SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[guanophore]

Well, that’s more of the Baptist view espoused by Charles Stanley, which I, R.C. Sproul, Wayne Grudem, nor John Piper do not hold. I was wrong to include Arminians in my post, I only meant the RCC. Arminians are also Protestants who believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from works. Please see my latest reply to Guanophore.

Yes, salvation by grace through faith is one of the Apostolic teachings that did not get lost during the separation.

However, the Apostles were clear that the grace that produces saving faith in us also produces the good works that God has prepared from the foundation of the world, that we should walk in them. So, though works are not the basis for our salvation, salvation is not “apart” from them, either. When we read Eph. 2: we continue from v. 8&9 into v. 10

 

[Bengoshi]

Ben, lets just pick it up from here then. I realize your faith considers itself part of the one body, but scripture does not support anything along those lines where it is not in fullness and union with the teachings of the one Church Jesus founded. The misconception you are presenting here is that you are looking at this massive number of individual interpretations called protestant denominations as “those who disagree with us”, when in fact we do not look at it at all as though that disagree with us, but with Christ’s teachings and Word through the Church He established to bring all His Faithful into one body, one Faith, formed in His Blood as the one source to Teach and confirm all those who would accept Him. Check out the verse again:

1 Corinthians CH1; 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
　
Ben, truthfully, you must be aware you only responded to one fraction of the verse and in that response conflict to the remainder. Being of one mind is just that, believing in the Fullness of His teachings and acknowledging his word, living according to those teachings, retaining our Faith in His gift of salvation. Speaking all the same things is also obvious and by your response you have stated the opposite to this statement but you are not alone, many do with many opinions and all believe theirs is the right one. Of the same Judgment is also clearly taught by scriptural decree which includes the acceptance of the decisions of those appointed to serve Christ in His Church, and without schisms, “from the Greek schisma, is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.”…all parts of the full teachings of Christ which we are to remain obedient to, also according to scripture.
This is not to say you are wrong about everything, but those things you are misunderstanding are what is keeping you from the intimacy you could know in a relationship with Christ that you currently could not comprehend without that fullness. What Jesus said would be revealed by the Holy spirit He declared specifically to the Teachers of His Church.
But this is why there is to be no independent faiths in opposition, not to us, but to His Church which He commissioned His apostles and they their successors as follows:

Matthew CH28; 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Peace my brother

Maybe this article can answer your questions:

letusreason.org/cult12.htm

 

[Bengoshi]

Yes, salvation by grace through faith is one of the Apostolic teachings that did not get lost during the separation.

However, the Apostles were clear that the grace that produces saving faith in us also produces the good works that God has prepared from the foundation of the world, that we should walk in them. So, though works are not the basis for our salvation, salvation is not “apart” from them, either. When we read Eph. 2: we continue from v. 8&9 into v. 10

I agree but it is “apart” from works in the sense that the works come after salvation as a result and has no part in causing it.

 

[guanophore]

I agree but it is “apart” from works in the sense that the works come after salvation as a result and has no part in causing it.

IIndeed, this has been the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church ever since the Divine Deposit of faith was made “once for all to the saints”.

It is true that there have been wolves among the sheep that have taught otherwise, but in doing so, they departed from the Catholic Faith. Teachers who depart from the Truth and lead the flock astray bear a grave responsibility, for they are not only responsible for the sins they have committed, but for those they led astray as well.

 

[guanophore]

 Maybe this article can answer your questions:

letusreason.org/cult12.htm

Tom made an excellent post (it is going into my collection) that did not include any questions. I am surprised to learn that you think the Roman Catholic faith is a cult, but so be it, we shall move forward.

Roman Catholic Church-”But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ …” (Vatican Council II Vol. 2, p. 430, 1984)

There must seem something “cultish” about this to you. I suspect it is the “alone” of the responsibility of the Catholic priest?

The faith was handed down from the Aposltes to their successors the bishops, who ordained faithful men, able to teach others also. This is what is known as the Apostolic succession. Each person within this paradosis is responsible to God, the Church, and the world to faithfully adhere to and teach that One Faith that was entrusted to him.

 “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema.” (The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent, p. 53 -- Seventh Session, Sacrament Of Baptism, Canon 3)

I am mystified what it is about this passage that seems cultish. It is a response to those who claimed that Catholic baptism is not valid.

 “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention ....” (Vatican Council II ,Vol. 1, p. 379)

I suspect the objection to this relates to an authority problem, and a lack of trust in God to protect his flock.

 The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”

This is so because there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Jesus Christ. Jesus has only One Body. All who enter Christ become members of His One Body, the Church.

Pope Boniface VIII declared: “There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there Is NO SALVATION ... it is altogether NECESSARY FOR SALVATION for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.' (“infallible papal bull, Unam Sanctam)  Vatican II declared:  ... this holy Council teaches ... that the church .. Is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.” (VATICAN COUNCIL II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery, O.P., General Editor, Vol 1, pp. 364-365)

This statement relates to the same Apostolic Truth affirmed at Trent, that Jesus only has One Body, and all who are born into Him become members of that One Body. Jesus gave to Peter the responsibility to feed and care for the flock. Peter passed this responsibility on to his successor, and he to his, up until the present day. That is why the Bishop of Rome has the responsibility to feed and care for the Lord’s sheep. He has One Flock, and Peter is entrusted with their care until He comes again.
Bengoshi;7110326:

 All Christians will be gathered in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, ... The unity, we believe subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose. (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 4, p. 416).

I also am stumped as to how this is cultish. Do you not believe that the unity that Jesus desires will one day be brought about by His mighty hand?

Or do you believe the CC has apostasized, and therefore no longer is in union with Christ?

 

[Bengoshi]

IIndeed, this has been the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church ever since the Divine Deposit of faith was made “once for all to the saints”.

It is true that there have been wolves among the sheep that have taught otherwise, but in doing so, they departed from the Catholic Faith. Teachers who depart from the Truth and lead the flock astray bear a grave responsibility, for they are not only responsible for the sins they have committed, but for those they led astray as well.

That’s great!

 

[Bengoshi]

Tom made an excellent post (it is going into my collection) that did not include any questions. I am surprised to learn that you think the Roman Catholic faith is a cult, but so be it, we shall move forward.

There must seem something “cultish” about this to you. I suspect it is the “alone” of the responsibility of the Catholic priest?

No, I don’t consider the RCC as a cult but merely “cultic” as Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes posited. I only cite the latter part of the article but since I could not copy and paste it here, I just linked the site.

The faith was handed down from the Aposltes to their successors the bishops, who ordained faithful men, able to teach others also. This is what is known as the Apostolic succession. Each person within this paradosis is responsible to God, the Church, and the world to faithfully adhere to and teach that One Faith that was entrusted to him.

I am mystified what it is about this passage that seems cultish. It is a response to those who claimed that Catholic baptism is not valid.

No, there is nothing cultish about it.

I suspect the objection to this relates to an authority problem, and a lack of trust in God to protect his flock.

It does relate to authority. However, it’s not that we do not trust Christ, but rather we trust the Word of God more, which is not susceptible to change, unlike mere men.

This is so because there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Jesus Christ. Jesus has only One Body. All who enter Christ become members of His One Body, the Church.

Or do you believe the CC has apostasized, and therefore no longer is in union with Christ?

We don’t need to discuss the first part of the article since I don’t totally agree with it either. The RCC, in spite of all its seemingly unbiblical practices and traditions, is still, to me, a true Christian Church. It just really needs to reform some of its teachings and practices, most especially the blatant idolatry being practiced in the poorer countries of the world such as the Philippines and the Latin/Spanish countries. American Catholicism is different from the folk Catholicism in our countries.

 

[guanophore]

It does relate to authority. However, it’s not that we do not trust Christ, but rather we trust the Word of God more, which is not susceptible to change, unlike mere men.

How is there a difference? I mean, if God is able to preserve His Word written on parchment, how is it that He is to weak to preserve it written upon the human heart?

At what point did the weakness of men become more powerful than God?

How is it that the God who used to be able to send out His Word so that it accomplished that to which He sent it (Isa. 55:11) lost the interest and ability to accomplish this?

The God who was able to preserve His Word in the susceptible hearts of men from Adam to Moses (thousands of years?) all of the sudden (about 500 years ago) lost the ability to do this?

It seems to me that it is directly related to trusting Christ.

The RCC, in spite of all its seemingly unbiblical practices and traditions, is still, to me, a true Christian Church.

Well, this is a relief to hear. When I went to the cult site, I feared the worst. I think some of the practices that seem “unbiblical” because we understand the bible differently. You see, from our perspective, the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.It is a Catholic book, and there is nothing in it that is not Catholic. All doctrines and practices that were no consistent with the Catholic faith were not included in the Canon.

The other element is that we are not a “bible based” Church. The Church founded by Christ was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Our doctrines are not extracted from the pages of the book 1500 years after the fact. They come from Jesus, through the Apostles.

There was also no effort made to create a full compendium of the faith through the Holy Scriptures. They are the memoirs of the Apostles, and letters written to specific communities for instruction. They supplement the One Faith that has been preserved infallibly by the HS (unless the HS is too weak or disinterested to do so ) who has led the Church into “all Truth” as Jesus promised.

It just really needs to reform some of its teachings and practices, most especially the blatant idolatry being practiced in the poorer countries of the world such as the Philippines and the Latin/Spanish countries. American Catholicism is different from the folk Catholicism in our countries.

The Church does not have the authority to change any of the Teachings. They are to be guarded, and faithfully echoed, but cannot be changed. They were delivered fully intact, and are to remain in that condition until He returns.

As far as the practices, I think you are confusing abuses with authoritative instruction. Just like Tetzel “selling” indulgences at the time of the Reformation, people mixing Paganism with the Teachings of Jesus have missed the mark. It does not make sense to evaluate the Teacher by the behavior of those who are not following it. It is like saying that Jesus’ teaching was a problem because Judas betrayed Him.

 

[Bengoshi]

How is there a difference? I mean, if God is able to preserve His Word written on parchment, how is it that He is to weak to preserve it written upon the human heart?

At what point did the weakness of men become more powerful than God?

How is it that the God who used to be able to send out His Word so that it accomplished that to which He sent it (Isa. 55:11) lost the interest and ability to accomplish this?

The God who was able to preserve His Word in the susceptible hearts of men from Adam to Moses (thousands of years?) all of the sudden (about 500 years ago) lost the ability to do this?

It seems to me that it is directly related to trusting Christ.

I guess the reason why God decided to have His Word in written form was because men are fallible creatures. The NT was written during the first century but was just compiled thereafter. So we have to distinguish its writing and it’s compiling.

Well, this is a relief to hear. When I went to the cult site, I feared the worst. I think some of the practices that seem “unbiblical” because we understand the bible differently. You see, from our perspective, the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics.It is a Catholic book, and there is nothing in it that is not Catholic. All doctrines and practices that were no consistent with the Catholic faith were not included in the Canon.

The other element is that we are not a “bible based” Church. The Church founded by Christ was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Our doctrines are not extracted from the pages of the book 1500 years after the fact. They come from Jesus, through the Apostles.

There was also no effort made to create a full compendium of the faith through the Holy Scriptures. They are the memoirs of the Apostles, and letters written to specific communities for instruction. They supplement the One Faith that has been preserved infallibly by the HS (unless the HS is too weak or disinterested to do so ) who has led the Church into “all Truth” as Jesus promised.

The Church does not have the authority to change any of the Teachings. They are to be guarded, and faithfully echoed, but cannot be changed. They were delivered fully intact, and are to remain in that condition until He returns.

The development of Catholic doctrine seems to refue that claim tho…

 

[Church_Militant]

I think that we Catholics actually have a very strong assurance of salvation, as opposed to the adherence to a false assurance and unscriptural doctrine of men upon which it is actually based.

Catholic salvation doctrines are based on the total context of the New Testament and not a limited number of verses removed from that context. That is important… as so many Catholics and converts have discovered in their study of the Word of God and Catholic (vs n-C) teachings.

Far from having no assurance, I believe we have the best assurance. based as it is upon the entire New Testament context. The accuracy of that context as we live it out day by day and moment by moment is what gives each devout Catholic the “personal relationship with God” that is the catchphrase of so many n-C ecclesial communities.

 

[Odell]

I have been reading along and this is where I finaly have to put my two cents in.

Yes, I was in error to say that Arminians are included. They are Protestants also who believe in salvation by grace through faith. However, isn’t it true that the RCC teaches that works have merit that are needed to be added to Christ’s atoning work? That Christ’s work on the cross was not sufficient?

Christ work on the cross was only sufficient for our eternal salvation.

In Catholic theology there is a difference in eternal and temperal salvation. If you would like me to go into it more I can.

When you see catholic writings on merit (the same as reword) you find reward for the things we do to be very scriptural.

You also find in scripture things like Paul saying he wishes to save a few of his fellow men. Obviously Paul is talking about temperal.

Im sure you heard of the passage where husband can save there wives. Again temperal. Im sure you heard of Moses saying God will send us saviours. Plural not singular. Again temperal. there is a difference.

This was actually the main objection of the Protestant reformers, i.e. the sale of indulgences, mass cards, participation in the crusades, etc. that needed to be done in order to get to heaven.

I’m glad that we can agree on some things!

Indulgences have only to do with temperal salvation and temperal penilty to sins.
Regarding Indulgences they are more biblical than you think.

1. Sin results in guilt and punishment
2. Punishments are both temperal and eternal.
3. Temperal penalties may remain when a sin is forgiven.
4. God blesses some people as a reward to others
5. God remits temperal penalties suffered by some as a reward to others.

• This is the kicker 1Kings11:11-13. God was clear Solomon’s kingdom was not torn down not for Solomons sake but for the sake of David. If david had not pleased God. God would have removed the entire kingdom.
  There are other examples. God promised Abraham that if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom he was willing to defer the city’s destruction for the sake of the righteous.

Do remember there is a difference in temperal salvation and eternal salvation. We can’t earn someones eternal salvation or our own Christ did that! Indulgences only have to do with the temperal aspects of sin.

 

[paul_c]

I have been reading along and this is where I finaly have to put my two cents in.

Christ work on the cross was only sufficient for our eternal salvation.

In Catholic theology there is a difference in eternal and temperal salvation. If you would like me to go into it more I can.

When you see catholic writings on merit (the same as reword) you find reward for the things we do to be very scriptural.

You also find in scripture things like Paul saying he wishes to save a few of his fellow men. Obviously Paul is talking about temperal.

Im sure you heard of the passage where husband can save there wives. Again temperal. Im sure you heard of Moses saying God will send us saviours. Plural not singular. Again temperal. there is a difference.

Indulgences have only to do with temperal salvation and temperal penilty to sins.
Regarding Indulgences they are more biblical than you think.

1. Sin results in guilt and punishment
2. Punishments are both temperal and eternal.
3. Temperal penalties may remain when a sin is forgiven.
4. God blesses some people as a reward to others
5. God remits temperal penalties suffered by some as a reward to others.

• This is the kicker 1Kings11:11-13. God was clear Solomon’s kingdom was not torn down not for Solomons sake but for the sake of David. If david had not pleased God. God would have removed the entire kingdom.
  There are other examples. God promised Abraham that if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom he was willing to defer the city’s destruction for the sake of the righteous.

Do remember there is a difference in temperal salvation and eternal salvation. We can’t earn someones eternal salvation or our own Christ did that! Indulgences only have to do with the temperal aspects of sin.

I’m sorry. Where did you get that this is a Catholic concept. I’ve never heard of it. Its not in the catechism. Its not in the Catholic encyclopedia. Educate me as to your source.

 

[guanophore]

I guess the reason why God decided to have His Word in written form was because men are fallible creatures.

Does this “guess” have any scriptural support?

You did not answer the question about how the fallibility of man is more powerful than God. How is it He is able to guard a parchment not a heart?

The NT was written during the first century but was just compiled thereafter. So we have to distinguish its writing and it's compiling.

And why must they be distinguished? Do you think that one is fallible, but the other is not? Is God to weak to do both?

The development of Catholic doctrine seems to refue that claim tho…

What does that mean, “development of doctrine”"?

You did not answer how God was able to preserve His Word from Adam to Moses infallibly through the human heart, but lost His omnipotence after Jesus was born.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry. Where did you get that this is a Catholic concept. I’ve never heard of it. Its not in the catechism. Its not in the Catholic encyclopedia. Educate me as to your source.

I don’t recognize this either.

 

[Bengoshi]

I’m sorry. Where did you get that this is a Catholic concept. I’ve never heard of it. Its not in the catechism. Its not in the Catholic encyclopedia. Educate me as to your source.

Yes Paul, I haven’t heard of it either. And Odell, maybe you meant “temporal” not “temperal” for there is no such word.

 

[Bengoshi]

Does this “guess” have any scriptural support?

None. It is my humble opinion. If it is indeed the RCC which has the exclusive authority to teach and hand down the teachings of Christ and the aposltes, then there would have been no need for Scripture to be written down and inerrantly preserved for generations to come.

You did not answer the question about how the fallibility of man is more powerful than God. How is it He is able to guard a parchment not a heart?

Of course God is all powerful, however, you are presuming that God would do such a thing when He has already decided to commit His teachings into writing so as to be preserved for posterity.

And why must they be distinguished? Do you think that one is fallible, but the other is not? Is God to weak to do both?

What does that mean, “development of doctrine”?

This will be too long and out of topic to discuss. It’s just an obiter dictum on my part anyway.

You did not answer how God was able to preserve His Word from Adam to Moses infallibly through the human heart, but lost His omnipotence after Jesus was born.

The answer is “I do not know” but I never said that God lost His omnipotence after Jesus was born. God just chose to commit His New Testament into writing in the same way He did to His Old Testament.

 

[guanophore]

None. It is my humble opinion. If it is indeed the RCC which has the exclusive authority to teach and hand down the teachings of Christ and the aposltes, then there would have been no need for Scripture to be written down and inerrantly preserved for generations to come.

This is like saying “if God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the apple, then He never should have planted it in the garden where they lived”. It is an approach of findng fault with God’s design to justify the disobedience of men.

The CC is not “Roman”, Ben.

Jesus was given “all authority in heaven and on earth”. In that authority, He sent forth His Aposltes. He trained them, and promised His Spirit would remain with them to guide them into “all Truth”. He revealed His will and HIs mind to them, and inspired them to write the Holy Scriptures.

None of these actions justify the disobedience of men who attempt to use the Holy Scriptures apart from the authority He established over His One Body, the Church.

The fact that it is possible to disobey God’s design for us is not an indication that God has set things up “wrong”.

Of course God is all powerful, however, you are presuming that God would do such a thing when He has already decided to commit His teachings into writing so as to be preserved for posterity.

You presume that God did not preserve His teachings infallibly both before and after they were committed to writing. You presume all of His teachings are committed to writing. These presumptions are based upon the false premise that was designed to reject the Teaching Authority that God gave to His One Body, the Church.

And why must they be distinguished? Do you think that one is fallible, but the other is not? Is God to weak to do both?

I did not distinguish it as to its infallibility but only as to the act. They are different acts in time. The act of writing and compiling are different from each other.

Yes, but inseparably connected to one another by the infallible acts of God. It is He who accomplishes inerrant acts using fallible human beings. He used fallen people to write the inspired scriptures, to preserve, promulgate, and canonize them. He also preseverd His unwritten Word in these same people, just as He preserved His Word infallibly for milennia between Adam and Moses before a word of it was ever written.

If you do not believe God is able or willing to do this, then you cannot depend on any of the Scriptural record from that time period.

The answer is “I do not know” but I never said that God lost His omnipotence after Jesus was born. God just chose to commit His New Testament into writing in the same way He did to His Old Testament.

Yes, but the contents of the OT existed in oral form prior to it being written, thereofore, if God is unable to preseve His Word in unwrittten form, then you cannot count on the inerrancy of either testament.

 

[Odell]

I’m sorry. Where did you get that this is a Catholic concept. I’ve never heard of it. Its not in the catechism. Its not in the Catholic encyclopedia. Educate me as to your source.

I don’t recognize this either.

Yes Paul, I haven’t heard of it either. And Odell, maybe you meant “temporal” not “temperal” for there is no such word.

Jimmy Akins book “Salvation Contraversey”

He sites alot of scripture. You dont apose anything I said do you?

Mabe this will help from his book.

The bible says we can atone for our sin.

Prov 16:6: “by love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the lord a man avoids evil.” Prov is talking about atonement in a different sense temporal rather than eternal

We know this because we cant atone for our sins in the sense Christ did.

the Old testament most the time when salvation was mentioned it was reffering to temparol. We find it in the new testament as well. Problem is everyime the New Testament mentions salvation people assume it is referring to only eternal salvation. And that is not always the case.

Temporal salvation and Eternal salvation

Ex.14:13- and moses said to the people fear not stand firm, and see the salvation of the lord, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptions whom you see today,you shall never see again, the lord will fight for you and you have only to be still.

Luke.1:68-71, Blessed be the lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemd his people, and has **raised up a horn of salvation **for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from old, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us.

Temporal and eternal Saviors

Obad20-21 the exiles Halah who are of the people of Israel shall posses Phoenicia as far as Zarephath; and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in shepharad shall possess the cities of Negeb, **saviors shall go up to mount zion **to rule mount esau and the kingdom shall be the lords

saviours plural not singular

Rom 11:13-14 Now I (Paul) am speaking to you Gentiles in as much then as I am an apostle to the gentiles** I magnify my ministry in order to save some of my fellow Jews.**

1Tim4:16- take heed to yourself and to your teaching hold to that for by so doing YOU will save both yourself and your hearers

Of course this does not mean that humans bestow salvation the same way christ does by earning it for them. But it does mean we serve as agents.

And this is where Indulgences come in.

Try reading his book he goes into way more than I can on the forums.

you guys understand?

 

[geekborj]

Actually, there’s no need to worry about that because there is no sadness in heaven. You won’t even feel bad about your children who are in hell. It’s as if there is a one-way mirror between heaven and hell. Those in heaven see the joy of those in heaven but those in heaven will not see the suffering of those in hell (THE LIFE TO COME by Rev. Dr. William Girao). My issue with Catholic soteriology is that they have no assurance of salvation. Check out these links:

bible-truth.org/assuran2.html

bible-truth.org/Assuran1.htm

“You do your best to raise them well.” <<< this is the key to the question of paul_c. God does not require unreasonably strict codes to get to heaven. We have to remember that the God of Catholic Christians are BOTH Just and Merciful. No, He is Justice and Mercy.

 

[geekborj]

Seems to me that this is no assurance at all. If this is the requirement, then you can never be assured of heaven until you die. This is exactly what Catholics believe. However, this is not what you ave been espousing. You have been clearly saying that you ARE saved and that you ARE assured of heaven… This denies the perseverance of the Saints. What do you really believe?

This topic has been clarified in the following tracks:
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
I like the last paragraph:

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”