Why should He let you in?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timmy_Z
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timmy_Z said:
Contarini,

I was interested in people’s perceptions on how they are justified and if they have assurance of Salvation. Also, I honestly frequently think about what it will be like to be before God and how I will be viewed. I do not in any way believe I can haggle with God. How have I blasphemed God in this thread?

-Tim
Click to expand...
There is no Assurance of Salvation. The only assurance is that we shall be judged worthy or unworthy.
 
Timmy_Z said:
Looking for the RCC perspective…

After death when you are standing before the big gate of heaven reviewing your life with the Lord and he asks why should He let you in; what would your response be?

Thanks,
Tim
Click to expand...
Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Code: 
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,

naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Code: 
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
Code: 
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
**1741 **Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. “For freedom Christ has set us free.” In him we have communion with the “truth that makes us free.” The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Already we glory in the “liberty of the children of God.”
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**183 **Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (*Mk *16:16).
Click to expand...
'Nuff said.
 
Adrift, you are the first one to answer the question, “what does Jesus say we will be judged by?”.

I’m still looking for Timmy (why do I see a little South Park character when I type “Timmy”?) to give me his take on it.
 
I don’t want to be undermining the respected authority of the MOD’s, but I feel this thread is going off topic just a wee bit. So uh, yeah.
 
TimmyZ,
I thought your question was a good one. Catholics and Protestants do view the assurance of Salvation differently and it mertits discussion.

Regarding the Catholic woman you knew who said she will go to heaven because she is “good” - likewise, there are Protestants who might say they accepted Jesus so it doesn’t matter WHAT they do. Both answers are off the mark, wouldn’t you agree?

God Bless,
CM
 
Do all of you realize that the question in the OP is from a Protestant evangelism method called “Evangelism Explosion” , designed by Pastor D.James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church?

I have never been through EE training, but many of my Protestant friends have been through it. This question is one that you are supposed to ask people in order to get a discussion going that will give you an opportunity to “share Christ.”

So it’s an excellent discussion topic for this CAF. Eventually, all of you will probably meet up with an EE graduate who will ask you this question. It would sure be nice to have a sensible and thoughtful answer ready, wouldn’t it?

Yes, I agree that it’s a presumptuous question, but I would hesitate to call it blasphemous. If a well-meaning Protestant asks you the question, and you call it blasphemous, you will certainly not endear yourself to that Protestant. They would consider your comment to be rude and hostile, and probably not be willing to listen to anything else you have to say, or to your personal testimony about the Catholic Church. The Catechism tells us that whenever possible we are to maintain dialogue with Protestants. Scaring them away by condemning them as “blasphemers” certainly isn’t what the Catechism tells us to do.
 
I’d wave my OSAS licence.
Then I’d sail by and say, " You have to let Me in, So There! "
 
I_Leatherman said:
I’d wave my OSAS licence.
Then I’d sail by and say, " You have to let Me in, So There! "
Click to expand...
Or, as an atheist philosopher said on his death-bed (I’ve forgotten which philosopher it was, now), “It’s His job to forgive me! Isn’t it … ?” 🤷
 
Why should he let me in?

Because I’m gonna be banging on those doors till the cows come home, dressed in sack cloth and ashes, begging for mercy until those doors do open up. And I’m dragging the rest of my family in with me, too.

Or else there’s Plan B- come disquised as a plumber, telling Him I’m there to fix the pipes, and then just hide out for a while!🙂
 
Timmy_Z said:
Edwin,

It was a ficticious antedote that I thought illustrated beliefs on justification. I do not believe the scenario will actually happen.
Click to expand...
But you do seem to think that it’s important for people to know on what basis they have assurance of salvation. I know that you don’t think the metaphor is literal (well, I wasn’t sure, but I wasn’t banking on the notion that you did). But you think the metaphor is appropriat. I don’t.

Saving faith looks at Christ, not at ourselves. The metaphor is wrong because it conflates two things–justifying faith which flings itself on the mercy of Christ, and the final judgment which is about works. Your metaphor sets us up so that if we say that the final judgment is based on works (as it clearly is if we take Scripture seriously instead of explaining it away by expedients such as separating the “judgment seat of Christ” from the “Great White Throne judgment” and so on), then we are saying that we are going to claim entrance to heaven based on our works. This allows you to accuse us of self-righteousness. But since the metaphor is absurd and blasphemous in the first place, this argument does not work. We do not look at our works and judge them worthy. We fling ourselves on God’s mercy, knowing that our works are always imperfect and insufficient but that they are also the means by which God makes us the sort of beings who can enjoy being with Him for all eternity.
“A rich man bestows, on a poor and famished beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive? Can it be said with propriety that “the alms depend partly on the liberality of the donor, and partly on the liberty of the receiver,” though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand?..If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine Grace are required!”
Click to expand...
No beggar was ever fed simply by reaching out his hand and accepting money. The beggar has to use the money to buy food (rather than, say, alcohol), and take the food home to his family. I agree entirely that our reception of grace requires an act of will, but that this does not take away from the gratuity of God’s grace. However, this reception of grace involves doing the appropriate things with it, just as reception of alms does. And, of course, the analogy breaks down because God is the one working in us to will and do of His good pleasure, so that all our good works are God’s works.

IN Christ,

Edwin
 
God: “Why should I let you into heaven?”
Tim: “I am unworthy, but have confidence in your promise in your Scriptures to save those who believed in your Son.”
Click to expand...
Your answer would deliver you straight to hell IMHO.

The first part of your answer is true.

The second part is not true in it’s entirety. You believe in Jesus on the surface, but you did not believe in Jesus to the core of your being. You do not believe everything that Jesus commanded, directed, and taught. You have a distorted vision of what is biblical truth. The RCC must be wrong, so you must find an alternative interprepation even unto those scriptures that are blatantly Catholic.
 
mommyof4 said:
Why should he let me in?

Because I’m gonna be banging on those doors till the cows come home, dressed in sack cloth and ashes, begging for mercy until those doors do open up. And I’m dragging the rest of my family in with me, too.

Or else there’s Plan B- come disquised as a plumber, telling Him I’m there to fix the pipes, and then just hide out for a while!🙂
Click to expand...
I think you have hit upon the key basis: mercy.
 
**[Contarini;2118852]**But you do seem to think that it’s important for people to know on what basis they have assurance of salvation. I know that you don’t think the metaphor is literal (well, I wasn’t sure, but I wasn’t banking on the notion that you did). But you think the metaphor is appropriat. I don’t.

Saving faith looks at Christ, not at ourselves. The metaphor is wrong because it conflates two things–justifying faith which flings itself on the mercy of Christ, and the final judgment which is about works. Your metaphor sets us up so that if we say that the final judgment is based on works (as it clearly is if we take Scripture seriously instead of explaining it away by expedients such as separating the “judgment seat of Christ” from the “Great White Throne judgment” and so on), then we are saying that we are going to claim entrance to heaven based on our works. This allows you to accuse us of self-righteousness. But since the metaphor is absurd and blasphemous in the first place, this argument does not work. We do not look at our works and judge them worthy. We fling ourselves on God’s mercy, knowing that our works are always imperfect and insufficient but that they are also the means by which God makes us the sort of beings who can enjoy being with Him for all eternity.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the justified DO fling themselves on God’s mercy just as the tax collector did in Luke 18:11-14

“The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
The Pharisee tried to obligate God to save him by boasting in himself and his own personal works or personal goodness like those in Mt 25:41-46.
The tax collector obviously obeyed God by acknowledging he needed mercy of Him (as we all do) but he humbled himself before God knowing he wasn’t worthy of heaven and didn’t boast in himself but humbled himself before God. Jesus said the tax collector was justified; this is analogous to those in Mt 25:31-40 who did these things to the least of them doing them actually to Jesus.
No beggar was ever fed simply by reaching out his hand and accepting money. The beggar has to use the money to buy food (rather than, say, alcohol), and take the food home to his family. I agree entirely that our reception of grace requires an act of will, but that this does not take away from the gratuity of God’s grace. However, this reception of grace involves doing the appropriate things with it, just as reception of alms does. And, of course, the analogy breaks down because God is the one working in us to will and do of His good pleasure, so that all our good works are God’s works.

IN Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Right. Even though God’s grace is a gift so are the works we receive from Him, they are a gift also Eph 2:10. And a gift is free but that doesn’t mean we can dishonor the gift we’ve been given and if we do dishonor that gift then we dishonor the one who gave it to us.
And you are right, our works i.e., Mt 25:34-40 aren’t actually our works but God’s works in and through us. He allows us to do His works so that we don’t actually take credit for them (for we can’t) because they are His as is everything.

St. Augustine said…
“Since only grace makes every good merit of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but His own gifts.” De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: Ep. 154, 5.16:"
 
Harsalter said:
She is in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...
Recently a priest at Sunday Mass said in his homily that we are not called upon to be good … we are called upon to be HOLY.

Big difference.

Being good or living a good life is not enough.

Someone said that they didn’t go to Mass but they led a good life … not enough; they have to do both. They have to be HOLY.

Think about the differences in one’s “lifestyle” … being “good” versus being “holy”.

Whoa!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top