Roman Catholicism

[evangelist6589]

There is a individual whom I have tried to witness too on FB. I have used the LAW in the good person test, and he admits he is a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, a adulator at heart, and the like, but he also claims to be saved. I have then showed him the difference in the doctrine of Justification and why Catholics believe that the church is a part of it, and deny "Sola Fide" by Faith alone. This does not persuade him, so I have to wonder if he has been deceived and does not believe what the church teaches, or he is just another one under the deception of satan and TOTAL DEPRAVITY has a hold on him, until God can or chooses to open his eyes and give him regeneration which proceeds faith, as man cannot redeem himself, that only comes from God. So what say you? Are there saved Catholics?

Obviously the Pelagianist will deny all this as they believe man can redeem himself, man was not born a sinner, but only became one, and man can keep the commandments without the Holy Spirit.

 

[JamesL]

So are you asking a question, or looking to discuss some aspects of Calvinism, or just venting?

 

[JonC]

Put this in the framework of Reformed theology, since that is your position. Can God save a Catholic? If so, and this saved person remains in error, does he or she lose their salvation?

 

[quantumfaith]

So are you asking a question, or looking to discuss some aspects of Calvinism, or just venting?

I'll go out on a limb here and say.....YES.

 

[evangelist6589]

Put this in the framework of Reformed theology, since that is your position. Can God save a Catholic? If so, and this saved person remains in error, does he or she lose their salvation?

I have no idea if he is saved or not. But if not he was not of the elect which will explain his attitude. He won't be convinced and others have tried to persuade him also. Yes God can save Catholics. A while back a bunch of evangelical scholars signed something called Evangelicals and Catholics together which had support from Reformed such as JI Packer and others. I do not understand what Packer was thinking as Catholics deny essential doctrine.

 

[exscentric]

A while back a bunch of evangelical scholars signed something called Evangelicals and Catholics together which had support from Reformed such as JI Packer and others. I do not understand what Packer was thinking as Catholics deny essential doctrine.

You might look it up and read it, not sure what it was about but not sure doctrine was the emphasis.

 

[Rippon]

You might look it up and read it, not sure what it was about but not sure doctrine was the emphasis.

Doctrine is unavoidable --and that wretched "agreement" was no exception. JIP has had my deep respect for ages. However,that "bridge with Rome" sent up cautionary flags. Of course his innumerable book endorsements have been troubling too. He could not possibly have read all of them. And sometimes what he has recommended has been quite inferior -- doctrinally unsound.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Put this in the framework of Reformed theology, since that is your position. Can God save a Catholic? If so, and this saved person remains in error, does he or she lose their salvation?

If a person is saved, how long can they willfully remain in error?

 

[evangelist6589]

Doctrine is unavoidable --and that wretched "agreement" was no exception. JIP has had my deep respect for ages. However,that "bridge with Rome" sent up cautionary flags. Of course his innumerable book endorsements have been troubling too. He could not possibly have read all of them. And sometimes what he has recommended has been quite inferior -- doctrinally unsound.

Yeah he may not be reading or comprehending all the books he endorses. His associations are questionable no doubt.

 

[JamesL]

A while back a bunch of evangelical scholars signed something called Evangelicals and Catholics together which had support from Reformed such as JI Packer and others. I do not understand what Packer was thinking as Catholics deny essential doctrine.

"Evangelicals and Catholics Together"
in short, the document was intended to highlight agreement instead of disagreement.

Agreement in basically one essential - that there is no name given, save Jesus Christ, through which men must be saved.

That if we can agree on that, and highlight that agreement, then we can move toward a more cordial atmosphere of discussion of differences, rather than simply hurling anathemas

Then, from an atmosphere of agreement, more of the world might be reached from Christ


Really, this was not anything new. Billy Graham has held to this sort of ecumenical approach since the beginning of his evangelistic association, and how many people adore him? He always acknowledged that he was not trying to steal Catholics away from Rome. His intent was to preach the gospel as he saw it, and to direct a "convert" to any church so desired


The council of Vatican II tried to formally reach out when they were the first Romans Catholics to refer to Protestants as "separated brethren" 30 years before Evangelicals and Catholics Together was signed

That was a giant leap from the typical cursing of Protestants


I'm not saying I agree with this approach, for I do not. But, it is always better to know for yourself, rather than simply parroting someone, or being persuaded simply by someone's concerns, such as John MacArthur

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Relax

Evangelist, perhaps I can let you off the hook here.

"Convicting" or convincing (as you wish) a person of the need to accept Jesus is the work of the Holy Spirit. A Christian is only responsible for sharing and presenting the truth of God. You are NOT the Holy Spirit, so relax. You've done what you can.

 

[pinoybaptist]

.............................................................
Agreement in basically one essential - that there is no name given, save Jesus Christ, through which men must be saved.
...........................................

big dream, that.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evangelist, perhaps I can let you off the hook here.

"Convicting" or convincing (as you wish) a person of the need to accept Jesus is the work of the Holy Spirit. A Christian is only responsible for sharing and presenting the truth of God. You are NOT the Holy Spirit, so relax. You've done what you can.

You are correct. I have given up on that man. He loves his sin no doubt about it. I do not post anything more to him.

 

[JonC]

If a person is saved, how long can they willfully remain in error?

I don't know how long. But whether it is one minute or a lifetime, the issue is the same. How long can a saved person remain in error before he or she is no longer saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a individual whom I have tried to witness too on FB. I have used the LAW in the good person test, and he admits he is a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, a adulator at heart, and the like, but he also claims to be saved. I have then showed him the difference in the doctrine of Justification and why Catholics believe that the church is a part of it, and deny "Sola Fide" by Faith alone. This does not persuade him, so I have to wonder if he has been deceived and does not believe what the church teaches, or he is just another one under the deception of satan and TOTAL DEPRAVITY has a hold on him, until God can or chooses to open his eyes and give him regeneration which proceeds faith, as man cannot redeem himself, that only comes from God. So what say you? Are there saved Catholics?

Obviously the Pelagianist will deny all this as they believe man can redeem himself, man was not born a sinner, but only became one, and man can keep the commandments without the Holy Spirit.

There are saved Catholics, saved by grace of God, NOT due/because of their bad theology!

Once saved by him, need to come out and forsake that church!

 

[prophet]

There are saved Catholics, saved by grace of God, NOT due/because of their bad theology!

Once saved by him, need to come out and forsake that church!

If they believe that the priest absolves their sins, they are damned.