]

My point is that these scholars don’t impress me. They are simply expressing thier own opinions. And yes, I deny the scholarship of those that disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which ultimately has the benefit of Apostolic teaching and authority. Where they disagree with church, they are in error.

I am not so sure this is entirely helpful Paul. Our brethren have been separated from Apostolic Teaching and authority for 500+ years. All they have left is Scripture, and they are doing the best they can with what they have. Scholarship is not necessarily bad or wrong just because it is not conducted from within Catholic faith. The majority of this scholarship is consistent with Catholic theology, which leaves us with the portion that is not. We can affirm what is right, then focus on the part that is not. You don’t need to be impressed.

 You ignore the main point of my comment, which is that Jesus clearly said that to earn eternal life, you must follow the commandments.  This directly conflicts with you theology of Faith alone.

I am not so sure this is true. He clearly believes that the person who is saved by faith will be obedient to the commandments.

I like that you say that you do good works out of love for God. This is how Catholics would describe it as well. But what if you don’t do good works? Doesn’t that mean you don’t love God. and if you don’t love God, how can you be saved?

From a traditional Reformed perspective, a person who does not have faith that produces good works never had saving faith in the first place.

Fine. So how can you say you are assured of heaven, without putting yourself in the place of God?

This is my question too.

 

[Bengoshi]

Scripture refutes such a notion repeatedly. I agree with you, good works are evidence of a Christian’s faith, and not doing them is a faith problem, however, born again Christians fall from grace, and do end up living in the flesh.

That just simply means that they weren’t born again in the first place. There’s a good book about it by John Piper that I am currently reading, it’s entitled FINALLY ALIVE. You can download a free PDF from his website, DesiringGod.com.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Very good point. I was always under the assumption that in heaven, everyone is blissfully in the presence of God. What further reward is there? Seriously. What are the nature of these heavenly rewards the evangelicals speak of ?

Bengoshi,
I love this article you have quoted. The author makes the point that you will earn 5 crowns by doing good works in your life, never realizing that those 5 crowns :

• The Crown of Righteousness
• The Incorruptible Crown
• The Crown of Life
• The Crown of Rejoicing
• The Crown of Glory

Are simply synonyms for winning eternal life. Can’t you see that now?

 

[guanophore]

Well, that is indeed a problem…

Why? Do you think it is a problem to exercise critical reading and thinking skills? Should documents not be understood within the context they are written?

Well, he’s just wrong. The salvation of a person who has not been transformed by the grace of God is indeed questionable. It is a heart issue. We call that “easy believism” which is a false gospel.

See, we can agree.

Yes, we cannot presume to know the mind of God; but the thing is, God already revealed to us those who are and will be saved, i.e. those who put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for us (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:9-10).

Yes.

Those which the Bible isn’t clear about are the non-essentials.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not contain this principle either, which reveals it to be an extabiblical principle. It was invented during the Reformation, not because of conflicts with Catholics, but because of conflict of the Reformed theologians with one another.

Like Sola Scriptura, it is not a principle that was espoused by the Apostles, or their disciples.

Even the doctrine of election and reprobation/predestination, which we are arguing about is a non-essential one. I mean, we can definitely hold on tho a certain position but it should not cause us to divide on it.

And you base this on your understanding of what you read in scripture? Because there are others who read it differently. This is the problem with making Scripture the final authority. There may be as many different interpretations as there are belly buttons.

 

[paul_c]

Well, he’s just wrong. The salvation of a person who has not been transformed by the grace of God is indeed questionable. It is a heart issue. We call that “easy believism” which is a false gospel.

This is the natural extension of the doctrine that works don’t matter for salvation, isn’t it?