Bottom line...

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
If they raise their children in the catholic church and they do not see the lie they are involved with then maybe they are not saved. Maybe they just are religious. It is more than a belief, it is repentance and turning away from iniquity.

Or you could be wrong, and their salvation is real. I'll go with that option instead.

 

[Jailminister]

Scott You just responded with emotions, please search the scriptures and ask God to show you.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Scott You just responded with emotions, please search the scriptures and ask God to show you.

Great response, but it is what I expected. The Bible is very clear on where salvation comes from and how that salvation is to be obtained. Catholics who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord are saved. There is no wiggle room on that. That's what the Bible says.

From discussions with people who are anti-Catholic, it is quite clear where the emotionalism comes from - the side that is so willing to call the Catholic Church a "whore." From what I've read about the Catholic Church, the basic doctrines of the Church are completely missed by the anti-Catholic lobby. If they would do some reading about salvation within the Catholic Church, they'd see that salvation comes from believing in Jesus Christ as Lord....just like us.

 

[Jailminister]

Go ahead Scott, believe as you want, it doesn't make it right, but I gave you the scriptures you need.

Have a good day

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Go ahead Scott, believe as you want, it doesn't make it right, but I gave you the scriptures you need.

Have a good day

I know that Scripture very well, in fact, I memorized it as a child. However, you are unable to show how this group who did these thing were Catholic. It is salvation alone that allows entrance into Heaven. Catholics are indeed saved by the blood of the Lamb if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Gunther]

Scott, I noticed that you did not offer correct exegesis, or even try to counter anything I said except the assurance part.

It is you who have not dealt with the Scripture.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Scott, I noticed that you did not offer correct exegesis, or even try to counter anything I said except the assurance part.

It is you who have not dealt with the Scripture.

Well, I agreed with the rest of it, so I figured my non-response would have been understood as a tacit acceptance. Interestingly enough, my saved Catholic friends would agree with those - except the assurance part (and I disagree with that as well). But I said all of this in my immediate post after yours.

And I'm still interested in seeing more Scripture regarding why people who believe that they could lose their salvation are not saved.

 

[Gunther]

I told you to carefully read Romans 4.

Look at the following verses:

20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,

21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Abraham, who was the example Paul chose to prove salvation by faith alone apart from any kind of work, says the following:

1. he did not waver
2. his faith grew strong
3. he was fully assured of God's promise
4. he was fully assured of God's ability to perform it
5. therefore (based on the above), it was credited (put to his account in full) to him as righteousness (the very righteousness of Christ).

You don't like it, take it up with Paul.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
I told you to carefully read Romans 4.

Look at the following verses:

20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,

21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Abraham, who was the example Paul chose to prove salvation by faith alone apart from any kind of work, says the following:

1. he did not waver
2. his faith grew strong
3. he was fully assured of God's promise
4. he was fully assured of God's ability to perform it
5. therefore (based on the above), it was credited (put to his account in full) to him as righteousness (the very righteousness of Christ).

You don't like it, take it up with Paul.

And what about all the passages that stress what happens if man falls away or continues sinning? The whole renewing of repentence thing?

And even then, why is it that getting the assurance thing wrong is grounds enough to have salvation not be given on a person? Do you think Arminians who believe that it is possible to lose salvation are going to Hell?

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
1. And what about all the passages that stress what happens if man falls away or continues sinning?

2. The whole renewing of repentence thing?

3. And even then, why is it that getting the assurance thing wrong is grounds enough to have salvation not be given on a person?

4. Do you think Arminians who believe that it is possible to lose salvation are going to Hell?

Okay, I will play this game, I will sidetrack the issue and follow you here.

1. There is more than one way to understand the passages on falling away, persevering, etc. There is only one way to understand this passage. There can be no debate.

2. It is impossible to renew to repentance those who have fallen away.

3. Because that is what Paul said. He had the authority of God to write it, so I think it is reliable.

4. Why are you arguing on the basis of piety now? Deal with the text first, Scott.

Look, you wanted an answer, I gave it and plenty of Scripture. If you would rather just argue, have at it. I think you should study a bit more though.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:

For the record, I believe in the perseverance of the saints, so that's a road we don't necessarily need to go down. The important question is the last one. Is the belief that a person can lose their salvation enough to damn someone to Hell? Basic question.

As to "only one way to interpret Romans 4," it is possible in even a precursory scan of the passage to understand that soteriological understanding of perseverance has nothing to do with the passage and whether one is saved or not. Faith in God was counted to him as righteousness. The argument that can be made by an Arminian is that the promise of salvation is understood as something that has to be maintained by continuing in that faith. The branch that is connected to the vine can be cut off, as Jesus Christ mentioned.

But again, I do believe in eternal security. However, I do not believe that anyone who does not is damned to Hell. Do you?

 

[All about Grace]

Gunther just condemned F.F. Bruce to Hell!!!

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The Catholics agree: "Canon 1: (Council of Trent on Justification) If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

No, they do not agree.

The Bible says: Salvation is not by works

The Catholic Church says: Salvation is not by works and then they redefine the "works" that they say are necessary for salvation and call them "graces" or "sacraments". These, according to their church ARE necessary for salvation. Be careful, they often redefine and misuse terminology to fool people into believing they are scriptural. You will find the word "graces" in catholic doctrine, not in the Bible.

If they truly believed that salvation was not by works then they would be contradicting themselves in these statements:

COUNCIL OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM CANON V
If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON V
If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema. let him be anathema.

COUNCIL OF TRENT: FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE CANON VI
If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

COUNCIL OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS CANON III
If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

They do not believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone, they teach that all this and more is necessary for salvation. They just word it differently to fool you, the truth is they are adamant that these works are necessary for salvation and they eternally condemn anyone who dares to disagree!

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
We are also told this in the Council of Trent on Justification. Catholics do not believe that a person is justified through their works, at least officially.

I would read their official documents more carefully. They do have works that are required for justification.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Then by this same logic, James would appear to be eternally condemned. Where is the evidence that the different gospel refers to those who don't believe in faith alone? Personally, I would say that this gospel is anything that would say that salvation can be obtained apart from the simple belief in Jesus Christ.

James didn't preach another gospel. I showed you in context how he was saying his works were produced FROM his faith, not that his works PRODUCED his faith. There is a big difference! Context is everything.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Again, the Catholic Church says that salvation comes from belief in Jesus Christ, and in Christ alone.

Yes, but they define faith as consisting of many graces that must be preformed in order to receive it. In short, these works are necessary for salvation, so in order to not appear to contradict scripture they "renamed" the works as "graces" and "sacraments." The Bible doesn't teach that grace is given THROUGH these things but that is what the Catholic Chruch teaches.

~Lorelei

 

[aefting]

I've been trying to stay out of this but I feel that I just have to respond to the following:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

And this does, indeed, disagree with our Baptist principles. However, we notice that the righteousness has ALREADY been received, so it is not given because of good works. The salvation has already occurred through belief in Christ Jesus. You don't see this as saying a person is saved through works, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice carefully what Canon 24 says – the righteousness received must be preserved and increased through good works. It also states, contra the orthodox understanding of James 2, that works are not merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained. So, according to official Catholic doctrine, the imputed righteousness of Christ based on faith alone is not sufficient; Catholics must increase that righteousness with their own works of righteousness. Now, compare that understanding of justification with what the Scripture says in Romans 4:5:

And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (ESV).

Here is a key issue that one must understand in order to be saved – we cannot come to God for salvation with the idea that we contribute anything to our salvation. The hymn writer got it right when he said, “nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Notice what Paul says in Gal. 5:2-6. A person who feels that he must contribute some obedience to a law (such as circumcision) is “fallen from grace (5:4).” “Christ is no advantage to him (5:2).” “He is obliged to keep the whole law (5:3).” “You are severed from Christ (5:4).” These are strong words. The Bible says in these verses that if we try to contribute works to our salvation then the righteousness of Christ does not apply to us. Needless to say, without the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope (Eph. 2:12).


Andy

 

[massdak]

Originally posted by aefting:
I've been trying to stay out of this but I feel that I just have to respond to the following:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

And this does, indeed, disagree with our Baptist principles. However, we notice that the righteousness has ALREADY been received, so it is not given because of good works. The salvation has already occurred through belief in Christ Jesus. You don't see this as saying a person is saved through works, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice carefully what Canon 24 says – the righteousness received must be preserved and increased through good works. It also states, contra the orthodox understanding of James 2, that works are not merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained. So, according to official Catholic doctrine, the imputed righteousness of Christ based on faith alone is not sufficient; Catholics must increase that righteousness with their own works of righteousness. Now, compare that understanding of justification with what the Scripture says in Romans 4:5:

And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (ESV).

Here is a key issue that one must understand in order to be saved – we cannot come to God for salvation with the idea that we contribute anything to our salvation. The hymn writer got it right when he said, “nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Notice what Paul says in Gal. 5:2-6. A person who feels that he must contribute some obedience to a law (such as circumcision) is “fallen from grace (5:4).” “Christ is no advantage to him (5:2).” “He is obliged to keep the whole law (5:3).” “You are severed from Christ (5:4).” These are strong words. The Bible says in these verses that if we try to contribute works to our salvation then the righteousness of Christ does not apply to us. Needless to say, without the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope (Eph. 2:12).


Andy </font>[/QUOTE]excellent post
very concise and great scripture support

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by aefting:
So, according to official Catholic doctrine, the imputed righteousness of Christ based on faith alone is not sufficient; Catholics must increase that righteousness with their own works of righteousness.

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.

Now, compare that understanding of justification with what the Scripture says in Romans 4:5:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (ESV).

</font>[/QUOTE]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?

Here is a key issue that one must understand in order to be saved – we cannot come to God for salvation with the idea that we contribute anything to our salvation. The hymn writer got it right when he said, “nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.”

And if we do, is our faith meaningless? Is our salvation meaningless? Does one have to have a perfect theology before Christ can save them?

Notice what Paul says in Gal. 5:2-6. A person who feels that he must contribute some obedience to a law (such as circumcision) is “fallen from grace (5:4).” “Christ is no advantage to him (5:2).” “He is obliged to keep the whole law (5:3).” “You are severed from Christ (5:4).”

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!

These are strong words. The Bible says in these verses that if we try to contribute works to our salvation then the righteousness of Christ does not apply to us.

Because we had never trusted in the righteousness of Christ in the first place.

Needless to say, without the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope (Eph. 2:12).

Which ironically, is exactly what the council of Trent says.


Andy [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[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.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It is only now that some are confused because of narrow minded thinking and unwillingness to view the historical landscape at large.

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.

 

[Gunther]

Scott, you still haven't dealt with the text. Why don't you show me from the texts I have provided what is wrong?

Why don't you explain why Catholics deny that what Christ accomplished is not sufficient?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
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.

The "hatred" is a hatred for a system that has removed hope from millions of people by offering a false replacement. It is not for people.

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.

That was not missed by the reformers. IT has constantly been missed by the RCC who insists that belief in Christ is not enough. There must also be other things. Scripture never teaches such a thing and in fact explicitly denies it. The RCC certainly teaches a belief in Christ, but their unbiblical additions have made Christ insufficient for salvation and the gospel can endure no such additions while remaining the gospel. YOu have to go back and look at history and realize that these things were never misunderstood back then. As I say, both sides affirmed what they believed and both sides affirmed that the other side understood what their opponents believed. That is far different than the charge you are making. There are a great deal of people who do not understand what the RCC teaches about salvation, even those who quote parts of the Trent. We must move past those misunderstanding to gain a clear picture of the biblical gospel. The confusion is stifling to the truth.