Are you Going to Heaven?

[Clete]

Romans 10:9-10 is not a magic mantra that will get someone saved today.

Jehovah's Witnesses "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", do they not?

Romans 9-11 is a lesson about Israel. Verse 9 of chapter 10 is referring to Joel.

It's about what Israel needed to do during the time of Jacob's trouble.

Paul is certainly using it differently, but not completely so.

I'm not sure what you point is.
I agree that Rom. 10:9-10 is not the whole of the gospel, thus the other five points in the list.
Are you suggesting that there is something I need to add to the list or were you simply making an observation about that passage?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure what you point is.
I agree that Rom. 10:9-10 is not the whole of the gospel, thus the other five points in the list.
Are you suggesting that there is something I need to add to the list or were you simply making an observation about that passage?

Many people believe that Romans 10:9-10 is the gospel.

Many people also believe that some works are required to be saved. Though they cannot pin that down.

Do you believe that someone that believes and insists that water baptism is required to be saved is saved per the gospel of the grace of God?

 

[Clete]

Many people believe that Romans 10:9-10 is the gospel.

Many people also believe that some works are required to be saved. Though they cannot pin that down.

Do you believe that someone that believes and insists that water baptism is required to be saved is saved per the gospel of the grace of God?

The only way I know to answer that question is the way I've answered similar questions from Musterion...

I believe that anyone - ANYONE - is saved if they believe the following....

1. God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
2. We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
3. Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
5. Jesus rose from the dead.
6. If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

The question then becomes whether a person who "believes and insists that water baptism is required to be saved" does, in fact, believe those things.

The answer, I think, would have to be determined on a case by case basis. I see no reason why one couldn't believe both. Of course, they are in conflict but since when has that ever kept anyone from believing something?

Also, I'd have a hard time believing that virtually every member of every church I grew up in is unsaved and that any of those people who have died have done so in their sin because they believed in a doctrine that is, in fact, taught in the New Testament and exemplified in the Lord's own life and practice. You might respond that Jesus was also circumcised, etc. and, of course, that is true but, once again, most people are not consistent in their beliefs. It is easy for people to intellectually compartmentalize almost anything and most don't ever bother to worry about whether their doctrine makes perfect sense. They simply believe what they are taught to believe and most never question it past that point. For most, it is for the pastor of their church to understand and teach and it is for them to listen and believe.

That is, of course, a sad state of affairs, to be sure but it is the state of affairs nonetheless and as I've stated many times already, I don't care what someone gets wrong so long as they get those six points right. The gospel isn't about getting all your doctrinal ducks in a row, its about believing that God Himself became a man and died the death that we deserve because of our sin and that He rose from the dead for our justification. Saying that those who make such errors as performing baptisms or whatever, turns the gospel of grace into a backdoor form of law. It stops being about belief in the gospel and becomes about what you aren't allowed to believe. "Thou shalt not believe that baptism is required for salvation." is not part of the gospel message. Of course, doctrines about baptisms and other works that a Christian might perform (e.g. tithing or whatever) do a great deal of harm to a believer's spiritual life but harm to the degree of disqualification from salvation, no matter what else he believes? I think not! Getting an aspect of your doctrine wrong, even large aspects of your doctrine, is not sufficient to overcome the saving power of the gospel. If one believes the gospel then he will be saved - period.

I happen to have been reading I Corinthians earlier and I think it applicable in this discussion. The doctrines that I have listed express the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Apostle Paul and might therefore be considered the foundational doctrines of salvation upon which all sorts of other doctrines will be based, either for good or not. Doctrines of baptisms would not be for the better, of course, but so long as the foundation remains then so does the salvation as Paul explicitly states...

I Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The answer, I think, would have to be determined on a case by case basis.

Of course it is... that's how individual salvation works.

I see no reason why one couldn't believe both. Of course, they are in conflict but since when has that ever kept anyone from believing something?

One should not try to believe two contradictory things, as you've said many times.
One can believe two contradictory things, but only one can be true.

• Salvation by grace through faith without works.
• Salvation by grace through faith plus works.

In the present dispensation, the first is correct the second is false.

Also, I'd have a hard time believing that virtually every member of every church I grew up in is unsaved and that any of those people who have died have done so in their sin because they believed in a doctrine that is, in fact, taught in the New Testament and exemplified in the Lord's own life and practice.

Are they confusing dispensations here? Most of the Christian world rejects "pure grace", i.e., what Paul received from the Lord and taught.

You might respond that Jesus was also circumcised, etc. and, of course, that is true but, once again, most people are not consistent in their beliefs. It is easy for people to intellectually compartmentalize almost anything and most don't ever bother to worry about whether their doctrine makes perfect sense. They simply believe what they are taught to believe and most never question it past that point. For most, it is for the pastor of their church to understand and teach and it is for them to listen and believe.

They should just be Catholics then.

"Thou shalt not believe that baptism is required for salvation." is not part of the gospel message.

Of course it is. It's clearly implied throughout Paul's epistles. Is someone that believes that water baptism is required for salvation really "believing the gospel"?

I'm not trying to condemn anyone and am in no way "proud" of being saved by grace through faith without works.

Of course, doctrines about baptisms and other works that a Christian might perform (e.g. tithing or whatever) do a great deal of harm to a believer's spiritual life but harm to the degree of disqualification from salvation, no matter what else he believes? I think not! Getting an aspect of your doctrine wrong, even large aspects of your doctrine, is not sufficient to overcome the saving power of the gospel. If one believes the gospel then he will be saved - period.

So it sounds like you believe that most every person that calls themselves a Christian is saved.

I happen to have been reading I Corinthians earlier and I think it applicable in this discussion. The doctrines that I have listed express the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Apostle Paul and might therefore be considered the foundational doctrines of salvation upon which all sorts of other doctrines will be based, either for good or not. Doctrines of baptisms would not be for the better, of course, but so long as the foundation remains then so does the salvation as Paul explicitly states...

I Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

Clete

That passage is strictly speaking of WORKS and not the sort of faith required for salvation. It is talking about the WORKS of a SAVED person.

 

[Clete]

One should not try to believe two contradictory things, as you've said many times.
One can believe two contradictory things, but only one can be true.

• Salvation by grace through faith without works.
• Salvation by grace through faith plus works.

In the present dispensation, the first is correct the second is false.

That's beside the point. Whether they are contradictory or not, the point is that both can be believed and often are.

Are they confusing dispensations here? Most of the Christian world rejects "pure grace", i.e., what Paul received from the Lord and taught.

Oh yes, there's no doubt at all that they were confusing / mixing dispensations but very nearly the entire Christian church does that.
Is it your belief that only Mid-Acts Dispensationalists are saved?

They should just be Catholics then.

Why do Catholics get the privileged seat here? Sure you know that most people who are Catholics are so because their parents were Catholics. Same is true of Baptist, Pentecostals and practically every other sect of Christianity. People are people. Most of them believe whatever someone in a position of authority over them teaches them to believe. Catholics have no monopoly on that market.

Of course it is. It's clearly implied throughout Paul's epistles. Is someone that believes that water baptism is required for salvation really "believing the gospel"?

No, it is not.
Paul himself baptized some and had to write letters to others to clarify the issue to his own converts. There is nothing in the bible, whether Pauline or otherwise, that teaches that a person is disqualified from salvation if they make the error of believing that baptism is required. Such a belief is a huge error and perhaps even a sin but it is no worse than all the rest of sin that is covered by the blood of Christ if one has placed his trust in that shed blood for his salvation.
Salvation is, without question, by grace alone but it is not required that one understand that in order to benefit from it.

Incidentally, when I was first putting this list together, I wasn't convinced that one needed to accept the deity of Christ in order to be saved and I added it to the list because a compelling biblical argument was made that convinced me. I'm more than happy to entertain any biblical argument you might have in regards to this issue as well.

I'm not trying to condemn anyone and am in no way "proud" of being saved by grace through faith without works.

Of course! I would not have ever thought otherwise.

So it sounds like you believe that most every person that calls themselves a Christian is saved.

Well, I clearly believe that far more of them are saved than you do but "most every person that calls themselves a Christian" would definitely overstate my position. I'd not even want to try to quantify it. Any attempt would be pure speculation. I'll stick with what I've already said. Anyone who believes the six points of doctrine that I've presented in my list is saved.

That passage is strictly speaking of WORKS and not the sort of faith required for salvation. It is talking about the WORKS of a SAVED person.

This is just the sort hair splitting that you see made by legitimate legalists and is a great example of what I meant in my last post about turning the gospel of grace into a form of law. The principle in I Cor. 3 applies whether you're talking about good works that are performed before or after someone gets saved.

Take a person who spent his whole life doing good things. Whatever the things were is beside the point. Anything you want to name that is clearly an act of love that one person might do for another. This person wasn't perfect by any means. He did his share of sinning along the way but peppered here and there, he did rightly from time to time but he never came to a knowledge of Christ until a day before he died. He accepted Christ as his savior and was actually saved and died a day later. Now, here he stands on judgement day a saved man. Do you suppose that none of the good works he did as an unbeliever will yield him any reward? Will nothing of his acts of love throughout his life survive his death? Was not the good Samaritan given credit for his righteous act by Christ Himself? Surely the good a man has done throughout his life is not purged from him along with his sin when he accepts the gospel and is saved.

It isn't the timing of the act that is the issue, its the motive. Some people believe that tithing is not only required but that it yields direct blessing from God both spiritual and economic. On judgement day, those folks are going to find out that all those works are burned up. Not because the act of giving is evil but because they didn't do it out of love but rather because there was a list of rules on the wall that said that they had to do it. Why would baptism be any different? It's just another act that some perform because there is a list of rules somewhere that they're required to obey.

Further, I know of no one who was ever baptized BEFORE they accepted Christ as their savior and so even accepting your premise, why would this act of legalism be treated by God any differently than any other?

Clete

P.S. I admit to being more rushed than usual on this post and I'm not super happy with either the wording or the flow of that last section but have no time to do a second draft. I'll assume you're able to follow my point and if not I'll clarify as needed later.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh yes, there's no doubt at all that they were confusing / mixing dispensations but very nearly the entire Christian church does that.
Is it your belief that only Mid-Acts Dispensationalists are saved?

I'm sure that you already know my answer to that question.

My belief is that those that will be saved in this dispensation are the one's that trust Christ's work on the cross 100%. Not 50% or 75%. I don't know for sure who is saved for not and am not trying to be people's judge on the matter.

Why do Catholics get the privileged seat here?

Because there are about of billion of them and they "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead."

It seems to me that virtually every Roman Catholic believes your 6 points, so are they all saved?

This is just the sort hair splitting that you see made by legitimate legalists and is a great example of what I meant in my last post about turning the gospel of grace into a form of law. The principle in I Cor. 3 applies whether you're talking about good works that are performed before or after someone gets saved.

I disagree that I'm hair splitting there. That passage is talking about rewards or loss of rewards for saved people. Nothing more or less.

Was not the good Samaritan given credit for his righteous act by Christ Himself?

It appears to me that the "good Samaritan" was a believer when he did this good work.

It isn't the timing of the act that is the issue, its the motive. Some people believe that tithing is not only required but that it yields direct blessing from God both spiritual and economic. On judgement day, those folks are going to find out that all those works are burned up. Not because the act of giving is evil but because they didn't do it out of love but rather because there was a list of rules on the wall that said that they had to do it. Why would baptism be any different? It's just another act that some perform because there is a list of rules somewhere that they're required to obey.

Agreed.

Thanks for your time and comments.

 

[Clete]

I'm sure that you already know my answer to that question.

My belief is that those that will be saved in this dispensation are the one's that trust Christ's work on the cross 100%. Not 50% or 75%. I don't know for sure who is saved for not and am not trying to be people's judge on the matter.

Well, I would have guessed but I think I would have guessed wrong based on what I think you're saying here.

How does that work then? How do you deal with the "foolish Galatians" (Gal. 3), for example, who had clearly gotten into legalism? Were they not saved in your view? Surely not. The end of Galatians 3 seems to make very clear that they were in Christ.

Is it about when they got into legalism? Do you believe that once a person has been saved that they're still saved if they fall into legalism but will suffer the losses that Paul speaks of in I Cor. 3 but that if a person comes to Christ thinking that some ritual is required that they haven't ever been saved in the first place?

What do you think happens with people who are just honestly confused about the issue of baptism? Baptism is cast in quite a positive light quite a lot the New Testament. Even in Galatians 3 where Paul is castigating his followers for falling into legalism he talks in the same breath about how they were saved by faith and were baptized into Christ...

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

I think you and I are in agreement about that being a spiritual baptism but the point is that it would be an easy thing to get wrong, very easy. Water baptism is so easy to get wrong, in fact, that it is likely the single most divisive issue in the whole church. I just cannot accept the idea that a person misses salvation because they believed a pastor who taught them that Jesus bore their sins on the cross and died in their place and then rose from the dead for their justification and that all that is needed for their sins to be washed away is for them to believe it, put their faith in Christ and to demonstrate that faith by performing a 90 second ritual. They get the whole thing right but, because a pastor of a church who loves God and studies His word, failed to see that water baptisms was for the previous dispensation, they tacked on this ritual and as a result, God is going to withhold His grace and send them to Hell for their sins. (Sorry for that run on sentence - no time to edit things this morning!) I just don't buy it. That doesn't sound like a gospel of grace to me.

Because there are about of billion of them and they "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead."

It seems to me that virtually every Roman Catholic believes your 6 points, so are they all saved?

They are if they believe the gospel! There are murders and rapists sitting in prison who can be saved by the power of the gospel, why not Catholics?

I disagree that I'm hair splitting there. That passage is talking about rewards or loss of rewards for saved people. Nothing more or less.

The term "hair splitting" might be something of a stretch. I wasn't trying to be hostile or insulting. I just couldn't come up with a better phrase to use to express the point.
I don't dispute that the passage is discussing rewards for saved people. Saved people are the only ones who are going to be getting any rewards and so it can't be discussing anything else. My point is about the principle being applied. In other words, my point is about what is being reworded, namely good works. Why would the good work have to have been performed after the person was saved? Unbelievers do good things all the time. If they die in their sin, their good will go unrecognized and unrewarded by God but if they are saved, why would their good works be washed away along with their sin?
And to reiterate the main point i was making with this has to do with when a person is baptized. Did he get baptized before he believed the gospel or after? You seem to be suggesting that if he did it before he was saved and thought that it was a requirement of salvation that he was never saved at all but that if he did as a response to being saved and thought that it was merely an act of obedience that one performed as a saved believer then he still gets to go to heaven but with that particular work being burned up.
I say, good works are good works and legalism is legalism whether it is performed before one is saved or after is beside the point.

It appears to me that the "good Samaritan" was a believer when he did this good work.

No, that can't be right. The whole point of Jesus telling the parable was to contrast the actions of a Gentile with the Jew. During the Dispensation of Law one was required to submit themselves to Moses if the opportunity to do so presented itself. The Samaritans didn't do that and where sort of the Gentiles that lived next door that the Jews didn't really like and sort of looked down their noses at. There's no evidence that Jesus was talking about a proselyte but just a run of the mill Samaritan Gentile that acted more righteously than the pious Jews who walked past the man in need.

Agreed.

Thanks for your time and comments.

Wait, I'm confused. I'm not sure what it is you're agreeing with here.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I would have guessed but I think I would have guessed wrong based on what I think you're saying here.

How does that work then? How do you deal with the "foolish Galatians" (Gal. 3), for example, who had clearly gotten into legalism? Were they not saved in your view? Surely not. The end of Galatians 3 seems to make very clear that they were in Christ.

Is it about when they got into legalism? Do you believe that once a person has been saved that they're still saved if they fall into legalism but will suffer the losses that Paul speaks of in I Cor. 3 but that if a person comes to Christ thinking that some ritual is required that they haven't ever been saved in the first place?

Apparently the Galatians once believed the gospel but then started acting otherwise.

What do you think happens with people who are just honestly confused about the issue of baptism? Baptism is cast in quite a positive light quite a lot the New Testament. Even in Galatians 3 where Paul is castigating his followers for falling into legalism he talks in the same breath about how they were saved by faith and were baptized into Christ...

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

I think you and I are in agreement about that being a spiritual baptism but the point is that it would be an easy thing to get wrong, very easy. Water baptism is so easy to get wrong, in fact, that it is likely the single most divisive issue in the whole church. I just cannot accept the idea that a person misses salvation because they believed a pastor who taught them that Jesus bore their sins on the cross and died in their place and then rose from the dead for their justification and that all that is needed for their sins to be washed away is for them to believe it, put their faith in Christ and to demonstrate that faith by performing a 90 second ritual. They get the whole thing right but, because a pastor of a church who loves God and studies His word, failed to see that water baptisms was for the previous dispensation, they tacked on this ritual and as a result, God is going to withhold His grace and send them to Hell for their sins. (Sorry for that run on sentence - no time to edit things this morning!) I just don't buy it. That doesn't sound like a gospel of grace to me.

No, I do not think that a perfect understanding required. I think that we'd both have to agree that there are some fuzzy areas.

They are if they believe the gospel! There are murders and rapists sitting in prison who can be saved by the power of the gospel, why not Catholics?

So you do believe that all Catholics are saved since they all agree with your six points?

No, that can't be right. The whole point of Jesus telling the parable was to contrast the actions of a Gentile with the Jew.

The Samaritan was not a gentile. Though the Jews did look down on them as less than a gentile.

During the Dispensation of Law one was required to submit themselves to Moses if the opportunity to do so presented itself. The Samaritans didn't do that and where sort of the Gentiles that lived next door that the Jews didn't really like and sort of looked down their noses at. There's no evidence that Jesus was talking about a proselyte but just a run of the mill Samaritan Gentile that acted more righteously than the pious Jews who walked past the man in need.

The Samaritans were not gentiles.

Mat 10:5-6 KJV These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (6) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

If Samaritans are gentiles, then "and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" is redundant. I don't think that the Lord would be redundant.

Wait, I'm confused. I'm not sure what it is you're agreeing with here.

Clete

I was agreeing that motives are more important than timing.

 

[Clete]

Apparently the Galatians once believed the gospel but then started acting otherwise.

Clearly that is the case.

No, I do not think that a perfect understanding required. I think that we'd both have to agree that there are some fuzzy areas.

Exactly! And the major goal of producing that list is to see what's left over when you take everything that is debatable, all the fuzzy areas, out of the equation.

So you do believe that all Catholics are saved since they all agree with your six points?

Well, I think you're giving a lot of Catholics a lot more credit than they've earned. I think that it is possible to be a saved Catholic but that's not the same thing as saying that all Catholics are saved. Those that are saved are so in spite of their false doctrines, not because of them and there are clearly a great many Catholics that have no concept at all of the gospel of grace and would reject it if they heard it, at least in part, just as Trump Girl seems to have done earlier in the thread.

The Samaritan was not a gentile. Though the Jews did look down on them as less than a gentile.

The Samaritans were not gentiles.

If Samaritans are gentiles, then "and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" is redundant. I don't think that the Lord would be redundant.

Well, sort of yes and sort of no, right? Anyone who wasn't a Jew was a Gentile by definition and so in that sense they were Gentiles. On the other hand, they were half Jew half Gentile from a genetic perspective and, religiously speaking, they had their own temple, their own copy of the books of Moses and a religious system that strongly resembled Judaism and so in that sense they weren't exactly Gentiles but they weren't Jews either. They didn't recognize the high priest and weren't even allowed in the temple and so didn't sacrifice in the temple and thus were not in any sense under covenant with God (i.e. saved) and yet we see Jesus giving the Samaritan credit for his good works, which was the only point I was trying to make.

I was agreeing that motives are more important than timing.

Well cool then. As usual, it would seem we are more in agreement than not!

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I think you're giving a lot of Catholics a lot more credit than they've earned.

I wasn't giving them any credit. I was simply saying that according to your "six points to be saved" that they would all be saved as they agree with those six points.

I think that it is possible to be a saved Catholic but that's not the same thing as saying that all Catholics are saved.

I totally agree. I think that most Catholics (the Roman kind) are not saved as they are relying on what they do to save them to a large degree. Or what organization that they belong to, or what rituals they perform, etc. etc. etc.
I don't know of a single RC that would say that they are saved purely by grace through faith. They always add many additional requirements, per their corrupt "leadership".

Those that are saved are so in spite of their false doctrines, not because of them and there are clearly a great many Catholics that have no concept at all of the gospel of grace and would reject it if they heard it, at least in part, just as Trump Girl seems to have done earlier in the thread.

Yep!

Well, sort of yes and sort of no, right? Anyone who wasn't a Jew was a Gentile by definition and so in that sense they were Gentiles. On the other hand, they were half Jew half Gentile from a genetic perspective and, religiously speaking, they had their own temple, their own copy of the books of Moses and a religious system that strongly resembled Judaism and so in that sense they weren't exactly Gentiles but they weren't Jews either. They didn't recognize the high priest and weren't even allowed in the temple and so didn't sacrifice in the temple and thus were not in any sense under covenant with God (i.e. saved) and yet we see Jesus giving the Samaritan credit for his good works, which was the only point I was trying to make.

Yes, Jesus was shaming the "pure Jews" because they were not following the heart of the law while their "half brethren" were in many regards.

Well cool then. As usual, it would seem we are more in agreement than not!

We agree on that as well.

 

[Clete]

I wasn't giving them any credit. I was simply saying that according to your "six points to be saved" that they would all be saved as they agree with those six points.

I'm not so sure that they do but if they do then I'd say that in spite of the great damage that they're doing to their own spiritual lives, they'll still be delivered safely to the day of redemption.

I totally agree. I think that most Catholics (the Roman kind) are not saved as they are relying on what they do to save them to a large degree. Or what organization that they belong to, or what rituals they perform, etc. etc. etc.
I don't know of a single RC that would say that they are saved purely by grace through faith. They always add many additional requirements, per their corrupt "leadership".

Right and as such they wouldn't agree with my list. They'd insist that it was incomplete.

Yes, Jesus was shaming the "pure Jews" because they were not following the heart of the law while their "half brethren" were in many regards.

Do you think the Samaritans were saved?

We agree on that as well.

We agree on practically everything. It's nice to find even a small point of disagreement with someone who isn't afraid to debate the issue. I think, however, that the point of disagreement is so small that it's sort of doesn't exist anymore but I'd call that a result!

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not so sure that they do but if they do then I'd say that in spite of the great damage that they're doing to their own spiritual lives, they'll still be delivered safely to the day of redemption.

Right and as such they wouldn't agree with my list. They'd insist that it was incomplete.

In rereading your list, apparently they cannot believe point SIX.

• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, without even one work on your part to help you receive the gift of being made right with God. YOU WILL BE SAVED

Do you think the Samaritans were saved?

Not in the sense that we are saved during this dispensation.

We agree on practically everything. It's nice to find even a small point of disagreement with someone who isn't afraid to debate the issue. I think, however, that the point of disagreement is so small that it's sort of doesn't exist anymore but I'd call that a result!

Always great to interact with you Clete. God bless!

 

[Clete]

In rereading your list, apparently they cannot believe point SIX.

• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, without even one work on your part to help you receive the gift of being made right with God. YOU WILL BE SAVED

Umm, that's not from my list.

 

[Right Divider]

Umm, that's not from my list.

Oops... I think that was from musterion when he added that part.

So by your list, virtually all RC's are saved. True?

 

[Clete]

Oops... I think that was from musterion when he added that part.

So by your list, virtually all RC's are saved. True?

So, here's my list....

1. God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
2. We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
3. Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
5. Jesus rose from the dead.
6. If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I think it's still point six that the answer to your question comes down to. Do Roman Catholics believe that? I'm not sure that they do. It seems that they would only be willing to acknowledge that it is part of the gospel but that what I've listed is incomplete and would start adding things to it much like Trump Girl did earlier in this thread. The question then become whether that addition sufficiently alters the gospel so as to make it a false gospel that hasn't the power to save them.

I'm not sure that there is a blanket answer to that question because it seems to me that it really does come down to what is going on inside the mind of the person who doing all this other stuff. WHY are they doing it? Are they doing it out of a sense of obedience to the savior they love or are they trying to earn their salvation? Are they doing good works because someone told them that they have to or would they be doing those things anyway because they love God and love their neighbor?

Roman Catholic dogma tries to make love obligatory which is what any form of legalism does. The Church of Christ, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and the Galatians are all in that same boat to one degree or another. I don't see why the legalism of Roman Catholicism would cause anyone to lose their salvation any more than did the legalism that the Galatians were practicing did.

It just occurred to me that I have to admit to a level of ignorance that might make me entirely unqualified to even be discussing this issue in regards to Catholics. I've never heard a Catholic state what the gospel is. Do Catholic priests preach salvation messages similar to what I've heard in every church I've ever attended? Do Catholics have an alter call where they ask people in the audience to accept Christ and then have those who have done so for the first time to come to the front so that the deacons or elders can pray with them and talk with them about the decision they've made for Christ? Are there Catholic evangelists similar to Billy Graham or Kirk Cameron? If not, what do they do instead? What is the typical salvation experience of the average Catholic?

Since I just mentioned Kirk Cameron let me ask you this...
Do Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort get anyone saved with their gospel message, which most definitely includes both the idea that you cannot be good enough and that Jesus has paid your whole debt AND a requirement that one stop sinning?

 

[Right Divider]

So, here's my list....

1. God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
2. We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
3. Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
4. Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
5. Jesus rose from the dead.
6. If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I think it's still point six that the answer to your question comes down to. Do Roman Catholics believe that? I'm not sure that they do. It seems that they would only be willing to acknowledge that it is part of the gospel but that what I've listed is incomplete and would start adding things to it much like Trump Girl did earlier in this thread. The question then become whether that addition sufficiently alters the gospel so as to make it a false gospel that hasn't the power to save them.

I think that I'm beginning to understand our issue. I think that RC's can agree with six, but they do indeed add more. Your list does not seem to make exclude that (though I'm sure that you do).

I'm not sure that there is a blanket answer to that question because it seems to me that it really does come down to what is going on inside the mind of the person who doing all this other stuff. WHY are they doing it? Are they doing it out of a sense of obedience to the savior they love or are they trying to earn their salvation? Are they doing good works because someone told them that they have to or would they be doing those things anyway because they love God and love their neighbor?

Roman Catholic dogma tries to make love obligatory which is what any form of legalism does. The Church of Christ, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and the Galatians are all in that same boat to one degree or another. I don't see why the legalism of Roman Catholicism would cause anyone to lose their salvation any more than did the legalism that the Galatians were practicing did.

It just occurred to me that I have to admit to a level of ignorance that might make me entirely unqualified to even be discussing this issue in regards to Catholics. I've never heard a Catholic state what the gospel is. Do Catholic priests preach salvation messages similar to what I've heard in every church I've ever attended? Do Catholics have an alter call where they ask people in the audience to accept Christ and then have those who have done so for the first time to come to the front so that the deacons or elders can pray with them and talk with them about the decision they've made for Christ? Are there Catholic evangelists similar to Billy Graham or Kirk Cameron? If not, what do they do instead? What is the typical salvation experience of the average Catholic?

The RCC adds many things to the "gospel which saves".

• Water baptism
• Eating Jesus daily
• Good works

Since I just mentioned Kirk Cameron let me ask you this...
Do Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort get anyone saved with their gospel message, which most definitely includes both the idea that you cannot be good enough and that Jesus has paid your whole debt AND a requirement that one stop sinning?

Good question. Like you mentioned before and I agree, some might get saved despite the poor message.

Thanks again.

 

[OZOS]

It appears that Paul indicated to the Galatians that adding works to faith is a fall from grace. In other words, those who believe and teach others to believe this "other gospel" expose themselves as not in the faith. Paul is concerned that he may have labored in vain, and is seeking to have the Galatians examine themselves, to see if they are in the faith. If they rejected Paul's admonition, it is an indicator that they were, in fact, not saved. Adding water baptism is no different than adding circumcision, and those who do are to be "accursed" (eternally damned).

 

[Clete]

It appears that Paul indicated to the Galatians that adding works to faith is a fall from grace. In other words, those who believe and teach others to believe this "other gospel" expose themselves as not in the faith. Paul is concerned that he may have labored in vain, and is seeking to have the Galatians examine themselves, to see if they are in the faith. If they rejected Paul's admonition, it is an indicator that they were, in fact, not saved. Adding water baptism is no different than adding circumcision, and those who do are to be "accursed" (eternally damned).

Wow! So you believe that almost no modern Christian is saved. The whole of the Baptist denomination is accursed as well as pretty much every other sect of Christianity that exists.

Paul, in Galatians, is not talking about their salvation but of their walk...

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

He tells the Colossians something similar...

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

When Paul says in Galatians chapter five....

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

...he isn't trying to tell them that they're going to Hell. He's saying that Christ will profit them nothing in regards to their daily lives, in their effort to live a righteous life that bears fruit unto God because they are trusting in their flesh which can produce no such fruit. The only thing that has the power to perfect them is the same thing that saved them in the first place which is faith in Christ.

If this were not the case, then grace would be turned into law but with a different set of commandments. Thou shalt not be circumcised, thou shalt not be baptized, thou shalt not tithe, thou shalt not...fill in the blank. If you do any of these things, you're not in the faith and bound for Hell fire. That's not how grace works! The law had a lot of both "thou shalt not do this or that" as well as a lot of "thou shall do this or that". Grace did not turn all of the "thou shall do this or that" commands into "thou shalt not do this or that" commands. Grace isn't about commands, its about freedom. The motive behind grace is love, not fear.

Salvation by grace is about God having subjected His Son to the penalty for our sin. And not just some of our sin but the whole of it, including the sin of getting circumcised or water baptized, thinking that you're obeying God. Such works will be tested by God on judgment day. Those works which were born of faith and love will receive reward, those that were born of the flesh will be burned up and...

1 Corinthians 3:15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Clete

 

[OZOS]

Wow! So you believe that almost no modern Christian is saved. The whole of the Baptist denomination is accursed as well as pretty much every other sect of Christianity that exists.

Paul, in Galatians, is not talking about their salvation but of their walk...

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

He tells the Colossians something similar...

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

When Paul says in Galatians chapter five....

Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

...he isn't trying to tell them that they're going to Hell. He's saying that Christ will profit them nothing in regards to their daily lives, in their effort to live a righteous life that bears fruit unto God because they are trusting in their flesh which can produce no such fruit. The only thing that has the power to perfect them is the same thing that saved them in the first place which is faith in Christ.

If this were not the case, then grace would be turned into law but with a different set of commandments. Thou shalt not be circumcised, thou shalt not be baptized, thou shalt not tithe, thou shalt not...fill in the blank. If you do any of these things, you're not in the faith and bound for Hell fire. That's not how grace works! The law had a lot of both "thou shalt not do this or that" as well as a lot of "thou shall do this or that". Grace did not turn all of the "thou shall do this or that" commands into "thou shalt not do this or that" commands. Grace isn't about commands, its about freedom. The motive behind grace is love, not fear.

Salvation by grace is about God having subjected His Son to the penalty for our sin. And not just some of our sin but the whole of it, including the sin of getting circumcised or water baptized, thinking that you're obeying God. Such works will be tested by God on judgment day. Those works which were born of faith and love will receive reward, those that were born of the flesh will be burned up and...

1 Corinthians 3:15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Clete

Contrary to your broad version, according to the apostle Paul, no one who teaches "another gospel" is saved, and adding works to the gospel is "another gospel". Yes, being legalistic that men are ONLY saved by grace through faith in the finished work of the cross is clearly the gospel Paul preached (Rom 3:27). It is also legalistic (your definition) to preach that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, that He is God in the flesh, etc. I clearly (read it again) did not accurse the Galatians, but Paul did question what gospel they believed. If YOU accept a gospel that includes water baptism as a necessity for salvation, then YOU are outside the faith.

 

[Clete]

Contrary to your broad version, according to the apostle Paul, no one who teaches "another gospel" is saved, and adding works to the gospel is "another gospel". Yes, being legalistic that men are ONLY saved by grace through faith in the finished work of the cross is clearly the gospel Paul preached (Rom 3:27). It is also legalistic (your definition) to preach that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, that He is God in the flesh, etc. I clearly (read it again) did not accurse the Galatians, but Paul did question what gospel they believed. If YOU accept a gospel that includes water baptism as a necessity for salvation, then YOU are outside the faith.

You're as dogmatic as someone I once knew here on TOL with a very similar user name only he made as many actual argument as he did bald claims and responded to my arguments with actual counter arguments rather than simply repeating his position as though I had said nothing.