The Catholic "Salvation"

Guilty as charged, at least on first impressions. You see I don't believe that everything in a parable has "to fit." It is an earthly story meant to teach a heavenly truth. Not every detail has to match. In the parable of the lost coin, what does the "broom" represent? The Holy Spirit? No, it is an instrument that you sweep the floor with and nothing more. This parable is teaching a truth that centers around the Father's love for his child that has gone astray, comes back home, and still the father's loves him, and does not reject him. Neither will Christ reject you. It is a simple story. We need not to read too much into it.

The Bible teaches in Romans 8 that if we are children of God then we are heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. We will never lose that relationship with the Father (children of God), as the prodigal son never lost his. Nor will we ever lose our inheritance as Romans 8 teaches, for it comes with being a child of God.

It isn't. It is in Romans 8.

It is a parable. A believer can lose reward; but not his inheritance.

Death simply means separation. There are three kinds of death in the Bible.

1. There is physical death or separation.
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--When the body separates from the spirit, that is physical death.

2. There is spiritual death or separation.
Ephesians 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
--You were once dead (because of sin), and now you are made alive. Sin separates us from God.
Again:
Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
--Sin separates us from God. Death is separation.

3. There is eternal death or separation
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There is a comparison here. In the latter part of the verse it speaks of eternal life. In the former part of the verse therefore the death that is spoken of is eternal death, that is, separation from God for all eternity in a place called Hell.
--Sin separates one from God, especially the sin of rejection of Christ as Lord. It will ultimately lead to the second death which is spoken of in Revelation 20:11-15, when death and hell are thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is the ultimate sentence where all unbelievers will be forever in the Lake of Fire, separated from God, living in a state of death. Death means separation.

To be in Heaven our sins must come under the blood of Jesus. It is the blood of Jesus that washes away all sin (1John 1:7). Nothing else can do. "Without the shedding of blood there is no more remission of sin."
Trusting in Christ as one's saviour brings that salvation, not baptism. Baptism cannot wash away sins, but the blood of Christ can.
DHK

 

Compare the Catholic who gets baptised; believing that baptism saves. He rejects the idea of "accepting the Lord".

He dies................

A Protestant accepts the Lord as his saviour but does not get water baptised.

He dies................

Would the judgement of God open the books upon these men's heart's intent and view whether they lived while "having the Son" or would God only look at the two catagories of Baptised vs. Not baptised.?

1John5:11,12 again:

"He who has the Son has life"

Now we should concern ourselves with how it is that we receive the Son. Is it through baptism or through accepting the Son. We already know that the Catholic is taught that it is through baptism.

Baptism can be forced upon a baby.........

That should tell us something.

Yet, if I'd request to be baptised in a Catholic Church, I could not do so without taking some kind of oath to be faithful to the pope, learn to recite the rosary to hail mary, attend the local church, never miss a mass, to get my name on the chart for cleaning the church and to not forget my wallet on Sunday.

That must be how they get the idea that there is "no salvation outside of the Catholic Church".

Mandatory allignment with the pope does the trick


So it is not the issue of accepting the Lord that stands out with Catholicism; it is the issue of baptism.

That could be why we see so many Catholics who would rather deny the need to "accept the Lord" than they would to deny the "Church".

If you Catholics feel you'd lose some of your chance at salvation if you left your church, you may not really have it anyhow.

I don't have a church and I don't want a church, but I have Jesus.

"Whosoever has the Son has life".....remember?


Singer

***Hey it's the weekend / I've gotta go sing !!!

 

Singer,

You have not answered why YOU have chosen to not be baptized. Will you share this?

 

Grace, here it is again from the middle of page 12 where I answered you.

My answer:

Mark, please look at the first post on page 12.

Thanks,
Singer

 

I have no problem with any of the above statements. They are all true. However, faith in Christ and His sacrificial work on the cross brings salvation. Works follow salvation. They are the result of salvation, never a part of salvation. Jesus did not command baptism as a part of salvation.

Faith is trust; confidence in the word of another.
Faith is not obedience or commitment. We don't need redefinitions. Obedience does not need faith. A robot can obey; a computer can obey. Anything programmed can obey. God created man with a will to choose between right and wrong; a spirit that enables one to put trust in another. The confidence that we are able to have in another's word is faith. The confidence that we are able to have in God's Word is Biblical faith. Obedience may be an outcome but it is not faith. Commitment may be a result; but it is not faith.
DHK

 

I wish I was joking, Adam, but it was more than mildly shocking to hear that response from a prominent Catholic on another board on April 27, 2003. We were having this same kind of conversation when he responded with this:

Nowhere in Scripture does one become born again by "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour" at an altar call. You are born again of water and Spirit (Jn 3:5

If you'd like to contact him, he is still posting on that board; and you can tell HIM that it was the funniest thing you've ever heard.

I think I suggested that he could not have possibly been serious either, but he chose to call me names when I confronted him.

See..........if we keep those blatant statements from Catholics long enough, it eventually comes back to haunt them. I'm glad to share this with you, Adam; I hope you store it in your library on your way to searching for the one true church. Now you know which one it ISN'T !!!!

Singer

 

That needed clarifying, DHK, Thanks.
One particular church has all those ingredients stirred together to end up with the Catholic Casserole. They don't blend well.

Singer

 

To MarkH,

I'm bringing this up from two pages back so you don't miss it. Please clarify what this guy might have meant; when you have time. Could he have possibly insinuated that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? It sounds like it to me, but I am told that I misrepresent the Catholic Church and misunderstand their meanings. What do you make of this?

 

Hey there Singer. I understand where you're coming from. A church I was in for a while (actually prior to believing in Jesus) refused to baptize for the reasons you're stating. They weren't just mildly against baptizing though, they made it a major issue.
I found I disagreed with them, and that baptism wasn't something outdated, especially as it was done by our Lord. (baptized with water and the Spirit). I believe it to be an act of obedience, one that is holy, and one that should be done IMMEDIATELY for a new Christian. It does appear that when we are baptized with water we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean the indwelling didn't occur already, but this *appears* to be an extra measure, one that will help prevent the "good seeds sewn in our hearts from being plucked away".
Don't test me on this. LOL It's something I've felt but never really wanted to study up until now, because my daughter wants to be baptized and I don't feel that issue has been sufficiently dealt with by others because it's taken too lightly. I remember too well my own baptism experience, and how wondefully it differed from the false baptism into the false belief of mormonism. I just didn't get wet so people could figure out I was along with them for the ride, (not to discount the witness it is, but I'm making a point here), something HAPPENED and I knew it happend. I went into freezing cold water on a freezing cold day (we were outside, it was late April) and by all means all I should have been doing was trying not to die of hypothermia but from the moment I stepped in it was just...different. When I came up out of that water I remember just looking up, trying to see what that was, and it took a while before I could speak. I was in awe of what just happened. Trust me, no woman goes and walks through frog eggs in a freezing cold pond, gets soaked, comes back out of it and calls it a holy moment if something unnatural didn't happen to her!
I do plan to do more study on it, but I truly don't believe that Christ's example for us in being baptized in water, or the example he allowed to be set for us through his apostles can be dismissed.
In my experience though, doing it in a false church really is just getting wet!
Gina

 

Hi Singer,

I realize I'm falling a bit behind the curve here, but I'll be glad to take a look at T2U's statement and comment on it when I get a chance. Is there any way I can look at the whole thread it came from? It looks like he/she was responding to something, and I'd like to see the context. (Mark's general rule -- "context is good.")

Anyhow, I'll get to it as soon as I can -- but the plan for today calls for me to be scraping old wallpaper, not reviewing old threads! Most likely, it won't be before Monday.

God bless in the meantime,

Mark H.

 

MarkH,

I didn't keep the whole page it came from and the Baptist Board archives must have deleted it already, so you'll just have to take it at face value. The whole Roman Catholic reputation doesn't hinge on either your ability to dispute what he meant nor on my ability to provide you with a link.

However, it does line up with similar statements by Vatican publications and what seems to be individual Catholic's understandings.

To those of us on the outside it appears to mean that we who are non-Catholic don't have a snowball's chance in hell of going to heaven. The topic here centers around whether all those claims and statements made ....actually mean what they say.

But when he says "Salvation is through the Church." and "Christ established one Church for that very purpose" we surely know he's talking about the Catholic Church.

...........and it lines up exactly with the Vatican's statement that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church". Even Mel Gibson understands it to mean the way I perceive it. Surely all Protestants are not so dense as to constantly misrepresent something that is so obvious.

It's amazing to me; how much effort is spent by Catholics trying to deny something that so obviously means what it says. The best reaction we've had so far is that all of those Catholic doctrines don't apply to non-Catholics because of the fact that we're not aware of the "truth" and therefore not guilty of rejecting the "truth".

Even that doesn't make sense.

Singer

(Wallpaper???.....haven't you learned how to get out of housework yet) ??

 

Ya know, Adam, I started to invite you to chat with the author of that statement and to give you the site, but I like you too much to expose you to the frustrations on that board. Their archives can't bring it up either as it's been too long; evidently. If you really want to "correct " him, you've got a long road ahead of you. He's pretty well indoctrinated. I won't insist that you resolve the issue either here or elsewhere, just be aware he would probably also deny that his statement means as it appears to us.

Let me add another statement of his :

" Nowhere will you find that simply believing in Jesus will save you, but rather we will
gain eternal life through perseverence in good works."

You don't really want another futile head-bashing on yet another board do you?



Singer

 

Singer,

First you said,

"Compare the Catholic who gets baptised; believing that baptism saves. He rejects the idea of "accepting the Lord"."
Then you ACTUALLY quoted him:

Nowhere in Scripture does one become born again by "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour" at an altar call. You are born again of water and Spirit (Jn 3:5

What you said he said was a lie. What he actually said does not agree with what you claimed he said.

The Catholic you quote does not reject the idea of "accepting the Lord." He rejects the idea of "accepting the Lord" as the moment of salvation for all time. Instead, he believes in the washing of regeneration at Baptism that brings us into the family of God as adopted sons, in which we live of a life of continual acceptance of the Lord and dependance on Him.

I'm sure he'd love to know you were misquoting him. Why don't you do me a favor and show him what you did. I'm sure he'll love it.

 

You almost got tongue-twisted on that one, Grace.

I said:
"He rejects the idea of accepting the Lord"

He said:
"Nowhere in Scripture does one become born again by "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour"

It appears to me that he is rejecting the idea of "accepting Jesus".

You mentioned something about "moment of salvation". Where did you dig that up from as he didn't say anything about it. He's merely rejecting the merits of accepting the Lord. Period.

I have a clear conscience that I did not misquote him and I also have no intention of renewing my [friendship] with the guy. I don't even want him coming to this board. We have no fellowship whatsoever. Hope you understand.

You'll look at his statement through Catholic glasses anyhow. I also find much fault in his statement that goes like this:

"Nowhere will you find that simply believing in Jesus will save you, but rather we will gain
eternal life through perseverence in good works."


No can you still claim that he is only believing that salvation is not a thing of the "moment" if you want to, but by considering both of his statements, I propose that he's beligerently disclaiming any value in "accepting the Lord" and is putting all the emphasis on good works.

And you know where salvation by works takes us!

Singer

 

Singer,

Nice dancing. You quoted him a second time, but this time you left off "at an alter call." THAT CHANGES WHAT HE SAYS COMPLETELY. And you know it. You left off the last part of the sentence because it changes the meaning, and you can't stand to admit a fault.

Why did you leave off "at an alter call?" Are you telling me that it is unimportant to the context of his meaning?

 

Grace saves,

You said to Singer...

I dont see how it changes the context. Nobody is saved by coming to an "altar". If so I would have been "saved" every Sunday all the years I was growing up RCC. We walked up to an "altar" every sunday to get our little wafer.

I was born again laying face down in a bed,(after about 2 years of conviction) and didnt enter a true christian church until some period of time after that.

One is born again at an altar only if that just happens to be, by coincidence, when that one recieves Christ. I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if 95% of the people who come forward to recieve Christ at an invitation actually recieved Christ before leaving the pew(having "decided for Christ" then), but only verbalised what had already happened in their hearts once they got up there.

If someone says something to me about "accepting Christ at an altar call", either positively or negatively, its not the "altar" part that has any significance, but the "accepting Christ" part.

God bless,

Mike

 

Mike,

Pay attention, brother. The person that Singer quoted rejected this alone: being born again by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior at an alter call.

The entire scenario is what he rejected. You can't take that and say that this person rejects:

1) being born again
2) being born again by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior
3) accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior

The person rejects:

4) being born again by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior at an alter call.

4 is different from 1, 2 and 3. Singer has managed to accuse him of 2 and 3. He is wrong in doing so.

 

Gracesaves,

If this person that singer is quoting objects with the idea of recieveing Christ at an altar call, do you actully believe it is the altar part that bothers them? I find that very unlikely.

In my 24 years as a christian, every single time a catholic has objected to the idea of "recieving Christ at an altar call"...and I have heard this before...it is because they are denying the truth that we are justifed though faith alone. They feel that you must be involved is sacramentalsm, ritualism, and a life of "good deedsism" in order to be worthy of heaven. I have even heard catholics say that the evangelical view of "being saved" is heretical. Ignoring of course the fact that Paul, Cornelius and his family, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipian jailer, and so many others were saved in the "evangelical" way.

They do not have a problem with "going to an altar", since they may very well "go to an altar" every week at a mass.

So, singer leaving that part out does not seem to me to be anything worth noting, since its so utterlly irrelavent.

God bless,

Mike