Does The RCC Teach true Gospel/Jesus?

[The Biblicist]

This post can be so long that we can lost in the details. Do you mind if I just deal with part of it so we can stay on focus?

I understand you entirely. However, I have found that once things are defined and understood they can be simplified to easy understanding. Also unfortunately, we live in a society were we cannot take for granted words as anyone will tell you when purchasing from a used car dealer. Just like the motto the buyer beware it is encumbant upon the purchaser to know something of what is being said or they are sold a bill of Goods.

I didn't mean to imply that I do not have some knowledge of Greek. I have to admit that language was not my best subject. My junior high teacher simply gave me a D- to get me out of his hair. I had to really struggle to learn baby Greek and I still struggle with it but after trial and error over a number of years I can feebly find my way through it.

A good verse for Apostolic Tradition working hand in hand with scripture.

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. I see this text as the fulfillment of what previously he only communicated orally. I see this text superseding his previous oral instruction and becoming the final established standard for "instruction...correction...teaching...reproof"

The only reason to be sure of your words is to be sure of your thoughts so, I'm not clear on what you are saying.

The scriptures are given to us in words just as I am typing to you in words. I cannot possibly convey my thoughts in my head without choosing the correct words to type on this forum. It is impossible for me to place my thoughts on this forum first and then interpret them by words later. Likewise, the scriptures provide the inspired basis to interpret correct or incorrect thoughts and that is why "all scriptures are given by inspiration of God" to define right doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof.

Btw imputed isn't the word used in this passage nor do I believe it to be the sense of the passage.

My Young's concordance shows me that the same Greek term translated in Romans 4:4 as "imputeth" is the same word translated as "reckoned" (Rom.4:5) and "counted" in Romans 4:6. It would appear that the same thing is meant in all three passages. The fact the recipent of this imputed, reckoned, counted righteousness is "ungodly" (in keeping with the previous description in Romans 3:9-20,23) would highly infer that imputation here is legal/positional/representive instead of actual just as we are legally/positionally/representatively "seated in Christ in heavenly places" but we are actually on earth. I say "legal" because it is used in direct relationship to a legal forensic term "justify." Not only so, but it is directly stated in relationship to an "ungodly" person WITHOUT WORKS and therefore cannot possibly be what you called "infused righteousness" worked out. In addition when Paul deals with the time of imputation in Romans 9:7-11 he excludes what is without question a work of righteousness (circumcision) demanding that justification had already occurred prior to the act of circumcision and thus does not include it but precedes it and accomplished without it. Circumcision simply is a "sign" and "seal" but not inclusive or causative to it. The fact that justification is looked at as a finished act prior to circumcision (Rom. 4:11; 5:1-2) demonstrates it is not something progressive or an incompleted action being carried out.

Ephesians 2:10 says that "good works" are not the product of faith but the product of being "created in Christ Jesus." No human being can create anything as that is the sole work of God. Hence, faith is not in view here even though this creative work of God may accompany faith (v. 8) but Paul is really looking at divine quickening (Eph. 2:1,5, 10).

In contrast, I think James is talking about the fruits of what you call "infused" righteousness as evidential of justification by faith. This is what Paul talks about in Romans 6-8. However, Romans 3:24-5:21 deals with legal representation by Christ for the "ungodly." Together they provide both a personal and positional righteousness or actual and legal or righteousness in us verus for us.

I think it is one of the biggest mistakes in theological history to separate them one from the other or pit them against each other or change their logical relationships to each other.

 

[The Biblicist]

This post can be so long that we can lost in the details. Do you mind if I just deal with part of it so we can stay on focus?



I didn't mean to imply that I do not have some knowledge of Greek. I have to admit that language was not my best subject. My junior high teacher simply gave me a D- to get me out of his hair. I had to really struggle to learn baby Greek and I still struggle with it but after trial and error over a number of years I can feebly find my way through it.





I really don't understand where you are coming from here. I see this text as the fulfillment of what previously he only communicated orally. I see this text superseding his previous oral instruction and becoming the final established standard for "instruction...correction...teaching...reproof"



The scriptures are given to us in words just as I am typing to you in words. I cannot possibly convey my thoughts in my head without choosing the correct words to type on this forum. It is impossible for me to place my thoughts on this forum first and then interpret them by words later. Likewise, the scriptures provide the inspired basis to interpret correct or incorrect thoughts and that is why "all scriptures are given by inspiration of God" to define right doctrine, teaching, correction and reproof.



My Young's concordance shows me that the same Greek term translated in Romans 4:4 as "imputeth" is the same word translated as "reckoned" (Rom.4:5) and "counted" in Romans 4:6. It would appear that the same thing is meant in all three passages. The fact the recipent of this imputed, reckoned, counted righteousness is "ungodly" (in keeping with the previous description in Romans 3:9-20,23) would highly infer that imputation here is legal/positional/representive instead of actual just as we are legally/positionally/representatively "seated in Christ in heavenly places" but we are actually on earth. I say "legal" because it is used in direct relationship to a legal forensic term "justify." Not only so, but it is directly stated in relationship to an "ungodly" person WITHOUT WORKS and therefore cannot possibly be what you called "infused righteousness" worked out. In addition when Paul deals with the time of imputation in Romans 9:7-11 he excludes what is without question a work of righteousness (circumcision) demanding that justification had already occurred prior to the act of circumcision and thus does not include it but precedes it and accomplished without it. Circumcision simply is a "sign" and "seal" but not inclusive or causative to it.

Ephesians 2:10 says that "good works" are not the product of faith but the product of being "created in Christ Jesus." No human being can create anything as that is the sole work of God. Hence, faith is not in view here even though this creative work of God may accompany faith (v. 8) but Paul is really looking at divine quickening (Eph. 2:1,5, 10).

In contrast, I think James is talking about the fruits of what you call "infused" righteousness as evidential of justification by faith. This is what Paul talks about in Romans 6-8. However, Romans 3:24-5:21 deals with legal representation by Christ for the "ungodly." Together they provide both a personal and positional righteousness or actual and legal or righteousness in us verus for us.

I think it is one of the biggest mistakes in theological history to separate them one from the other or pit them against each other or change their logical relationships to each other.

I have got to go to town and won't be back for a while. This is a good discussion and I thoroughly enjoy it and thank your for putting up with me. I promise to get back to it. thank you.

 

[Eliyahu]

It is clear from your statements above that know almost nothing about the Mass.

WM

It is very clear that you don't know the contents of Mass even though you may have attended there hundreds of times.

The Mass is not a secret here, you can watch CTS at 11:30 thru 12:00 in the morning.

Though you may not understand the problem with them, because you are like these people;


Matthew 13:
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them

 

[Eliyahu]

And that, Eliyahu, is where you lost your way. All sins were not forgiven at the cross. The cross made it possible for all sins to be forgiven but we have to accept this gift of grace. We are free to either accept it or reject it. If we accept it, then our sins are forgiven, but only those we have committed. We must go back and get forgiveness for future sins after they are committed.

Think about it, if all sins were forgiven at the cross the world would be completely free of sin and everyone would be going to heaven.

Zenas, you understand about the Mass far better than WM, because you recognize it as it is.

But that is typical misunderstanding not only by the RCC but also many protestant false believers as well.

Crucifixion made everything possible and finished, when Jesus cried " It is finished"

Then, as you questioned, why there are so many crimes and sins in this world, if all the sins were forgiven and cleansed away?


Because the people DO NOT Believe what Jesus has done at the Cross!

If all of Billions of people in the world believe in Jesus Christ and what He has done at the Cross, there would be no crimes and sins in the world, which wouldn't take place until He comes again.

ALL the sins of the world were forgiven at the Cross, and that truth must become yours own and my own by Faith in Christ. We need the faith sealed by the Holy Spirit which inscribes the Truth in our heart.

The Faith, believing what Jesus has done at the Cross, is the Bridge between the Historical Facts and Ourselves.

If you believe what Jesus has done at the Cross and that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross, then it becomes your own righteousness which is approved by God.

Therefore the real faith is very important, and RCC denies this faith every time at the Mass when they lift up the cookies and ask God to forgive their sins.

In a certan sense, RCC people are honest when they ask God to forgive their sins, because they never got the assurance that God forgave their sins before.

However they never try to get the ANSWER from God about their prayer request. They never heard about the God's Answer to their prayer that God should forgive their sins.

The God's answer is that even the sins which they recently asked God to forgive were already forgiven at the Cross, as there is no remission of sins without shedding the Blood and Jesus cannot shed the BLood again, and because the BLood of Jesus shed at the Cross has the Eternal Effect, Once For ALL.

Dear Zenas, think about this. I know you are thoughtful.

Trying to believe the meaning and effect of Crucifixion for the remission of sins will lead you eventually to materialize in your heart what Jesus has done at the Cross, Forgiveness of Sins, Eternal Salvation.

Jesus Cannot die again and again, and He died Once For ALL, for eternal effect of the forgiveness of Sins, which is denied and rejected by RCC Mass everytime.

RCC is another Religion totally different from Christian Faith that ALL the Sins were forgiven at the Cross by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. The Real Christians must believe it then their lives will be changed!

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

Therefore the real faith is very important, and RCC denies this faith every time at the Mass when they lift up the cookies and ask God to forgive their sins.

snip...

Jesus Cannot die again and again, and He died Once For ALL, for eternal effect of the forgiveness of Sins, which is denied and rejected by RCC Mass everytime.

Instead of reading your own bias into things, why not look at it from the Catholic's own Catechism.

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice [not a re-sacrifice]: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190 [Emphasis mine]

RCC is another Religion totally different from Christian Faith that ALL the Sins were forgiven at the Cross by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. The Real Christians must believe it then their lives will be changed!

And just who do you think the early "Christian" Church was? It sure wasn't a Protestant church.

WM

 

[Zenas]

Zenas, you understand about the Mass far better than WM, because you recognize it as it is.

But that is typical misunderstanding not only by the RCC but also many protestant false believers as well.

Crucifixion made everything possible and finished, when Jesus cried " It is finished"

Then, as you questioned, why there are so many crimes and sins in this world, if all the sins were forgiven and cleansed away?

. . . .


RCC is another Religion totally different from Christian Faith that ALL the Sins were forgiven at the Cross by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. The Real Christians must believe it then their lives will be changed!

Actually Catholics don't believe Jesus died more than once. But that's for another debate. Right now I would like to explore why you believe all sins were forgiven at the cross. If that were so, why do we see so many N.T. passages that deal with present, not past, forgiveness of sins? Here are a couple of them:
Acts 2:38
1 John 1:9
If all sins were forgiven at the cross, shouldn't we take scissors and snip those verse out of the Bible?

 

[Jeremiah2911]

Most likely. The problem with most ex-Catholics and I was one for 27 years until just recently is that they attend mass and see things but have no idea the reasons they did what they do or were given miss information. Often times they had no idea what the Catholic church actually taught because some priest or nun gave them their personal perspective which may or may not be official Church teaching. Yet when they heard an evangelist (praise God for them) they heard the very simple and truthful Gospel that Jesus died for their sin and they can be free of that and restore their relationship with God and learn to be Godly from the scriptures. Having heard it this way in its simplistic form they somehow believe this is not what the Catholic Church teaches and become a "born again" believer. And being a modernistic man a simple acceptance of something means the total rejection of something else. In reality the catholic Church teaches this same truth using differing terms. However, a man who is in sin and is not enlighted by God then suddenly becomes so rejects everything they once were whether its true or not. Whether it was good or not and oft the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. But then what happens is once the baby gets thrown out and there is a cleared slate what often happens is they are brought up in a different set of traditions whether it be baptist, Methodist, Prebyterian, evangelical free,... and read their scriptures based on that set of traditions and lingo that fits in that set of traditions. Thus catholics teach you must be born again its the evangelicals that "coin" the term to mean conversion. So since this is the case most ex-catholics have developed the mentality that everything I was before I was "saved" is wrong or evil and lead me away from God. And If being Catholic Didn't lead me to this understanding then something is wrong with it. And thus I must believe everything Bottner teaches on the subject of Catholicism rather than going to the source itself and studing what it actually teaches. Since sinful self = Catholic in their mind
they are the most admimant against the Catholic Church. Much like an ex-smoker is the most vocal speaker against smoking. Though admittedly smoking is bad. But the loudest aren't the non smokers just the ex smokers.

Caution! Long post
Hello Thinkingstuff and Biblicist....I am very late to get into this thread, but I have enjoyed reading the posts and I have found yours to be very insightful....I am a Baptist minister--my testimony is simple, I was saved [born again] when I was 11 years old--I struggled with several years of my life but one thing remained constant--my knowledge of God and His mercy and that His salvation is real! I was called to preach in 1995 and we moved into a town that didn't have the same type Baptist Church, so we attended an Independent Baptist Church [wasn't pastoring yet, just preaching when opportunity arose]--the minister was an ex Catholic and EVERY Sunday he was bent on preaching against the Catholic church and Catholics in general....I always thought this peculiar, because I didn't think he had to worry about anyone leaving his Church to go to the Catholic Church, but oh well....Now I'm going to say something here that is going to make some of my Baptist brothers angry.....He went to a dogmatic KJV only school that put a huge emphasis on "soul winning" [btw I believe in being a witness, nothing wrong with witnessing]--but we would go out every Saturday and knock on doors and try to get people "saved"--basically you asked them questions that even the worst reprobate would agree with and then you had them say a prayer to "accept Jesus" and then he would tell them that they were saved and could never lose their salvation.....We would walk out the door and NEVER see that person again --were they saved? Evidence would seem otherwise, but the fact is he TOLD them they were and said they were eternally saved:tonofbricks:......Now, he could say terrible things about the Catholic Church, but what's the difference? You have 2 systems telling people how to be saved--and there are serious flaws in both of them.....Now fast forward--I am pastoring a Church where I have NINE families that have come out of the Catholic Church, [a country Church with 120 attendance, so a big portion of my congregation!] --and before they joined I spoke to them a little about the Reformation and Protestantism, that salvation is by grace through faith and that Baptism is a symbol--and I also told them I won't be bashing the Catholic Church because I am not a "Landmarkist" --I trust most of us sooner or later have ties to the Catholic Church whether we want to admit it or not.....and for these families, to bash the Church is to say [in so many words] my Grandma and Grandpa were dopes, etc etc.....Nothing edifying about bashing denominations--God has convicted me to preach the Bible....Just so happens I am preaching, for the first time in my 12 years of pastoring, the 7 Churches in the Book of Revelation, and I believe [as many others] those Churches represent a literal Church [when written] and a Church age--the Church at Pergamos --the doctrine of Balaam--he got the world [Moab] to marry the Church [Israel]....Constantine stopped the Christian persecutions and made Christianity Catholic [universal].....whether any of the Catholic people here want to admit it or not, the system became corrupt because, for one, you can't make people be Christians! Idolators took the waters of baptism and they came out just as sinfully dirty as they went in.....When you get to the Church at Thyatira--the corruption has gotten worse.....Jezebel and her doctrines [idolatry--image worshipping, etc][admit they pray to Mary statues and other "saints"]......But the point is--Jesus addressed the CHURCH--the redeemed.....no matter how corrupt systems may have gotten, and are today [yes there are also some pretty sad protestant churches--look at the mega church movement etc and read Matt 7: 21-23] again, no matter how corrupt the church systems may have become, there have ALWAYS been saved people within them! God still saves and He still adds daily to the CHURCH such as should be saved.....I have known and spent much time [when I was in college] with a Catholic family and I truly believe with all my heart the Mom and Dad were saved people--much like your Dad, tradition and fear kept them from considering another Church.....Now for my question to you--if you were truly born again, spent time studying, why would you ever consider rejoining a system that doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith? Seriously, for me or any truly saved person to argue "doctrine" with someone who isn't truly born again is no different than arguing with a Jehovahs Witness, no matter what label they pin on themselves [1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.].....I pray that you will continue your search for truth, but do so with a Reformist view, I think you will like what you find! I'm serious, some of those dogmatic Baptist Churches [maybe like the ones you've attended] can be every bit as misleading as all the denominations, including Catholicism, that they bash......I can't blame you if you didn't read all this, its LONG , but I do want to again thank you for your insightful posts! God bless you in your search for truth!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Faith without works is dead being alone and dead faith will save no one

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

He that hath the Son hath life, He that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

[The Biblicist]

Faith without works is dead being alone and dead faith will save no one

Salvation is quite simple in one sense and quite complex in another sense. I am going to try my best to explain a complex aspect. Now, I will tell you up front that I am not the sharpest knive in the drawer and so it will take me a lot more words and time to say what many of you more educated fella's could sum up in a sentence or two. However, please bare with me.

Salvation involves various aspects that are distinct from one another in regard to cause and effects and sometimes in regard to time of occurrence.

For example, the new birth and glorification are two different aspects that occur at two different times and yet inclusive in the overall picture of salvation. Hence, if we are looking at the whole picture of Salvation they are both included and yet without confusing either their own unique nature and time of occurrence. The new birth occurs at the beginning of the Christian experience where glorification occurs at the end of the Christian experience. The former has to do with the internal nature of man whereas the latter has to do with the indwelling principle of death residing in the physical nature of man. In some places "salvation" would involve both as a greater picture but in other places it would be a great error to demand that both are being addressed by either the term "salvation" or their individualized terms "quickened" versus "glorification."

However, there are other aspects of salvation that are just as distinctly different from each other in nature and in cause and effect relationships but not in time. For example, repentance and faith are not to be confused with each other in regard to their nature or their logical relationship with each other. However, in regard to time, one cannot occur without the other as they are two sides of the same coin.

Now, the same is true with justification "without works" and regeneration which produces "good works." They should not be confused in regard to their distinct and separate natures or their logical relationship with each other and yet one does not exist "without" the other. There is no such thing as a man who has been justified by faith without works who has not also been regenerated "unto good works."

James is looking at the bigger picture that includes both of these inseparable time related but distinct salvational aspects. The man who has been justified by faith is also the man who has been regenerated "unto good works" and therefore "good works" must be present where justification by faith is present.

This does not mean that regeneration is to be confused with justification, or that their logical cause and effect relationships with each other should be confused, as they are each distinct units of salvation considered separately. However, it does mean they cannot occur in time separately without the other and so where justification by faith "without works" exists so must "good works" by regeneration exist when they are considered together as a combined unit in time. Hence the justified man is a man who produces "good works" and James is looking at the great picture where both units are combined together in regard to time. The man that is truely justified by faith can "shew you" it by "good works." The man who cannot shew it by good works is not a justified man by faith as no such justified man exists who is not also a regenerated man producing good works.

In Romans 3:24-5:21, Paul deals with justification by faith without works as one unit of salvation. In Romans 6-8 Paul deals with justification by faith in conjunction with regeneration and its fruits of good works as inseparable in regard to time.

James is not dealing with justification by faith without works as a distinct individual unit as Paul does in Romans 3:24-5:21 but rather is dealing with it in its inseparable relationship with regeneration as Paul dealt with it in Romans 6-8 where it is inseparable from the regenerative fruits of "good works" as in Ephesians 2:10.

I hope that I have at least made my points clear enough to understand what I am saying. I don't have the education of many of you and so it takes me longer time and more words to say what many of you could sum up in one sentence or paragraph.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, your education does not appear to be lacking in the least and your training is evident. Your arguments are well thought out but I see one that stands out above your arguments. It appears to me that you are approaching the Word of God from a presupposition of OSAS, and are trying to rectify one passage with the other via that approach. Here is one such example.

Biblicst:

" James is looking at the bigger picture that includes both of these inseparable time related but distinct salvational aspects. The man who has been justified by faith is also the man who has been regenerated "unto good works" and therefore "good works" must be present where justification by faith is present."

You eliminate the reality James is trying to set forth, by simply overlooking the clear possibility Scripture indicates that one can start right, be clearly justified, yet drift away via the deceitfulness of sin and find themselves estranged from God with no solid hope of eternal life. One in such a condition might continue to lay hope in their eternal condition, yet their works clearly are now proving that they have left their first love, having made shipwreck of the faith, and stand in need of a fresh cleansing from present unrepented of sin.

Scripture has many warnings to the believer to examine themselves to see if they are still remaining in the faith. We are warned of the deceitfulness of sin that can draw us away from God and from a hope of eternal life based on solid reality and not mere deception. There is no evidence whatsoever that all that have rightfully entertained the hope of eternal life at one point in time continue that until the end or that they continue in good works of a necessity of being once justified. The passage in James is trying to get those that are claiming to be saved, or those that were once on the right path, to consider their works, judging their honest heart condition by their fruits. James is saying, regardless of where you once were or what you have received, if your works are not in sync with the faith you are professing, you are deceived as to your present standing with God.

 

[preacher4truth]

Caution! Long post
Hello Thinkingstuff and Biblicist....I am very late to get into this thread, but I have enjoyed reading the posts and I have found yours to be very insightful....I am a Baptist minister--my testimony is simple, I was saved [born again] when I was 11 years old--I struggled with several years of my life but one thing remained constant--my knowledge of God and His mercy and that His salvation is real! I was called to preach in 1995 and we moved into a town that didn't have the same type Baptist Church, so we attended an Independent Baptist Church [wasn't pastoring yet, just preaching when opportunity arose]--the minister was an ex Catholic and EVERY Sunday he was bent on preaching against the Catholic church and Catholics in general....I always thought this peculiar, because I didn't think he had to worry about anyone leaving his Church to go to the Catholic Church, but oh well....Now I'm going to say something here that is going to make some of my Baptist brothers angry.....He went to a dogmatic KJV only school that put a huge emphasis on "soul winning" [btw I believe in being a witness, nothing wrong with witnessing]--but we would go out every Saturday and knock on doors and try to get people "saved"--basically you asked them questions that even the worst reprobate would agree with and then you had them say a prayer to "accept Jesus" and then he would tell them that they were saved and could never lose their salvation.....We would walk out the door and NEVER see that person again --were they saved? Evidence would seem otherwise, but the fact is he TOLD them they were and said they were eternally saved:tonofbricks:......Now, he could say terrible things about the Catholic Church, but what's the difference? You have 2 systems telling people how to be saved--and there are serious flaws in both of them...

Good post! Some need to awaken to the fact that manipulating, or leading another in a "sinners prayer" is not salvific. The fact is, if that person is truly saved, they were saved before the "soul winner" led them through that prayer. That the modern church thinks it has salvation all wrapped up in "say this prayer" formula is unfortunate to say the least. This is a very common practice today.

I also believe any person genuinely saved will show up at church and have a hunger to be in Gods Word, and a hunger to know Him.

I wonder how many people there are that are still lost, but think they are saved because a preacher came by, they prayed the "magic formula", and the preacher then told them "they are now going to heaven."

 

[Jeremiah2911]

Good post! Some need to awaken to the fact that manipulating, or leading another in a "sinners prayer" is not salvific. The fact is, if that person is truly saved, they were saved before the "soul winner" led them through that prayer. That the modern church thinks it has salvation all wrapped up in "say this prayer" formula is unfortunate to say the least. This is a very common practice today.

I also believe any person genuinely saved will show up at church and have a hunger to be in Gods Word, and a hunger to know Him.

I wonder how many people there are that are still lost, but think they are saved because a preacher came by, they prayed the "magic formula", and the preacher then told them "they are now going to heaven."

Thank you P4T, it took me a lot of years of study, conviction, and experience to understand this truth--Salvation is indeed a work of God and, thankfully, He has never been hindered through the centuries by bad systems of theology! However, that is no excuse we shouldn't take Acts 17:30 seriously! God bless

 

[DHK]

Here is a couple of questions for you:
1. Please tell how the Catholic Church you go to defines the gospel, and how that gospel is able to save?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for" (CCC 27).
God freely gives everyone the grace to respond to his call. "Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life" (CCC 1996).
So what happens to those who have the desire for God written on their hearts and are moved by grace to respond to him but never hear the gospel or know of Jesus? The Church teaches that they may attain salvation. Quoting from Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, the Catechism explains, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation" (CCC 847).

First, I said: "In 20 years I never heard the gospel preached." (not the Bible read)
Second, You said that you have heard the gospel preached many times.
Third, I asked you to define the gospel according to the RCC, and then to tell how does the gospel save.

Now look at the answer you gave.
See the reason why I said: "In 20 years I never heard the gospel preached."
No one can get saved through the words that you posted above. That is what I asked you to do. Tell how the gospel saves. But there is no message there. There is no way for a person to be saved from which you quoted. It gives absolutely nothing of the gospel at all. I don't believe you understand what the gospel is.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I do apologize for my misunderstanding to your answer to me on 'attending Mass in the past' but let it be noted, that at every Mass the Holy Bible is read. The Bible is absolutely necessary for the Mass. Thank You

Apology accepted, however if you had been reading my posts I plainly said that I was one of those that read the Scriptures regularly.

2.DHK, you ask me for the following also: Jesus said: Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What does it mean to be born again?[Quote }

1 Peter 3:21
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Most Protestant churches teach that baptism is just symbolic and does not actually save us. Why, then, does Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? Because baptism, contrary to Protestant teaching, is salvific (effecting salvation). Through the merits of Christ's resurrection, baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation instituted by Christ, washes us clean of original sin, makes us adopted sons and daughters of God, and brings us to salvation.

That may be what the RCC tells you, but that is not what the Bible teaches.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21)
--Peter starts off saying that this is symbolic. It is figurative. "The like figure..." Now read the context and see what it is figurative of.

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20)
--What is the purpose of water in the above event? Does water save? No! God was using the water for an agent of His destructive power. Everyone baptized in the water drowned in the Flood. They weren't saved. The only ones that were saved were those who were safe in the Ark which was a picture of Christ. If you are not in the Ark with Christ, you are not saved. It is Christ that carried them through the waters of destruction. It is Christ that carried them through the storm. Had they been baptized they would have been destroyed. Baptism is a picture of destruction in this verse.

Now go again to verse 21 with that in mind:
also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21) [Young's Literal translation]
The antitype of the Ark is Christ. Those that are baptized in Christ are saved. Peter clarifies it even more. He says it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh--it has nothing to do with flesh; with water. But rather it is the question of a good conscience in regard to God. How does that good conscience in relation to God come about? It comes about through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without the resurrection there is no gospel and no salvation. Our salvation is in the risen Savior. That is the message of this verse. Baptism (in water) in this passage is a picture of destruction. Baptism in Christ is what saves.

Unlike Protestant teaching, baptism is not just a symbolic act of pouring, sprinkling or immersing one in water (otherwise Peter would not have said that it saves us). It is not just an appeal to God through a symbolic gesture. This is why Peter says it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body." Most scholars say that Peter was referring to circumcision (the ritual of initiation in the Old Covenant) when he writes about the “removal of dirt from the body.” Circumcision was a symbolic gesture before God that could never save us. But, at a minimum, Peter is teaching that baptism does not deal with the exterior, but the interior life of the person.

Baptism by water destroys in regards to salvation. Baptism in Christ saves. Only Christ can save. Water simply gets you wet.
Even Jeremiah mocks your belief:

For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. (Jeremiah 2:22)
--You cannot wash away your sins through baptism no matter how hard you scrub. Only the blood of Christ can wash away sin.

Thus, Peter teaches that baptism saves us “for a clear conscience.” This deals with the interior life. Similarly, the author of Heb. 10:22, in regard to being washed with the pure water (of baptism), says we are sprinkled “clean from an evil conscience.” Baptism removes original sin which darkens our consciences.

Nothing will ever remove that sin from you. You will always have it, as you do now. Read again Jer.2:22.

It purifies the interior life of the person. Baptism is not just an external, symbolic, ceremonial gesture (otherwise, the sacred writers would not write about the purification of the conscience, where sin is born).

They didn't. They wrote about the resurrection, the risen Christ, the gospel that can purify. Paul wrote about the "power of the gospel to save." Never did he write about the power of baptism. In fact he said: "God sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1Cor.1:17)

Thus, through the resurrection of Christ, baptism now actually saves our spiritual lives, just as Noah's ark (which Peter says baptism "corresponds to") saved his family's natural lives.

The baptism Peter referred to was not a water baptism. He said: "not a cleansing of the flesh."

In baptism, we are washed clean of original sin and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father. This is why Paul writes to Titus, in reference to baptism, that “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7.

There is no reference to baptism there. Follow Scripture closely enough and you will find that the Word of God symbolizes the cleansing of the soul. See John 15:3

Paul echoes Peter’s teaching that baptism saves us by regenerating our interior lives, namely, our souls, which are now endowed with God’s divine and sanctifying grace. We thus become children of God and heirs of the kingdom.

Neither Paul nor Peter teach this heresy.

Only the Catholic Church teaches that baptism, by virtue of the merits of Christ and their application to us, is salvific. The Protestant churches, contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 (and Titus 3:5-7; John 3:5; and Heb. 10:22) teach that baptism is only symbolic. For more on the striking parallels of these Scripture verses, please visit my link on Baptism.
Copied from John Salza

And that is why it is a RCC heresy--the RCC teaches it.
Leave it; forsake it. It is not the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

.....Now for my question to you--if you were truly born again, spent time studying, why would you ever consider rejoining a system that doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith?

There is a lot in your post that I could comment on however I want to get to this question because it is in reality the root question. I am a truelly a born again believer in both the Catholic and Protestant sense of the term. I once lived in sin and had no thought toward or of God. I was preached to and shown the gospel of Salvation by faith through grace. I believed it in my heart. I repented (said I was sorry then turned 180 degrees from my previous life). By God's grace my life immediately changed and I had a hunger for God's word. I went to Christian churches and universities. I've been door to door. I've been on missionary trips. I've helped build churches in Africa, England, and Main. Been to a few Nicky Criuz conserts and was moved by his testimony. Read the cross and the switchblade several times. Became an efficienado of Christian contemporary groups (when I was young). Ie... Michael Card (My favorite), Amy Grant, Sandy Patty (was sadden when I heard both these women got divorced), Keith Green (still love his music though he was anti-catholic), Michael W. Smith (I still get chills and goose bumps with his rendition of the Sanctus or Holy Holy Holy), Petra (older stuff like the coloring song) - guess I'm showing my age huh - and Rich Mullins. I looked for good books to read by AW Tozer, RC Sproul, Francis Sheaffer, Elizabeth Elliot (good reflections from her time with her husband and her own mission work), had a copy of My Upmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers at my bed side as well as my copy (and still have it by the way) of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I met my wife in church (she sang in the chior) and I don't think I had too many friends apart from my home church (which was Southern Baptist) because my life revolved around it. I bring these things up to give you some sense of my life and growth in the faith before returning to the Catholic faith. Which, btw was a huge jump for me because I leaned towards Reformed (TULIP). And Certainly it didn't happen over night. Lots of study and prayer went into it before I even considered researching it.
Now for your statement. It is clear you've made an assumption with out support and I will show you the error. Here is your statement again

why would you ever consider rejoining a system that doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith

First, I find it curious you didn't add alone at the end of faith. That is so often the highlighted aspect. However, you are mistaken when you say the Catholic Church does not believe salvation is by "grace through faith". The Catholic Church does very much believe "salvation is by grace through faith" the common Catholic addition to this statement (much like the protestant's "Alone") is "working in love". Here is the Catholic Catachism. By the way when this Catachism was first put together and presented John Paul II said "there will always be those who disagree with the church just now let them not be confused about what we teach." However this is what the Catholic Catachism has to say on Salvation by grace through faith

684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to "know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ."

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature

153 Faith is a grace. When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven". Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"

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).

1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ

So the premise of the question is a false one. As Catholics we do believe salvation comes from grace through faith. So to succinctly answer your question I haven't rejoined a system that doesn't believe in salvation from grace through faith.

 

[targus]

First, I said: "In 20 years I never heard the gospel preached." (not the Bible read)
Second, You said that you have heard the gospel preached many times.
Third, I asked you to define the gospel according to the RCC, and then to tell how does the gospel save.

Now look at the answer you gave.
See the reason why I said: "In 20 years I never heard the gospel preached."
No one can get saved through the words that you posted above. That is what I asked you to do. Tell how the gospel saves. But there is no message there. There is no way for a person to be saved from which you quoted. It gives absolutely nothing of the gospel at all. I don't believe you understand what the gospel is.

DHK, you seem to be saying that one cannot be saved by reading the Bible alone.

Are you suggesting that in order to be saved one needs someone to explain the gospel to them?

 

[The Biblicist]

It appears to me that you are approaching the Word of God from a presupposition of OSAS, and are trying to rectify one passage with the other via that approach. Here is one such example.

Biblicst:You eliminate the reality James is trying to set forth, by simply overlooking the clear possibility Scripture indicates that one can start right, be clearly justified, yet drift away via the deceitfulness of sin and find themselves estranged from God with no solid hope of eternal life. One in such a condition might continue to lay hope in their eternal condition, yet their works clearly are now proving that they have left their first love, having made shipwreck of the faith, and stand in need of a fresh cleansing from present unrepented of sin.

Scripture has many warnings to the believer to examine themselves to see if they are still remaining in the faith.

Good morning! I do like your handle, "heavenly pilgrim" and such are all of God's saints. I am most pleased that at least I was able to convey my intent.

I am guilty of the charge you have made. Yes, I do believe that all those that come to Christ in true saving faith not one shall be lost but Christ shall raise every single one of them up at the last day unto the resurrection of eternal life (Jn. 6:36-40,44-45).

However, I do not believe that everyone that confesses faith in Christ will be raised up unto eternal life (Mt. 7:21-23) even though they may have impeccable good works (fine houses) in the eyes of men (Mt. 5:20). Both lost professors and God's true saints can both have very fine houses or lives that manifest to all appearances as good works but ultimately it is not the house that saves from the day of judgment but the foundation upon which that house is built (Mt. 5:24-28). And there is no other foundation that can be laid to build a house of God upon or build the house of our lives upon that will stand in the day of judgement but the Person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

Regrettably the true status of another person's salvation is beyond the ability of any man to judge absolutely. Why? Because no man can peer inside the heart of another man. We can only be fruit inspectors at most and even then we may be fooled. Many can confess Christ and live a life of very good works and yet may hear Christ confess "I NEVER knew you."

We approach another complex subject that I believe many falter and stumble over. True salvation endures all tribulations (Rom. 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 1:8-10) as proven in the case study set before all the world in the person of Job. However, not all who profess possess and those who do possess no matter how fine a life of good works will not pass the judgement, while in direct contrast the "least" of saints with a manifest life no better than the person of "Lot" will be saved.

Here is the point, you must examine yourself constantly to see if you are even in the faith and only as you endure in faith unto the end will others be confident of your salvation and you will continue in assurance of your own salvation. We are not of them that draw back from faith into perdition but of them that believe unto the saving of our souls. So it behoves each one of us to "make our calling and election sure." A simple profession does not make it sure. External profession that includes both Christ and good works as the basis for entrance into heaven makes it even more questionable. However, the Holy Spirit gives to all of His people "assurance" of their salvation by His internal witness (1 Thes. 1:4-5 "in much assurance") and therefore they can "know" they have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13).

James is talking about a true confession in regard to a proper confession in Christ alone or justification by faith coupled with good works as the manifestation of true internal spiritual life that always accompanies those who are truly justified by faith without works.

 

[Zenas]

DHK, you seem to be saying that one cannot be saved by reading the Bible alone.

Are you suggesting that in order to be saved one needs someone to explain the gospel to them?

I wouldn’t pretend to answer for DHK but the answer to your question is generally “yes.” This is borne out by Acts 8:30-31 and by Romans 10:14-16. It's possible to be saved by reading the Bible alone but such would be a rare occurence. Moreover, in today's culture it is difficult to read the Bible in a vacuum. The reader will invariably see TV/radio preachers, see people going to church on Sunday, etc. All these outside factors would have some influence, for good or bad.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you seem to be saying that one cannot be saved by reading the Bible alone.

Are you suggesting that in order to be saved one needs someone to explain the gospel to them?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23)

No, one is not saved by the "readings" of the RCC. It is through the power of the preaching of the gospel. That is what the Bible itself teaches. It is not through Oral Tradition; it is through the power of the gospel. We have examples:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (Acts 8:35)
It was the Eunuch that was "reading" the Scriptures.
What did he say to Philip when Philip asked him if he understood what he read?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:31)
--Then Philip preached unto him Jesus.