What must I do to be saved?

[TommyWommy]

Think about all the early Christians. They probably never knew the reasons behind the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter. Yet they believed. That was because they knew that the only REASONABLE thing to do if they wanted to follow Christ was to believe what his Apostles are teaching. Actually, they didn’t have much choice back then because they couldn’t read and study the bible for themselves. They no choice but to trust the overseers of the church.

Having the Bible to read and study does not automatically come with the ability to properly understand and interpret the Bible. That is why Peter said there are things hard to understand, and that Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. What was true then is true now: we need to follow the Church. We are told to take disputes among bretheren to the Church for a reason. What if a Methodist has a dispute with a Baptist? Which “church” do they take it to? An invisible church of believers? Makes no sense then or now.

 

[fhansen]

Think about all the early Christians. They probably never knew the reasons behind the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter. Yet they believed. That was because they knew that the only REASONABLE thing to do if they wanted to follow Christ was to believe what his Apostles are teaching. Actually, they didn’t have much choice back then because they couldn’t read and study the bible for themselves. They no choice but to trust the overseers of the church.

Yes, this was true in the beginning, and for my semi-literate grandmother who grew up in the Italian Alps, and still holds true for Catholics today, even if we now have the benefit of being able to research things more deeply. Sainthood often blossoms in a person who received God’s Word through relatively unsaintly (sometimes very unsaintly) humans.

 

[Leadee]

Actually, great question.

So the sin of Adam and Eve is that they knew PERFECTLY through REASON that God exists, God created the world and they decided to have FAITH in the Devil’s promises/claims instead. I thought sin of Adam and Eve was rebellion due to pride. They listened to the tempter and decided that they wanted to know as much as God, which is elevating self.

So that case is similar to someone who would arrive at Christianity through Reason, but then say “I know God loves me, but I don’t want to trust him. I want to do things my own way”. - If a person knows God loves them and rejects Him, they are chosing to put thier faith in themselves and not Him.

We can’t throw reasoning out the window. The bible says to worship God in spirit and in truth. In order to understand truth one has to do some reasoning. That being said, you cannot find God by sheer mental ascent. Even the demons believe. There will always be a faith factor involved.

Therefore the sin of Adam and Eve was actually not that they didn’t use reason. They used Reason because they were given a perfect ability to Reason before the fall. The SIN was that even with that perfect reason, they didn’t trust God.I’m not sure it’s necessarily a matter that they didn’t trust God, they rebelled against Him by choosing not to obey HIm, therefore elevating self and not putting Him first. I think the problem is the same for every human being since then. The bible says we know in our heart that God exists because Romans 1:20 says -" For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." so it always boils down to a matter of who or what you decide to put your fatih in.

So to tie back to my previous reply, Reason can tell us with CERTAINTY what God promises and who he is. But, we have to have FAITH in his promises in the end. - Very well put. What Adam and Eve did wrong was that they decided to have FAITH in the Devil’s words instead.

God wants us to LOVE him. That means to freely choose him. He tells us CLEARLY what he promises and we discover this through reason. No lover makes vague promises or makes it uncertain for the beloved to know what he means, right? So God, also does not keep us guessing. He gives us reason to discover his promises. But like a good spouse, we have to freely choose to trust him and love him back. - Amen!

 

[Tomster]

Think about all the early Christians. They probably never knew the reasons behind the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter. Yet they believed. That was because they knew that the only REASONABLE thing to do if they wanted to follow Christ was to believe what his Apostles are teaching. Actually, they didn’t have much choice back then because they couldn’t read and study the bible for themselves. They no choice but to trust the overseers of the church.

Whether you are aware of it or not, you have just made a great case for Sacred Tradition!

Good job!

 

[Tomster]

Having the Bible to read and study does not automatically come with the ability to properly understand and interpret the Bible. That is why Peter said there are things hard to understand, and that Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. What was true then is true now: we need to follow the Church. We are told to take disputes among bretheren to the Church for a reason. What if a Methodist has a dispute with a Baptist? Which “church” do they take it to? An invisible church of believers? Makes no sense then or now.

 

[Leadee]

Having the Bible to read and study does not automatically come with the ability to properly understand and interpret the Bible. That is why Peter said there are things hard to understand, and that Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. What was true then is true now: we need to follow the Church. We are told to take disputes among bretheren to the Church for a reason. What if a Methodist has a dispute with a Baptist? Which “church” do they take it to? An invisible church of believers? Makes no sense then or now.

The church is there for many reasons and one of the most important is for accountability. I keep hearing about the protestant church having all sorts of theology but the truth is, they all agree on the foundational truth of the Gospel. The things they disagree on are minor things that do not change the foundation. The foundational cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ and on it is built the church, it’s not the other way around. The core of christian belief is the good news of the Kingdom, which is the saving mercy and grace of our Lord.

There will always be some differences, even among catholics. I know lots of catholics and every last one of them has issue with at least one or two things in the catholic church and base their beliefs on it. There is not perfect unity in the whole church no matter where you go because there are no perfect people. We are being perfected though in Christ

 

[Tomster]

Why do Protestants insist that good works are not part of their salvation when “accepting Christ as personal Lord and Saviour” is a good work? It is an act of the will, and a prerequisite for salvation. It is something they “do.” Without that act of “doing” they remain unsaved. “Faith alone” is a faith that has been left standing by itself with no action to accompany it. There is no laying down of the nets and following Jesus with “faith alone.”

When faith enters the picture it brings along with it the following question: "Now that faith is here, what are you going to do about it? The Protestant answer is: “I’m going to say the sinner’s prayer. I’m going to accept Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. Then I will be saved!” By so doing, they have affirmed that salvation is faith plus works, for no Protestant I have ever met will tell me they got saved by faith, period. They always add to it the need to act upon that faith by making a choice, and not leave faith standing alone in the rain all by itself. They must now DO SOMETHING! They must say the sinner’s prayer or something akin to it.

In 20+ years of being Protestant in various denominations, and 20+ years of being Catholic, I have never met a soul that was saved without including some act of “doing,” some “choice” by someone other than God in the process, a submission of the will. Protestant theology has simply narrowed down the “works” to one “work” (i.e. the sinner’s prayer or something like it).

I might even go so far as to suggest that since having faith is itself a form of surrender, that faith itself is a kind of “work” if only mentally and not bodily. Trying to divorce faith from works is futile. It’s like trying to follow Jesus while still hanging on to your fishing net.

Ah! The sinner’s prayer. . .

Here is one form of it that I came across recently.

“You must be born again. Realize you are a sinner. Believe on Him as the one who . . . died in your place, was buried and was raised for your justification. Call upon Him. Lift your heart to God in prayer. Just say: Oh God, I am a sinner, I am sorry, I repent, have mercy upon me, and save me for Jesus’ sake. Now just take Him at His Word. Claim your salvation by faith.”

Now, here is the true biblical form.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Matthew 22:37-39). If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). Labor the more, that by thy good works you may make sure your calling and election (2 Peter 1:10).”

The first plan is simple and easy. The biblical plan, God’s plan, is simple but hard. Note there are no references in the first plan to biblical texts. This is because these words are not in the Bible.

The reader of the first plan would well be advised to remember that when we are judged, we will stand before Christ our Lord. He will judge us. It is His standards we will be measured against. It is true that He alone can save save us. The prudent soul will make an earnest effort to determine what it is he has to do, so the He will.

Those of us who find the first plan somewhat depressing can take comfort in the fact that there is a real Bible-loving Church, the Catholic Church which, with God’s real plan for salvation in hand, does know the way to heaven.

 

[Tomster]

The church is there for many reasons and one of the most important is for accountability. I keep hearing about the protestant church having all sorts of theology but the truth is, they all agree on the foundational truth of the Gospel. The things they disagree on are minor things that do not change the foundation. The foundational cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ and on it is built the church, it’s not the other way around. The core of christian belief is the good news of the Kingdom, which is the saving mercy and grace of our Lord.

There will always be some differences, even among catholics. I know lots of catholics and every last one of them has issue with at least one or two things in the catholic church and base their beliefs on it. There is not perfect unity in the whole church no matter where you go because there are no perfect people. We are being perfected though in Christ

In your first paragraph, you have touched on the topic of the “essentials.” Please explain to us what are those “essentials” that Protestants agree upon and who, among Protestants, has the authority to establish those “essentials”?

 

[Tomster]

The church is there for many reasons and one of the most important is for accountability. I keep hearing about the protestant church having all sorts of theology but the truth is, they all agree on the foundational truth of the Gospel. The things they disagree on are minor things that do not change the foundation. The foundational cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ and on it is built the church, it’s not the other way around. The core of christian belief is the good news of the Kingdom, which is the saving mercy and grace of our Lord.

There will always be some differences, even among catholics. I know lots of catholics and every last one of them has issue with at least one or two things in the catholic church and base their beliefs on it. There is not perfect unity in the whole church no matter where you go because there are no perfect people. We are being perfected though in Christ

In your second paragraph you state that lots of Catholics have issues with at least one or two things in the Catholic Church. These people are rightly regarded as dissenters. Essentially, that is a characteristic of Protestantism. By dissenting, they are going against the biblical truism that the Church is the pillar and bullwork of truth.

 

[Tomster]

Think about all the early Christians. They probably never knew the reasons behind the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter. Yet they believed. That was because they knew that the only REASONABLE thing to do if they wanted to follow Christ was to believe what his Apostles are teaching. Actually, they didn’t have much choice back then because they couldn’t read and study the bible for themselves. They no choice but to trust the overseers of the church.

Leadee,

By your own admission from the above statement, you have shown yourself to be a believer in Sacred Tradition. What remains for you to discern is which group of “overseers of the Church” are giving you the proper biblical exegesis [translated: oral instruction].

You have to ask yourself is it within worldwide Protestantism, whose “overseers” cannot agree on what the “essentials of faith” are? Or is it the Catholic Church who has been preaching the undiluted biblical truth for over 2,000 years.

 

[Leadee]

The summary of my understanding thus far is, catholics believe that you are not saved by faith alone. You are saved by grace but the grace is not sufficient to cover all your sins at one time because when you sin after you are saved you still have to do something to atone for those sins. Where’s the good news in that? It seems to me like a cruel joke to me. It’s like saying to someone - “I forgive you, come on in and be mine, I love you. But if you mess up you’re out again until you pay for your sin, then you can come back in. If you are really good, I mean PERFECT, then you can stay in for good.” How is that not completely conditional love?

The other choice would be that you are saved by grace through faith. God’s love is unconditional and all you have to do is receive it. He sent His only Son to pay the price for your sin (who’s blood is sufficient to cover all sin if applied by faith) so that you can come in and stay in, not having to worry about being perfect first. Instead of having to perfect yourself, having sin out of the way, God works in you to perfect you. Instead of working for your salvation you are working it out with His help. This option sure sounds like good news to me.

I’m sure people have a problem with this second option because that would mean having to trust God completely by faith and would mean they really don’t have any control in the matter because you have to hand all control over to God in submission. After all, isn’t this why we fell away from God in the first place, so that we could know enough to do our own thing without having to completely trust Him?

 

[Tomster]

The summary of my understanding thus far is, catholics believe that you are not saved by faith alone. You are saved by grace but the grace is not sufficient to cover all your sins at one time because when you sin after you are saved you still have to do something to atone for those sins. Where’s the good news in that? It seems to me like a cruel joke to me. It’s like saying to someone - “I forgive you, come on in and be mine, I love you. But if you mess up you’re out again until you pay for your sin, then you can come back in. If you are really good, I mean PERFECT, then you can stay in for good.” How is that not completely conditional love?

The other choice would be that you are saved by grace through faith. God’s love is unconditional and all you have to do is receive it. He sent His only Son to pay the price for your sin (who’s blood is sufficient to cover all sin if applied by faith) so that you can come in and stay in, not having to worry about being perfect first. Instead of having to perfect yourself, having sin out of the way, God works in you to perfect you. Instead of working for your salvation you are working it out with His help. This option sure sounds like good news to me.

I’m sure people have a problem with this second option because that would mean having to trust God completely by faith and would mean they really don’t have any control in the matter because you have to hand all control over to God in submission. After all, isn’t this why we fell away from God in the first place, so that we could know enough to do our own thing without having to completely trust Him?

Re-read your your first paragraph please. Your premise is faulty. No man can claim to be totally saved while he is still breathing. Total assurance of salvation (or damnation) occurs the split second after you die.

 

[Cruxis117]

In my earlier post, I gave you the specifics of exactly where I got it. If this isn’t good enough, We can no longer have a discussion about this topic. I have shown you both in the bible and the catholic catechism that corroborate my view.

No, what you showed me was your interpretation of the few CCC paragraphs you quoted, which you then tried to inject sola scriptura into. These passages did not corroborate with your view of “The Gospel is the Bible” and therefore “Must be the source of all truth!”.

You can disagree all you want, but my work is done. Obviously you have your own opinion and I have mine. Therefore my brother in Christ. I wish you the best, may God bless you. There is no reason to be in contention. The bible also warns about that also.

To a certain extent, I completely agree, we do have different opinions and we are brothers in Christ. And may God bless you as well, my friend What I must say with all charity, however, is that Paul exhorts us to have unity amongst one another in mind and in spirit, and if we’re to ever have that unity, it must be in sound doctrine too, yes? If I have sounded rude in this post, I completely apologize.

Romans 2​

The Impartiality of God

** 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things**. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7** to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life**; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law,** are a law to themselves**, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

(fpesce) - you might think this passage coroborates your position and it does. But keep reading…

Alrighty, I’m still reading.

 

[Cruxis117]

Justification by Faith

  21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He **would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. **      27Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. **28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.** 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 

  31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

And with this entire passage I agree entirely. Especially on which works Paul is speaking in regards to:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

We remember that in the preceding chapters and verses of Romans, Paul is speaking about such things as circumcision, and in regards to how the Gentiles kept the Law when the Jews did not. The point I’m trying to make here is that yes, I agree that faith justifies. But what kind of faith? There are some verses which explain what faith justifies and what faith doesn’t justify:

Faith that Justifies
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 5:6[/BIBLEDRB]

Faith that does not Justify.
[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24-26[/BIBLEDRB]

I could go on and on, but at this point I know your heart is hardened to your own beliefs and you will not deviate. But I post this for all other readers of this post so you may know the truth and believe. If you believe you will be saved. Those are Jesus’s word. Can’t argue with that at all.

Trust me, my friend, most, if not all, posters on this good website truly believe in our Lord and Saviour. But, as James warns us, just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. And what is dead is also useless.

People will say it is MY interpretation. So I encourage you to read the Word for yourself. Invite Holy Spirit to give you the revelation of truth. Don’t take my word for it. Go the the bible, go to the Catechism and read for yourself from the beginning to the end, not one quote at a time. Seriously, THIS IS FOR YOUR ETERNAL SALVATION. Don’t go by what other people of friends tell you. God gave you a mind, use it. When you arrive at heaven’s gates, it is not going to do any good to use the excuse to say you had been deceived. It’s up to you. Let the Holy Spirit of God guide you.

I completely agree, we must let the Holy Spirit guide us, but the Body of Christ has teachers of sound doctrine to make sure that we do not twist the scriptures, as others do to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Furthermore, we must always remember that the Holy Spirit does not lead different men into different doctrinal points in the One Body. While men may serve different but equally important purposes for the Body, all men must be of one mind and one spirit. And the Holy Spirit does not lead to disunity, but to the unity of the Body.

 

[Tomster]

The summary of my understanding thus far is, catholics believe that you are not saved by faith alone. You are saved by grace but the grace is not sufficient to cover all your sins at one time because when you sin after you are saved you still have to do something to atone for those sins. Where’s the good news in that? It seems to me like a cruel joke to me. It’s like saying to someone - “I forgive you, come on in and be mine, I love you. But if you mess up you’re out again until you pay for your sin, then you can come back in. If you are really good, I mean PERFECT, then you can stay in for good.” How is that not completely conditional love?

The other choice would be that you are saved by grace through faith. God’s love is unconditional and all you have to do is receive it. He sent His only Son to pay the price for your sin (who’s blood is sufficient to cover all sin if applied by faith) so that you can come in and stay in, not having to worry about being perfect first. Instead of having to perfect yourself, having sin out of the way, God works in you to perfect you. Instead of working for your salvation you are working it out with His help. This option sure sounds like good news to me.

I’m sure people have a problem with this second option because that would mean having to trust God completely by faith and would mean they really don’t have any control in the matter because you have to hand all control over to God in submission. After all, isn’t this why we fell away from God in the first place, so that we could know enough to do our own thing without having to completely trust Him?

Your second paragraph sounds somewhat Catholic. One part of this paragraph is definately Protestant though, the part concerning the covering of sin. God does not “cover” our sins. He roots them out of us and throws them into the abyss of His Divine Mercy. We are truly, literally, cleansed of sin. We are not still a “dungheap” covered by Christ’s sacrifice as Martin Luther once taught

The Catholic part of this paragraph, that we are working out our salvation with His help, is true and biblical. The Once Saved Always Saved concept taught in many Protestant churches is not biblical.

 

[fhansen]

The summary of my understanding thus far is, catholics believe that you are not saved by faith alone. You are saved by grace but the grace is not sufficient to cover all your sins at one time because when you sin after you are saved you still have to do something to atone for those sins. Where’s the good news in that? It seems to me like a cruel joke to me. It’s like saying to someone - “I forgive you, come on in and be mine, I love you. But if you mess up you’re out again until you pay for your sin, then you can come back in. If you are really good, I mean PERFECT, then you can stay in for good.” How is that not completely conditional love?

Because sin is our opposition to God. Why would God want to leave us in opposition to all that is right and good?

The other choice would be that you are saved by grace through faith. God’s love is unconditional and all you have to do is receive it.

Gods love is unconditional but our receiving it is conditioned upon* us*-on the disposition of our wills. IOW, we can accept or reject His grace.

 

[paul_c]

Think about all the early Christians. They probably never knew the reasons behind the teachings of St. Paul or St. Peter. Yet they believed. That was because they knew that the only REASONABLE thing to do if they wanted to follow Christ was to believe what his Apostles are teaching. Actually, they didn’t have much choice back then because they couldn’t read and study the bible for themselves. They no choice but to trust the overseers of the church.

Thye had the same choice that you do: they could believe what the Church teaches or they could dismiss it and believe what they wanted to believe.

 

[David_Castlen]

There will always be some differences, even among catholics. I know lots of catholics and every last one of them has issue with at least one or two things in the catholic church and base their beliefs on it. There is not perfect unity in the whole church no matter where you go because there are no perfect people. We are being perfected though in Christ

**These are people that call themselves Catholics: those who object to the basic tenents of the faith; e.g., those supporting contraception. These people are CINOs, Catholic In Name Only. Prostestantism allows so very much leyway that one can believe nearly anything and still be a protestant; not so for Catholism. And Catholicism never changes its basic tenets; protestantism does; e.g., contraception, divorce and it (protestism) beliefs evolve and create new denominations. If our leaders (Catholic leaders) would hold us to the fire we may loose a lot of attendants but we would be stronger and begin to growing faster.
**

 

[Tomster]

Because sin is our opposition to God. Why would God want to leave us in opposition to all that is right and good?

Gods love is unconditional but our receiving it is conditioned upon* us*-on the disposition of our wills. IOW, we can accept or reject His grace.

Generally speaking, ol’ Marty (Luther), really did a job on many, many souls down through the centuries by teaching that the individual is totally corrupt and that man’s free will is useless. It’s one of the biggest hangovers I ever seen. Devastating, just devastating!

 

[TommyWommy]

The church is there for many reasons and one of the most important is for accountability. I keep hearing about the protestant church having all sorts of theology but the truth is, they all agree on the foundational truth of the Gospel. The things they disagree on are minor things that do not change the foundation. The foundational cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ and on it is built the church, it’s not the other way around. The core of christian belief is the good news of the Kingdom, which is the saving mercy and grace of our Lord.

There will always be some differences, even among catholics. I know lots of catholics and every last one of them has issue with at least one or two things in the catholic church and base their beliefs on it. There is not perfect unity in the whole church no matter where you go because there are no perfect people. We are being perfected though in Christ

Again, which “church” do we take these disagreements to, Catholic or otherwise? Which “church” has the authority to say “You are out of line and you must now be treated as a pagan or a tax collector” as Matthew says?