Bottom line...

Scott said:

Yeah Scott I guess all those Christians the Catholics killed over the centuries were just narrow minded. To bad you weren't around then to straighten those narrow minded Christians out.

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky.

 

I agree largely with what Larry has written here. However I am not as quick to condemn all RCs to Hell as some on the board. If salvation truly comes down to whom you are trusting in for eternal life, then there are sincere RCs who are genuine believers. Does RC dogma teach a works-based salvation? As Larry has stated, this question has not been up for debate until recently. The dogma itself appears to teach a faith+ salvation. Does that mean that every RC is trusting in works for their salvation? Of course not. Just as there are many Protestants who also trust in works for their salvation. If a person truly understands RC doctrine, I believe it would be extremely unwise to remain in the system itself.

We must remember that the Reformation occurred for a reason.

 

I would like to see the portion of Trent to which you refer. Regardless of that, how would it be possible for sinful man to add anything to the righteousness of Christ? And, if the righteousness given (not given but imputed, BTW) is enough to allow entrance into Heaven, what is the purpose of Purgatory or increased righteousness through works?

Any person, Catholic or Protestant, who believes in Christ plus some meritorious work on their part for salvation is not saved. Anything else is not Biblical saving faith. The reason Catholicism teaches that you need to maintain your salvation through good works is that they don’t believe that Christ’s righteousness is sufficient in the first place. It’s not really maintenance anyway; it is increasing your righteousness until you are finally in a right standing before God. This is the difference between imputed righteousness (Bible) and infused righteousness (RCC).

No, Paul is dealing with false doctrine that had crept into the Galatian church. He is explaining the consequences and implications of a corruption of the gospel – specifically that circumcision was necessary to be saved. Those who were truly saved could not lose their salvation.

Andy

 

Here is something to ponder if you don't think that doctrine doesn't matter:

 

Also from the horses mouth:

 

Here is what Canon 1 says. You will notice that it doesn’t say anything about Christ’s work alone being sufficient for entrance into Heaven as you suggested. Rather, it only contends that our works are not sufficient in and of themselves for justification.

There is a Biblical caveat and that is faith in Christ alone.

OK, let’s go through the passage in Gal. 5 and see if we can see what Paul is saying here.

First, let’s establish that Paul is speaking about people who accept circumcision as a necessary requirement for a right standing before God (Gal. 5:2; c.f., Acts. 15:1). Now, no one today is advocating circumcision as a necessary work but legitimate parallels included faith in Christ + obedience to (1) any OT law – e.g., keeping the 10 commandments, or (2) any NT law – e.g., baptism, or (3) any other religious rite or requirement – e.g., sacraments.

According to Galatians 5, what are the consequences of such an erroneous position?

1. Christ is of no benefit to you (Gal. 5:2)
2. You are obligated to keep the entire law (Gal. 5:3; cf., Gal. 3:10; James 2:10)
3. You are severed from Christ (Gal. 5:4)
4. You are fallen from Grace (Gal. 5:4)

This last phrase does not mean that you have fallen from a position of right standing before God in grace; it means that you have abandoned grace as the basis for your relationship to God. Your new basis is keeping some law or performing some ritual. It is saying the same thing as Romans 4:4 and Gal. 2:21.

Those who attempt to add works to their faith for a right standing before God diminish the effort that Christ performed on our behalf. Jesus paid it all. Salvation is All of Grace. If we try to add our works to Christ’s work, then salvation is no longer of grace but obligation. So I say again, saving faith is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This is the historic and Biblical position.


Andy

 

Haven't we drifted a LOOOOONG way from "What is required for a person to be saved?"

In Christ,
Trotter

 

A true believer does not believe in Christ + his works. Once you add works into the equation, the warnings of Galatians 5 apply. Once you allow for the possiblity that belief in Christ alone is not sufficient for salvation, then Biblically, you are no longer believing in Christ. Galatians 5 is pretty explicit -- Christ doesn't benefit you, you have to obey the entire law, you are severed from Christ, and outside or fallen from grace. What is it about these four consequences that you don't understand. It is what the Bible plainly teaches.

Andy

 

It is because “severed from Christ” simply means to be separate from Christ, or “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (KJV), or “alienated from Christ” (NIV). Paul is not talking about losing one’s salvation. Why do you keep bringing that up? Paul does say in Gal. 5:1 that saved individuals should stand fast in the freedom of the true gospel. False teachers can tempt saved people to put on the yoke of bondage again, but it is wrong to do so. It doesn’t cause them to lose their salvation but it does harm the truth of the gospel for others. That is why Paul rebuked Peter so dramatically back in Gal. 2.

No, Galatians 5:6 confirms my point. Neither Circumcision nor uncircumcision has any saving value. The only thing of value is the right type of faith. Well, Paul just finished warning the Galatians about the wrong type of faith – faith that believes you have to contribute some work to your salvation. Saving faith will express itself in love (Gal. 5:6) and good works (James 2), contra Trent Canon 24, but it will also have as its one and only object the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, “if that faith is there, and if it is expressing itself through love” then, yes, that person is in Christ. But if a person believes he is contributing something to the righteousness needed for justification and a right standing before God then that person has defective faith and that faith will not save.

But Catholics don’t believe, if the follow their church’s doctrine, in justification through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Can’t you see why Catholic doctrine is so damaging? It is so close to the truth. What they add seems so innocent. Yet it leads their followers to a position apart from Christ and apart from grace. How sad, yet that is exactly what Galatians 5 teaches.

Andy

 

No. People who are genuinely saved do not fall into false doctrine, idolatry, and a corrupt system that denies the sufficiency of Christ.

 

You are wrong about what you think these phrases mean. I have already explained this once but let me try again. Paul is not arguing than people can lose their salvation. Think about the context. The entire book of Galatians was written to combat perversions of the gospel. If you add something to the requirements of the gospel, such as circumcision or anything else, then you fall under the 4-fold commendation found in Galatians 5. By introducing the idea of losing your salvation, you are missing the whole point of this passage.

“Fallen from grace” means that you have fallen from a position where God’s grace is of benefit to you. “Alienated from Christ” means that you alienated yourself from the benefits of Christ’s perfect righteousness. Neither of these two statements implies that the person has ever been in Christ or saved by grace.

No, we don’t agree, yet. Here is a key difference between Catholic teaching and Biblical Christianity. The Bible teaches that justification is a one time act, a declaration that a man is righteous. It is not a process by which a man is made righteous. Catholic doctrine, OTOH, teaches what you just said – that you have to further your salvation or become more righteous through good works. For the Catholic, justification is a process of infused righteousness over time. So, for the Catholic, the righteousness of Christ is not sufficient for their salvation. Their salvation requires a lifetime of sacramental works. This is adding to the gospel and such additions bring them under the 4-fold condemnation of Galatians 5.

You are trying to shoe horn Catholic teaching and experience into what we as Bible believing Christians understand about the Gospel in spite of the fact that Trent specifically denies and condemns what you are saying.

What do you think Trent 1 says? I already quoted Trent 1 and it doesn’t saying anything about the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness. Again, Trent condemns what you are trying to say about Catholicism. You are getting shot at from both sides. If I were you, I’d pick a side and fight with them.

The important thing is to follow Biblical doctrine 100%. Yes, a person in a Catholic church who is truly saved is not following Catholic doctrine 100%. I don’t know how many such people truly have a saving relationship with Christ. I have known some, I think, but most are very confused and have no assurance of salvation. I’m not sure I agree with your final statement. At least I wouldn’t put it in those terms. Saved people can fall into doctrinal error, of course, even tempted to think it is possible to lose one’s salvation. However, I think some doctrinal positions, if truly believed, indicate that a person was never saved to begin with. For example, denying the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and I would say, the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

I bet you do but you are fighting the wrong enemy. Sure, there are some "fundamentalists" who do the cause of Christ no good. I don't deny that. But as a movement, Biblical Fundamentalism stands for the truth of the gospel. You can't say that about the RCC.


Andy

 

A saved person will be led into truth, not error. If a person is saved but believing something contrary to God's Word, the Spirit will reveal that to them, they will not continue to believe that doctrine, support the error once it is revealed, or participate in leading others into that same false doctrine.

If a person believed in a Christ that required them to be baptized or anything other work for salvation, they are not saved. How can a Catholic believe in the real Christ when their church does not teach about Him. They teach "another Jesus" one that requires Works for salvation. That is not the Christ of the Bible. Catholics don't hear about salvation by grace alone. If they believed in the real Christ, they did so apart from their church and the Holy Spirit will begin to reveal to them the truth about their church.

Once there were people who began to see the errors in that church, and they tried to "reform" it. We know from history that they were murdered and tortured for doing so. The Catholic church has no desire to be corrected, so leaving the church would be the only option to a true believer. To stay within it, you must adhere to their doctrines otherwise you are "anathema". They do not allow fellowship with disagreement on these doctrines either. I already showed the documents that prove this. There is no middle ground.

~Lorelei

 

Scott, you make a good point. How many of us just assume that our interpretation of Scripture, particularly the Gospel, is the correct one and has always been believed by "true" Christians everywhere. Luther not only espoused infant baptism but he also taught that it was necessary for salvation. Is he in hell because of this? All the early Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching "baptismal regeneration". Were they not truly saved either?