SPLIT: Catholics have no assurance of salvation

[StrawberryJam]

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

Is assurance of salvation more important than insuring it?

Edit to add:

Not knowing your children in an eternity, damned or not- is umm… weird. Does God just erase them from your memory? Seems loving…

 

[Bengoshi]

Ben, all due respect, It is not my goal to point out to you what your sources may say in contradiction to scripture itself and the fact that you refer to such sources to support your faith rather than responding to scripture is evident. I can not discuss the issues with the author of a book, but only with living human beings such as yourself. In this case, I am referring to Scripture with my questions to you and the answers I am asking for pertain to Scripture, not the opinions of others at this point. Scripture is the fountain of our faith, yours as well. If you can not answer to scripture to express the credibility in your faith first, by referring to other sources of men, all you are doing is confirming you have adopted the opinions of others rather than having a reasonable understanding of scripture personally. If you wouldn’t mind, lets concentrate on what scripture tells us first. That is how you will find if any of your beliefs come in conflict with anything in scripture or not before adopting opinions over the Inspired word of God. This is the best way to find the truth in its entirity. Again, would you please respond with your own insight as to the post?

There’s totally nothing wrong with referring to another article. It just means that I am adopting the author’s position as mine, except for the first part wherein he discusses the different “cults”. I do not adopt that part.

 

[paul_c]

There’s totally nothing wrong with referring to another article. It just means that I am adopting the author’s position as mine, except for the first part wherein he discusses the different “cults”. I do not adopt that part.

I guess, I for one, was misinterpreting your use of articles. I was presuming that you were quoting them because you thought that they were authoritative in some way. Instead, it seems that you are quoting them because they agree with you - but if that’s the only reason- why not just make the points yourself.

The implications of these two positions are rather important. If you quote someone as an authority, it means you are subservant to their position. In that case, I ask what makes that person authoritative to you?

If you see no one as authoritative, then I ask why you think you know better than anyone else the things that allow men to be saved.

For a Catholic, these things are easy. We follow the Pope and the magesterium’s teachings because we believe that they are the rightful successors to the apostles, appointed to teach the truth’s about salvation and administer the grace providing sacraments.

If you are not Catholic, then I understand the problem : there simply is no authority to turn to and you are forced to rely on your own intuition, even if you understand its limitations.

 

[StrawberryJam]

There’s totally nothing wrong with referring to another article. It just means that I am adopting the author’s position as mine, except for the first part wherein he discusses the different “cults”. I do not adopt that part.

You are evangelical correct? Then why do you need this authour at all? I thought Evangelicals stressed how anyone can simply read their bible to know all they need to know about God’s ways. Was I wrong?

 

[Bengoshi]

I need to understand “assurance of salvation” more. Does this mean that if you don’t have assurance of salvation you are damned? Or is it possible that even if you don’t feel that assurance, saved anyway? Or are all who lack that assurance damned?

If the latter, then one can have the assurance not of salvation, but of damnation. That is a horrible thing for one to learn, that he is damned. No wonder my atheist friend said, “If God existed, I would hate that bstard with all my might.” For him, the gospel is not good news, but bad news.

Even those who do not “feel” assured of their salvation may still be saved. It’s just that they do not know that they are saved.

 

[guanophore]

There’s totally nothing wrong with referring to another article. It just means that I am adopting the author’s position as mine, except for the first part wherein he discusses the different “cults”. I do not adopt that part.

You have admitted that you are adopting the opinions of persons outside the Apostolic Tradition. You have adopted extrabibilical traditions of men.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hmm…it seems this ‘evidence’ is actually a sort of retroactive causation. A case where the future affects the past. Even if we are saved by faith alone, we still have to frantically work hard to make sure our faith is true, saving faith.

If “true faith” naturally results in good works, then it seems that we are put into an even higher state of anxiety than before, wondering if our works are good enough to be evidence that our faith is “true” faith! It turns out we are in even worse off than before.

I think I would rather remain Catholic. We don’t have to worry about our faith; we come to Jesus and have faith in Him. Even Luther knew that: hang on to the Gospel. That’s something he got right.

Not really, because Protestants do not count their good works as “points” like the RCC does. We don’t even think about doing good works for they should come naturally without any effort on our part. I mean, it has effort of course but it doesn’t feel like it. In other words, we don’t feel as though we’re striving to do good works. Catholics, on the other hand, are ususally the ones who frantically work hard to earn enough points for salvation which they add to Christ’s work on the cross.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You have admitted that you are adopting the opinions of persons outside the Apostolic Tradition. You have adopted extrabibilical traditions of men.

And, furthermore- on what basis does one have to rely with such trust in such persons?
On what basis?

 

[Bengoshi]

On the contrary, Bengoshi, that is exactly when this term developed to describe the Church. It first appears in Luke 9:31, and was in regular use by the time the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century. Why would it be a problem if the NT Church was Catholic?

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

I actually have no real issue with the name “Catholic” but was just responding in passing to (who was that again?) when he was referring to Roman Cartholic. The church wasn’t Roman yet during the first century but only after Constantine adoopted it as the national religion of the Roman Empire. Even Protestants would claim to be members of the catholic (universal) church, but not the “Roman” Catholic Church under the bishop of Rome.

 

[Bengoshi]

So, just to be clear, if it is “impossible for those who have been truly saved by the grace of God through Jesus to not do good works” and “good works are evidence of a Christian’s faith”, it then follows that the absence of good works are evidence of a lack of faith and a lack of being truly saved? Yes or No, please, followed by any commentary you wish to add.

Blessings!

Correct!

Jesus said that “by their fruits you will recognize them.” If there has been no change at all in their lifestyle, then we can doubt that person’s faith and hence, his salvation.

 

[Bengoshi]

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.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I actually have no real issue with the name “Catholic” but was just responding in passing to (who was that again?) when he was referring to Roman Cartholic. The church wasn’t Roman yet during the first century but only after Constantine adoopted it as the national religion of the Roman Empire. Even Protestants would claim to be members of the catholic (universal) church, but not the “Roman” Catholic Church under the bishop of Rome.

Fine. Explain who was their Bishop during the first century then. I want a full explanation from the point of Jesus suffering and bloody dying on the cross to whenever you pick up after that. I never see a Crucifix anywhere but a Catholic Church, or Orthodox Church.
Where is your Crucifix? Are you ashamed of Christ as the bible states some will be?

 

[Bengoshi]

What?! The “once for all time” sacrifice of Christ somehow hasn’t atoned for these sins and they are counted against our eternal reward??? Are you on board with this Bengoshi???
But lets get back to the actual experience of differing rewards…

No, I don’t agree with him on this point. The good deeds that will be burned up are thjose done with selfish or ungodly motives. Sin will not cancel out our rewards bacause as you said, Christ has atoned for ALL of them.

 

[Bengoshi]

I guess, I for one, was misinterpreting your use of articles. I was presuming that you were quoting them because you thought that they were authoritative in some way. Instead, it seems that you are quoting them because they agree with you - but if that’s the only reason- why not just make the points yourself.

Well, it does save time and energy…

The implications of these two positions are rather important. If you quote someone as an authority, it means you are subservant to their position. In that case, I ask what makes that person authoritative to you?

I recognized that there are of course good theologians; but nobody is perfect so no person has monopoly of all truth.

If you see no one as authoritative, then I ask why you think you know better than anyone else the things that allow men to be saved.

The means to salvation is pretty clear from the Bible. Salvation is by GRACE through FAITH so that our doing of good deeds won’t have a selfish motive (at least it would be lessened).

For a Catholic, these things are easy. We follow the Pope and the magesterium’s teachings because we believe that they are the rightful successors to the apostles, appointed to teach the truth’s about salvation and administer the grace providing sacraments.

If you are not Catholic, then I understand the problem : there simply is no authority to turn to and you are forced to rely on your own intuition, even if you understand its limitations.

No person is absolutely infallible all of the time, even only when teaching on faith and morals.

 

[Bengoshi]

You are evangelical correct? Then why do you need this authour at all? I thought Evangelicals stressed how anyone can simply read their bible to know all they need to know about God’s ways. Was I wrong?

Of course we also accept scholarly work of other noted theologians. It’s just that we don’t recognize anyone as infallible like the Pope.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Of course we also accept scholarly work of other noted theologians. It’s just that we don’t recognize anyone as infallible like the Pope.

Define the pope’s infallibility and the responsibility that comes with it if you will be so kind.
Primary Sources only please.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Fine. Explain who was their Bishop during the first century then. I want a full explanation from the point of Jesus suffering and bloody dying on the cross to whenever you pick up after that. I never see a Crucifix anywhere but a Catholic Church, or Orthodox Church.
Where is your Crucifix? Are you ashamed of Christ as the bible states some will be?

Whenever you get a chance, can you address this question?

 

[guanophore]

Not really, because Protestants do not count their good works as “points” like the RCC does.

Can you please explain how this works? I have never heard of this, and I want to know if I can get any points!

Are they available to non-Roman Catholics also?

We don't even think about doing good works for they should come naturally without any effort on our part. I mean, it has effort of course but it doesn't feel like it. In other words, we don't feel as though we're striving to do good works

I find it curious that the Scriptures talk about striving, working, and suffering.

.

Catholics, on the other hand, are ususally the ones who frantically work hard to earn enough points for salvation which they add to Christ's work on the cross.

Can you give me a reference to Catholic teaching that explains how this is to be done?

Also, can you explain how anyone can “add” to Christ’s work on the cross?

 

[guanophore]

And, furthermore- on what basis does one have to rely with such trust in such persons?
On what basis?

On the basis that the commentator agrees with his own opinion.

 

[guanophore]

I actually have no real issue with the name “Catholic” but was just responding in passing to (who was that again?) when he was referring to Roman Cartholic. The church wasn’t Roman yet during the first century but only after Constantine adoopted it as the national religion of the Roman Empire. Even Protestants would claim to be members of the catholic (universal) church, but not the “Roman” Catholic Church under the bishop of Rome.

You have been given misinformation about the Catholic Church, Bengoshi. Rome became a doctrinal center and prime among the Apostolic Sees in the second half of the first century. The faith of the Roman Church was already known throughout the world (as Paul attests in his letter to them). But when Peter and Paul both went to Rome and labored there to build up the saints, it gained the reputation of solidity in doctrine and practice. All this occurred about 250 years before Constantine was born.

Also, your theory does not explain why all the Apostolic Sees that are not part of the Latin Rite have the same doctrines. These areas were never influenced by Constantine. How do you account for that?