Dr. Graham answered my letter

How much doctrine do I have to believe correctly before I am accepted into heaven?

I agree, doctrine matters. So that's not my question and don't accuse me of down playing doctrine. I don't.

Is Romans 10:9-10 the minimal amount that I have to believe to go to heaven.

1. Believe in your heart that God raised [Jesus] from the dead.

2. Confess with your mouth that "Jesus is Lord."

3. Call on the name of the Lord.

And you will be saved.

If I do these three things am I saved?

Are there Catholics who believe these three truths? Yes. Are they going to heaven? Even if they believe some other things doctrinally that we would disagree with?

I think the answer is yes.

How much of my doctrine has to agree with Larry's understanding of doctrine before I'm allowed to go to heaven?

To say that "Catholics" who hold to the Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot be saved is a statement I'm not willing to make.

 

If perfect obedience to scripture is your standard, then all Christian groups are false religions.

 

Larry,

Do you do evangilistic preaching in Michigan? Has there been an out pouring of revival? Does that mean you are not called by God?

You look at Grahams ministry and it has influenced America in positive ways. Many have been saved because of his message. He preaches Christ alone is the way to salvation.

You look at testimonies from people who were saved at one of his crusades. Why should his impact on the culture be different than ours. How have you impacted your culture.

D.L. Moody ministry is a good example to look at. Would you say moody and Graham ministries are similar? D.L. Moody touched and changed lives thru the gospel of Christ just like Graham.

As far as the book of Acts goes. you were talking about folk and the bigger is better mentality. God chose to put those numbers in the Bible for future Christians to see. I believe it is alright to talk about the impact Graham has had on countless lives.

You talk about his impact, we will see in Heaven how Graham, myself and you have touched lives. That is when we will know the real impact of our lives.

I might be crossing threads here but I got to know. Does the muslim butcher serve pork and the guy at subway? That is supossed to be a big taboo for them isn't it?

 

Several issues are still being confused.

1. Perfect doctrine is not required for salvation. You don't even have to agree with me. However, we do have to believe what the Bible says. The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith in Christ alone without works. One has to believe that to be saved. The Catholic church does not believe that. They have repudiated that for centuries. They teach their view in the Catechism. On that basis, someone who believes in what the RCC teaches cannot be saved while they believe that.

2. About results and faithfulness, we are not measured by the results. We should have some, but they are not the test of faithfulness or truth. God may use a man who is disobedient. That does not justify his disobedience. Success should not be measured by "countless" or countable groups of people. We have to look at biblical obedience. The Bible encourages children and says that a man with a quiverful is blessed. Should we then go out and have as many children with as many different women as we can? Obviously not. You would agree that obedience is more important. The same is true in evangelism, in a much more serious way. When someone stands up and claims to speak for God, and then holds hands in cooperation with those who reject God, he is sending the wrong message even if he is doing the right thing. God told Saul that he wanted obedience more than sacrifice. He has told us all the same. What we might accomplish by disobedience is never greater than obedience itself.

As for the Muslim butcher and subway owner, I don't know.

 

I was just wondering about the subway guy and butcher?? My ADD got the best of me for a moment. We don't agree on everything Larry but I like you. You do stand your ground. God bless you Larry.

 

I think that can be said about the majority of churches in America. Think about how many in the church you pastor have even led one person to Christ ever.

 

You said it well.

I have yet to meet one person who agrees with me on everything. Today I don’t agree with some things I believed years ago. But that is what the refining fire is supposed to do to us.

In a furnace, as I have watched metal go from a solid to a liquid as heat is applied, the dross which is burned up into ash floats to the top and underneath is the pure bright metal used in casting to make useful parts.

I think as we get older we become kinder to people and better understand that if it were not for God’s grace we would be nothing. When we understand God’s grace out comes a zeal and outpouring of love for others we never had.

Jim, thanks for sharing your experiences and wisdom.

 

I agree. I think the state of our churches is sad. We are so materialistic, humanistic, secularistic that it seems to hardly resemble the church in the NT. It grieves my heart.

 

I agree, Larry, gb.

I would surmize that many in our bapist churches know less doctrine than a devout Catholic who believes the doctrine taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because there is IMO confusion concerning justification/sanctification in RC doctrine, that means believing catholics aren't going to heaven?

I don't think so.

The Christian Church (Campbellites) believes that it is in baptism that regeneration takes place. Does that mean that believing Campbellites aren't going to heaven? They believe everything we do, except think that baptism is the moment of regeneration. We think praying the prayer is the moment of regeneration.

A believing Lutheran who was baptized as an infant is not a Christian because he believes regeneration took place in his baptism, though on every other doctrine he agrees with my understanding. But he's not going to heaven because he believes in infant baptism? I don't think so.

What matters is that God regenerates the sinner so that the sinner repents and confesses that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Jesus from the dead. Calling out in the name of the Lord or having faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is the sign that regeneration has taken place.

Too many of our baptists believe in Jesus plus "I said a prayer."

Faulty doctrine is not going to keep someone out of heaven. Not confessing that Jesus is Lord will!

I know too many devout RC and others who confess Jesus as Lord to know better than to say that they aren't going to heaven.

 

I don't think the issues is merely a confusion about justification and snactification, although that is certainly serious. It is the confusion between imputation and infusion (which is tied to the above confusion). When a Catholic teaches infused righteousness, that infused righteousnss worked out becomes hte basis for justification. That flies in teh face of what Paul says, that justification is by faith, not by works. In other words, what Romanism means by "justification" is not what Scripture means by justification. The addition of works to the equation is ultimately an implicit or explicit denial of Christ's sufficiency. The same with Campbellites or Lutherans. If these are "believing _________" then we must ask what they are believing in? If they are believing in Christ as Lord, then they will leave their works based or baptismal based theology and come to the Scriptures. If they don't, we can only assume that whatever they believe, it isn't Christ as Lord. If they believed in Christ as Lord, then they would find him all sufficient and bow to his lordship.

I think too often we mistake spiritual talk and theological knowledge for spiritual life. It seems to me that someone who confesses Jesus as Lord will believe what Jesus said about salvation. As he said, Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," but do not do the things that I say?

 

I don't think the issues is merely a confusion about justification and snactification, although that is certainly serious. It is the confusion between imputation and infusion (which is tied to the above confusion). When a Catholic teaches infused righteousness, that infused righteousnss worked out becomes hte basis for justification. That flies in teh face of what Paul says, that justification is by faith, not by works. In other words, what Romanism means by "justification" is not what Scripture means by justification.</font>[/QUOTE]The confusion over the use of the words justification and sanctification is the temporal element that has been added to those words in the common protestant/Baptist understanding of the words.

Justification/Salvation/Regeneration is seen as a past event in a Christian's life.
Sanctification is seen as a present/ongoing event in a Christian's life.
Glorification happens at the end of a Christian's life.

In a more biblical view that RCs and some Protestant/Baptists subscribe to, the words salvation, justification and sanctification have no temporal constraints.

Salvation - past, present, future
Justification - initial, progressive, final
Sanctification - initial, progressive, final
Salvation includes justification and sanctification
Justification includes sanctification

It is true that the distinctions between the past, present and future aspects of all three are unclear in Catholic doctrine, but I believe that is because these clear distinct temporal lines between these things are also not found in the bible.

However, it is appropriate to understand the Catholic understanding of Salvation past/initial Justification and Sanctification to be equivalent to the Protestant/Baptist understanding of justification. And it is appropriate to understand the Catholic understanding of Salvation present/progressive Justification and Sanctification to be equivalent to the Protestant/Baptist understanding of sanctification.

The addition of works to Salvation present is found in Phillipians 2:12. The denial of faith alone in progressive Justification is found in James 2:24.

 

I think sometimes we confuse the "knowing" clergy with the relatively "simple" believer in the pew.

"Believe on Jesus and thou shalt be saved" is the simple context in going to be with God upon death. Many believe this despite their "church's" doctrines. All a pastor must do to prove this thought is think about his own congregation, and/or read some of the statements made in here. Confusion reins on a number of doctrines.

One confusion I see here often is making Jesus "Lord and Saviour". I believe that one becoems saved. Making Christ Lord of our lives is a process, and we must learn that.

Just a simple and old preacher learning that not all is as cut and dried as it used to be.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is, quite simply, incorrect. Justification is a one time event. And that is the crux of hte issue. Justification is not on-going, nor it is repeated. It is true that salvation and sanctification are used in past/present/future tenses. This confusion is why you are mislead on the RCC soteriology, and why you are now misleading others. When someone teaches, they have a higher burden and you are failing that burden by teaching falsely about justification.

Again, it amazes me that after 1500 years of recognized distinction people are now trying to act like we believe the same thing. We don't.

Nothing there about adding works to salvation. Paul is saying to "work out your salvation." He is saying you already have it, now live like it.

Considering the context (the only proper way to study Scripture) we see again that the text does not say we are not saved by "faith alone" but rather that we are not saved by "faith that is alone." Read the whole passage and find out what question James is answering. James is not answering the question of whehther we are saved by faith alone or by faith plus works. He is answering the question of What kind of faith saves? The very opening verse of this section shows your foundation wrong. He says, "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The word "that" indicates that he is talking about a kind of saving faith, not whether or not faith saves. His whole passage teaches that saving faith results in a changed life. There is not one bit of evidence that teaches salvation is by faith plus works. That would be, as the Bible teaches, a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. This type of proof texting without context is the worst kind of Bible study because it misleads people into believing wrong things, as it has you.

You can't just treat the Bible like a dictionary, where the entries are unrelated. These verses exist in a context (both near and far) that tell us what they mean. In the end, this still boils down to this issue: The RCC uses the same words that we do, but they mean something entirely different by them. Those who don't recognize the distinction will be confused about what is being taught.

 

Reading the text such as Acts 16:31 and Rom 10:10 clearly teach that saving faith acknowledges Christ as Savior and Lord. We cannot fail to acknowledge his whole person. That should not be confused with fully understanding his lordship. But we cannot deny it.

I think we can all acknowledge that not all things are cut and dried. But where Scripture makes an explicit statement, God "cuts and dries" it for us. And that is where we should drive our stake in the ground.

 

I do not speak falsely about what Catholics believe justification to mean. I do not speak falsely about what many Protestants/Baptists believe justification to mean.

Catholic Source
Justification in Catholic Teaching

Reformed Source
Theologia : The Tenses of Justification

 

There is an interesting phenomenon over the years, especially recently. If you read the Catechism and compare it with past versions you see some changes. For instance, they used to say that anyone outside the church was unsaved. Then they changed that to say that people who are willingly outside the church are unsaved (sincere people who don't know can still be saved). Now, I think it is anyone who is sincerely trying to follow Christ is saved. I am going from memory on the precise wording of those so don't quote me on that precisely.

Their position on salvation in Christ alone is another tricky one. They do say that they believe in salvation through Christ alone, but they mean something different by that. They mean that God infuses the righteousness of Christ into us, and that righteousness in us causes us to obey, and we are justified by that obedience. That allows them to include works, but to slyly call them Christ's works in us, and therefore, it is "all of Christ." This infused righteousness is what causes them to talk about ongoing justification (as Gold Dragon mentioned in another thread). But justification is not ongoing. Theirs is a deceitful kind of language that confuses many. The biblical doctrine is one of imputed righteousness, where God counts Christ's righteousness as our righteousness and we are justified on that basis.

R.C. Sproul has a great little book on this called Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. It is a good read to explain some of hte technical differences concerning why we use the same words but mean something entirely different by them.

In the end, the RCC has never changed their doctrinal stance of salvation through our own merit of the sacraments and works. They simply word it differently. As I often remind people, the Reformation happened for a reason. No one on either side for 450 years claimed it was merely a misunderstanding ... that we were saying teh same thing. They knew there were substantive and mutually exclusive differences. We should not smooth those over now.

 

Larry,

You made some excellent points in your last three posts. Your comments on James were right on.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the Catholics and Prostestants now agree on how salvation takes place. My statement is that despite failing to understand justification in the same way Protestants do, Catholics who confess that Jesus is Lord are saved.

 

What you said here is a misrepresentation of both. You should take the time to study it out. Your first article from a Catholic source is loaded with problems, right from the definition of justification. It says that Catholics and Protestants agree that justification means to "make righteous." That is incorrect. We do not agree on that. To justify is a forensic declaration, an imputation, not an infusing. If you look back at what I said previously, this is the key distinction. We do not mean the same hting by "justification" as the Catholics do. They use it to mean that God "infused" righteousness in us. The Bible, and we, use it to mean that God "declared us righteous." That is a key distinction.

The Catholic article goes on to talk about merit and says about the Catholic position exactly what I said about it, and exactly what the Bible refutes. Protestants do not object to the word "merit," but to the meaning attached to it by Catholics. Catholics teach that God justifies us by the merit of our works that his grace produced in us. And that is the problem. God justified us because of Christ's work of obedience and death, not because of our work. The article says the issue of legal righteousness is a "matter of indifference" to them. That is exactly the problem. They find themselves indifferent to the biblical teaching on justification.

This conversation is admittedly deeper than most want to get in to. It has become vogue for some to claim the Catholics teach salvation by works. That is all they have heard their whole lives. And so when a Catholic says "No, we don't beleive that," and begins to talk about merit, and grace, and justification, and faith, they are lost without a response because they never knew what the issue was to begin with.

But it is necessary to look beyond the words at their meanings and usage. When you do, you find out that they mean something entirely different than we do. And that is why only one of us can teach the true way of salvation. The law of non-contradiction says we are not both correct. For the sake of argument, they might be right and us wrong; we might be wrong, and them wrong; we might both be wrong. But we most certainly cannot both be right. This matter must be adjudicated by the revelation God has given us. The Catholic view of revelation and authority means they can sidestep the Bible with their own structure. We do not share that liberty, nor do we grant it to them. The Bible is the sole source of authority for the believer.