Bottom line...

[Jailminister]

Scott said:

Or perhaps it was the narrow mindedness that existed for so long, and still continues today that has caused such a hatred for each other. Perhaps we need to all realize that God saves us not based upon our doctrine, but upon our belief in Jesus Christ. Perhaps that is what has been missed for so long.

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.

 

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It is interesting how an "enlightened" generation supports the Catholic church while denying what the Catholic church affirms. These issues have historically been black and white. This new found "grayness" was known neither to the Reformers or the Catholics. They both clearly understood the other side and knew that the other side understood them. There was none of this, "You really just don't understand what we teach." No, there were all out battles over the doctrine of justification. In this kindler, gentler world, we have those who deny what was clear to multitudes of generations before us. It boggles my mind to think why that is so. The Catholics have had no problem for hundreds of years telling us that we are wrong. And rightly so ... If what they teach is true, we are wrong. There is no middle ground. By the same token, evangelicals, for hundreds of years, have told the Catholics that they are wrong. And rightly so ... For is the evangelical is right, than the Catholic is wrong.

Why now, at the down of the 21st century, do we pretend like Trent and Vatican I and II never existed? Why do we pretend like the doctrines taught by the RCC for centuries and never repudiated by them are suddenly different than what the RCC has taught?

Let there be no mistake. These issues will not be solve by the ecumenists saying, "you just don't know what they really teach." To the contrary, people have known what they have taught for hundreds of years and stood against it to the point of death. It is only now that some are confused because of narrow minded thinking and unwillingness to view the historical landscape at large.

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.

 

[aefting]

Originally posted by Scott:
But look to see if the initial righteousness given by Christ is enough to allow entrance to Heaven. You'll also find that in the Council of Trent document.

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?

And I'm in agreement with you. However, are you willing to say that Catholics cannot be saved by believing in Jesus Christ because they believe that they have to maintain their salvation through good 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).

But read carefully and you will see that they were never believers in Christ to begin with. THAT'S the difference. This brings up another question - is it possible to lose one's salvation? If you believe that this verse is talking about those who were once saved, then you believe that it is possible to lose that salvation. If you do not believe that it is possible to lose one's salvation, you must come to the conclusion that these people had never believed in Christ to begin with. Thanks for posting that verse!

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
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?

Read the first canon in the council of Trent.

Any person, Catholic or Protestant, who believes in Christ plus some meritorious work on their part for salvation is not saved.

And this is where we disagree. Does this mean that a person who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord can somehow disqualify himself from salvation? What if a person gets saved, then ten years later, he begins to believe that he must do something to maintain that salvation? Does he lose his salvation? Was he never saved in the first place.

Anything else is not Biblical saving faith.

The faith that is needed to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. There's no caveat there.

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.

Then how could they "fall from grace" if they'd never received grace in the first place?

 

[Jailminister]

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

87. When was the Son of God conceived and made man?

The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day, the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.

(a) We commemorate this event when we say the Angelus.

(b) The miraculous privileges accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary by Almighty God testify to her position as the most exalted of God's creatures.

(c) Mary, the Mother of God, remained a virgin not only in the conception of Christ but also in His birth and during the rest of her life.

(d) Because of her consent to accept the office of Mother of the Redeemer, and also because of her merits in intimately sharing the sufferings of her Divine Son for the salvation of mankind, the Blessed Virgin is given the title of Co-Redemptrix of the human race.

(e) After her death, the body of the Blessed Virgin, reunited with her soul, was miraculously taken up into heaven. The Church observes this event in the Feast of the Assumption.

(f) Special veneration, called hyperdulia, is given to the Blessed Virgin, because of her excellence which far surpasses that of all the saints and angels.

88. Is Saint Joseph the father of Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ had no human father, but Saint Joseph was the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the guardian, or foster father, of Christ.

(a) God the Father is the only true Father of Jesus
Christ.

(b) Christ was the only child of Mary. The brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the Bible were cousins.

(c) Saint Joseph's high dignity, grace, holiness, and glory have their source in the fact that he was the husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the foster father of the Son of God. Saint Joseph is the patron of the Universal Church.


Taken from the Baltimore Catechism, lesson 7.

 

[Jailminister]

Also from the horses mouth:

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:
But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As with all principles of morality, God does not hold the invincibly ignorant of the truth culpable for failing to live by them. Thus, Pope Pius IX could say regarding the salvation of those outside the Church, and thus also those who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff,

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

This same Pope convened the First Vatican Council, which in addition to defining papal infallibility also defined papal primacy. Both doctrines point the faithful to the necessity of union with the Successor of Peter. Infallibility directs our attention to the unifying role of the Pope in matters of faith, and primacy to that role with respect to sacramental and other ecclesiastical disciplines.
...all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

... the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation... [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, 1870]

 

[ScottEmerson]

So how does any of this cause a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord to not go into heaven?

People believed in infant baptism for awhile, which I believe to be completely incorrect, yet, I wouldn't dare say that Luther nor Calvin were saved.

 

[aefting]

Originally posted by Scott:
Read the first canon in the council of Trent.

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.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

The faith that is needed to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. There's no caveat there.

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

Then how could they "fall from grace" if they'd never received grace in the first place?

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.

Romans 4:4
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift [the Greek term is actually the word for “grace” – AE] but as his due.

Galatians 2:21
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:

And the question remains: "So how does any of this cause a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord to not go into heaven?"

 

[Trotter]

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

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[aefting]

Origianally posted by Scott:
And the question remains: "So how does any of this cause a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord to not go into heaven?"

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
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 [/QB]

It just seems to me that you're talking out of two sides of your mouth. How can a person be severed from Christ if we believe in once saved always saved? What if a person accepts Christ and then later begins to believe that he must do things to keep his salvation? How can he lose that salvation?

And then the point can be made about people who believe in Jesus Christ as the source of their salvation - that works cannot save a person - but that their salvation must be kept by producing fruit. They're not denying that Christ is the source of their salvation - it's definitely not works - but that to keep their salvation, they must work. Reading the book of James could lead someone to bleieve that. Faith without works is dead faith.

I think Galatians 5:6 sums up why your view is in error: "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." If that faith is there, and if it is expressing itself through love, then isn't the person in Christ?

And again, in verse four, the people that Paul is talking about do not believe in justification through Christ. Catholics, do believe in justification through Christ.

 

[aefting]

Originally posted by Scott:
It just seems to me that you're talking out of two sides of your mouth. How can a person be severed from Christ if we believe in once saved always saved? What if a person accepts Christ and then later begins to believe that he must do things to keep his salvation? How can he lose that salvation?

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.

I think Galatians 5:6 sums up why your view is in error: "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." If that faith is there, and if it is expressing itself through love, then isn't the person in Christ?

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.

And again, in verse four, the people that Paul is talking about do not believe in justification through Christ. Catholics, do believe in justification through Christ.

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
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?

Because "fallen from grace" implies that one was already under grace. "alienated from Christ" implies that one was once in fellowship with Christ.

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.

So if a Catholic believes in Jesus Christ for his or her salvation, and then is tempted to believe that they can somehow do something to further their salvation, it doesn't cause them to lose their salvation? Thanks - we now agree.

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.

And the right kind of faith, according to Paul is faith expressing itself through love. That is saving 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.

He's correcting people who believe that the Law can save.

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.

Trent 1.

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 if it is AFTER that belief in Christ, as you said earlier, then the person is saved and just led astray.

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

I don't follow the Baptist doctrine 100%, so I suppose that the Catholics who I do know that profess a relationship with Jesus CHrist must not follow Catholic doctrine 100%. However, there are plenty of Catholics who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. They are saved no matter what they believe after their conversion. You would agree with that, right?

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.

Funny, that's what I say about fundamentalists.

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
They are saved no matter what they believe after their conversion. You would agree with that, right?

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

 

[aefting]

Originally posted by Scott:
Because "fallen from grace" implies that one was already under grace. "alienated from Christ" implies that one was once in fellowship with 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.

So if a Catholic believes in Jesus Christ for his or her salvation, and then is tempted to believe that they can somehow do something to further their salvation, it doesn't cause them to lose their salvation? Thanks - we now agree.

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.

Trent 1.

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.

I don't follow the Baptist doctrine 100%, so I suppose that the Catholics who I do know that profess a relationship with Jesus Christ must not follow Catholic doctrine 100%. However, there are plenty of Catholics who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. They are saved no matter what they believe after their conversion. You would agree with that, right?

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.

Funny, that's what I say about fundamentalists.

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

 

[Lorelei]

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
(NIV)

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

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
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.

Then by this argument, there will be about 12 people in heaven. Everyone has different doctrine on SOMETHING. 75% of Christianity is Arminian in nature, 25% is Calvinist. (or something close to that effect.) Which group isn't being led in all truth? Which ones are going to Hell for believing in false doctrine? Calvin and Luther believed in infant baptism. If we believe that infant baptism is wrong, then does your position show that Calvin and Luther weren't guided into all truth, since they practiced errant theology? Or, perhaps we are wrong, and thus, not saved? What if someone is a KJV-only believer? Who is saved? Me or him?

Do you see where the problem is in this statement? Again, theology does not have the power to save.

If a person believed in a Christ that required them to be baptized or anything other work for salvation, they are not saved.

What about if they believe in a Christ who wasn't born of a virgin? Are they lost as well? What about those who believe that Christ was a fair-skinned, blue-eyed person that looks like them? What if they don't believe that he looked Palestinian? Are they saved? Catholics do not believe that works can save them. They just don't. Jesus Christ is the only one that can offer salvation. They disagree with us Baptists about what to do after Christ saves us, but they believe in grace alone and in Christ alone.

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.

And they have solid Biblical support for their beliefs. Check out the "least of these" stories. The ones who are saved are the ones who worked. Read what Jesus says about the branches who do not bear fruit. They are cut off. Even if you are anti-Catholic, you still can read where in the Bible they get their defense for having to continue to do good works so they do not lose their justification. Personally, I think that they are wrong, but I also think that such a belief will not deny them entrance into Heaven.

That is not the Christ of the Bible. Catholics don't hear about salvation by grace alone.

And they would comment: "That's the Christ of the Bible. Christ was serious about people following through with their salvation, and numerous times, Christ says so.

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.

We all believe about Christ apart from our church. Church does not save us - only the drawing of the Holy Spirit. None of us here would dare say that "my church is doctrinally 100% correct, and I would stake my eternal destiny on it." I know that I wouldn't. Instead, I would say, "Jesus Christ is 100% the way, the truth, and the life, and I would stake my eternal destiny on it." Do you see the difference?

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.

Men are fallen creatures. We just are. Let's not even look into what happened to those in America who happened to believe that Christianity and American slavery were incompatible.

The Catholic church has no desire to be corrected, so leaving the church would be the only option to a true believer.

Oh, there's another option. To work within the church to help others' lives be changed. You're creating a false dichotomy.

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.

The Catholic churches that I know are quite ecumenical. Where have you seen otherwise? In your hometown?

I already showed the documents that prove this. There is no middle ground.

Why not talk to some Catholics yourself and find out what they believe. I've seen the documents of John Calvin, and they stress infant baptism. However, I know many Calvinists who do not believe in infant baptism. I've also seen the documents of Jesus Christ found in the Gospels, where Jesus commands His sheep to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, and reach the least of these. However, I know many "Christians" who do not do this at all.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
“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.

How is God's grace of benefit to you if you haven't accepted it to begin with? How can you be alienated from Christ when we are ALREADY at emnity with Him as unbelievers?

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.

So does this make them lose their salvation. Quick yes or a quick no.

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.

Trent 1 says that there can be no justification at all without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The stuff that is mentioned over and over again by the anti-Catholic side is what to do AFTER the initial justification by Jesus Christ. Trent does not say one is saved apart from Christ.

The important thing is to follow Biblical doctrine 100%.

How confident are you that you are following Biblical doctrine 100%. What happens if you die at only 98%. Does God say, "Sorry, fella, but you missed the boat!"? What happens when you change your theological understanding halfway through life? Were you just never saved? Does theology have saving power?

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.

So if someone believes that Jesus was born of a young woman, and not a Virgin, then that person is not saved? Hmmm... I think more Scripture is needed for this to be proven, don't you?

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.

The truth of the gospel can be found in the Great Commission and the Great Commandments. As far as love is concerned for their fellow man, fundamentalist Christianity is about as far removed as one can be. All one has to do is ask the outside world whether Christians love them or not, and how they are treated by fundamentalist Christians. You can learn so, so much from that response.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Then by this argument, there will be about 12 people in heaven. Everyone has different doctrine on SOMETHING. 75% of Christianity is Arminian in nature, 25% is Calvinist. (or something close to that effect.) Which group isn't being led in all truth? Which ones are going to Hell for believing in false doctrine? Calvin and Luther believed in infant baptism. If we believe that infant baptism is wrong, then does your position show that Calvin and Luther weren't guided into all truth, since they practiced errant theology? Or, perhaps we are wrong, and thus, not saved? What if someone is a KJV-only believer? Who is saved? Me or him?

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?