musterion
Well-known member
Trump Gurl.
Are you Going to Heaven?
- Thread starter ABMF
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
Devout Catholics and many protestants/evangelicals could agree with every item on your list and still be lost and on their way to Hell. If you reflect on it, you will see why...it's what you didn't clearly include more than what you did.
There is no doubt that words have a sphere of meaning and that if someone wants to load the otherwise easy to understand and plainly stated words I've used with alternative meanings then there's no doubt that someone who mouth the words and still be lost but one cannot go around stating such obvious exceptions or else language become unusable and communication becomes impossible. The bible uses words too and so if God thinks that the use of human language is sufficient to get His point across then I'm content that it is useful to get mine across as well, especially when my point was His point long before I ever existed or knew a syllable of any language.
If, however, there isn't some odd ball conjuring of alternative meanings of the words used, if someone believes those six points, whether Catholic or otherwise, they are saved (present tense) and will be delivered safely to the Day of Redemption. In other words, so long as those six doctrinal points remain intact, whatever other errors one might make are insufficient to overcome the saving power of the gospel and so yes, of course both Catholic and Protestant believers can and do exist.
Perhaps that wasn't what you had in mind. I truly suck at reading minds and so perhaps you could explain just what it is that you mean by the statement, "it's what you didn't clearly include more than what you did". Just what is it that you think I didn't say that requires stating? When I first proposed the notion of coming up with what I call the "Gospel Proper" there was some considerable amount of discussion about what needed to be included and what ought not be included. As with every other aspect of my doctrine, that is always an on going process. Indeed, that is one of the principle reasons I came to and remain on TOL. If you think I've left something critical out, I'm honestly interested in whatever you think it is and why! Please, by all means, tell me what it is!
Clete
The bible teaches both.
Right Divider
Body part
Without right division, it's all confusion and "my verse against yours".
musterion
Well-known member
What's missing (and needs to be specified clearly and upfront because Christendom has long been that far gone) is that religious good works have absolutely no place in forgiveness nor justification. Yet every devout Catholic and most Protestant/evangelicals would, to some degree, disagree vehemently with that. To them, works are required up front or on the back end, or both, but either way their salvation isn't possible without their work.
If you go just a bit deeper with folks who hold to 1Cor 15:3-4, you'll invariably find many who also calculate their own behavior into the equation of salvation. But it's a Pauline fact nonetheless that work is expressly excluded.
And they're lost because of it.
If you go just a bit deeper with folks who hold to 1Cor 15:3-4, you'll invariably find many who also calculate their own behavior into the equation of salvation. But it's a Pauline fact nonetheless that work is expressly excluded.
And they're lost because of it.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
While I fully and whole-heartedly agree with everything here, I'd add that lack of right division is a primary stumbling block for Churchianity throughout history. This is why so many religious organizations (whether Catholic, Protestant or cultic) go to books like James to "foil" the Pauline teaching of eternal security for members of the body of Christ.
They cannot understand that Paul and James agree on some things (i.e., the universal things), BUT not on everything due to dispensational differences.
No. Location doesn't match. Republicanchick was an indigent older woman who posted from a library in the midwest. She had other accounts, but they were alway from the same library. TG is on the West Coast and has her own computer.
Now with all the Covid restrictions, we are probably not going to see Republicanchick, and being that she was older, she might not even be around anymore. The post you are quoting was made in 2014.
Do you really believe that people who accept as true everything in my list of gospel doctrines but then also make the mistake of believing that James chapter two was written to all Christianity and that it applies as much to them as it did to James' actual audience, that they are therefore lost, as in still in their sin and not saved in spite of believing everything on that list?
I should make clear that the purpose of that list of doctrines is not any sort of attempt to communicate the whole gospel message but only what I've termed the "gospel proper". In theology generally, there is a sub-discipline known as "theology proper" which doesn't deal with anything other than the most basic, foundational issues that theology deals with, namely the being, nature and attributes of God. Theology proper doesn't deal with Christ or salvation or sanctification or sin or anything else. It simply answers the question, "Does God exist and if so what is He like?" Similarly, my 'gospel proper" only deals with the barest bones of the gospel and makes every attempt to intentionally leave out anything that is not logically NECESSARY to it.
So, for example, it starts with the statement that God exists because that is a logically necessary premise upon which the gospel is based. If God does not exist, the gospel is false. Likewise, if God did not create the universe and everything in it, the whole of the gospel is necessarily false. Etc, etc.
So, perhaps you're right and that, in order to be saved, one must believe that works play no role in one's salvation whatsoever. Would you care to make an attempt at establishing that claim biblically?
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Galatians 1:8-9.
musterion
Well-known member
It's very simple.
If the saving gospel of today is that Christ paid 100% of our sin debt to God (and it is) and that His resurrection forever justifies us to Him (and it is), then anyone who nonetheless believes that some degree of behaviour modification is required too, then that person automatically says the work of Christ is NOT 100% sufficient to save.
Anyone who believes that - and many do - has believed another gospel.
Believing another gospel can't save anyone.
Galatians 1:8-9.
If the saving gospel of today is that Christ paid 100% of our sin debt to God (and it is) and that His resurrection forever justifies us to Him (and it is), then anyone who nonetheless believes that some degree of behaviour modification is required too, then that person automatically says the work of Christ is NOT 100% sufficient to save.
Anyone who believes that - and many do - has believed another gospel.
Believing another gospel can't save anyone.
Galatians 1:8-9.
That does not answer the question.
musterion
Well-known member
Of course it does.
"Christ paid 100% of our sin debt to God" is not the entire gospel. That much of the gospel is contained within the third and forth points in my list but there can be no doubt that there is more to it than that, not the least of which is the belief that God raised Christ from the dead.
You, however, want to go beyond merely believing that God (Jesus) died for our sins but use Galatians 1:8-9 to prohibit, to the point of eternal damnation, the making of the very error that the Galatians themselves had made (Gal. 3:1)! Was Paul writing to unsaved people when he wrote Galatians? Had they been saved then lost their salvation? Was Paul writing in order to get them resaved? Certainly not! The Galatians were saved as they could be but had been corrupted by those of the Circumcision and Paul was writing them, not to prevent their damnation, but to correct their course.
Notice the question Paul asks in Galatians 3:3
Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
Paul isn't talking here about salvation. Paul is talking about how a Christian lives his daily life and he's making the point that your sanctification (being made perfect) is accomplished in the same manner as was your salvation - faith! "Faith not flesh" is Paul's repeated message throughout his writings but the point is that he's teaching that to people who are already saved, not as a requisite of salvation.
Now, having said that, I do not deny that someone could be so deceived that they do indeed put their trust in their own ability to abstain from sin and to do good works and thus to earn their salvation. There are undoubtedly millions of people around the world that have fallen into that trap but it does not matter IF such a person believes the things presented in that list. In such a case, all such a person's good works will be tested on the Day of Redemption and if anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15)
Clete
Saying it doesn't make it so.
That's not how doctrine is properly done.
Watch this....
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Convinced you're wrong?
No?
Why not?! I quoted two verses just like you did!
musterion
Well-known member
Let's get to the bottom line.
First, in the interest of clarity and understanding, I am not talking about people who believed the saving gospel and heard not to trust in works but were later weak and deceived into relying on some degree of work, as the Galatians were. That's not who I referred to.
Example of what I did mean:
Many right here on TOL say they believe Christ died for their sins and rose for their justification. BUT they'll add that they've always believed some religious work (let's say submission to water baptism but whatever, it could be anything) is non-negotiably required to enter heaven.
But that's not a new addition for them, as with the Galatians--works are a core component of saving faith for most of Christendom. That's what they've always believed since "becoming a Christian."
Or they always believed that must "bring forth fruits of repentance" to prove that they're been saved according to 1 Cor 15:3-4. Without those visible fruits, a professing believer is not saved (i.e., Lordship Salvation).
They ALL will tell you, "By all means go ahead and believe 1 Cor 15:3-4. We do as well!
"BUT," they will add, "if you don't ALSO ______ you will not go to Heaven. Without ______, Clete, your greasy grace easy faith alone in Paul's gospel cannot save you. "
These are the people I was talking about...the historical and present majority of Christianity.
Clete, do you believe such persons are saved?
Last edited:
Excellent clarification!
Can I just take a second and say how refreshing it is to find someone who knows how to respond substantively and doesn't flip out just because someone doesn't immediately agree with them on a particular point! This is what TOL is supposed to look like!
Okay, enough of that! On with the discussion...
I believe that anyone - ANYONE - is saved if they believe the following....
- God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
- We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
- Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
- Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
- Jesus rose from the dead.
- 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.
1. That because they have added some additional something as a requisite for salvation they, therefore, have effectively rejected points 3 & 4 of that list.
or...
2. That the addition of some additional something as a requisite for salvation is a sin that is not covered by the shed blood of Christ regardless of whatever else they might believe.
I very much doubt you could possibly be trying to say the later and the former maintains the list of doctrines fully intact.
If it is the later, which it seems it must be, perhaps all that is needed is a rewording / clarification of one or both of points 3 & 4 or perhaps the addition of a 7th point which in some way more explicitly communicates Romans 4:5. I'm very much open to any suggestions you might have along those lines.
musterion
Well-known member
@Clete
The work of Christ for our salvation and justification was either 100% complete and satisfactory to God...or it wasn't. Paul says it was, Col 2:13 and elsewhere.
So anyone who adds any kind or amount of work, be it religious ritual or behavior modification - even if only 1% of the sum offered to God - is saying Christ's death was only 99% effective in saving them.
That's literally "another gospel" which cannot save them.
The work of Christ for our salvation and justification was either 100% complete and satisfactory to God...or it wasn't. Paul says it was, Col 2:13 and elsewhere.
So anyone who adds any kind or amount of work, be it religious ritual or behavior modification - even if only 1% of the sum offered to God - is saying Christ's death was only 99% effective in saving them.
That's literally "another gospel" which cannot save them.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
@Clete brought up another good point.
I think we agree that's just because Christ died for the sins of the world, the world is not automatically thereby saved. God requires and deserves faith. That's the terms He laid down for us to be saved. If we don't give Him that faith, we cannot be saved.
But faith in what?
Faith in what He says to us that He did to save us. And He expressly tells us that our works are excluded.
But, as stated above, putting even 1% of our faith in our own righteous works will damn us forever, even if we simultaneously give 99% of the credit to Christ. Otherwise, inescapably iron logic would compel us to embrace "Christian universalism:" EVERYONE who believed 1 Cor 15:3-4 would be saved regardless of whatever other falseness they also believed was necessary to save them. And I think we know that just isn't so.
I think we agree that's just because Christ died for the sins of the world, the world is not automatically thereby saved. God requires and deserves faith. That's the terms He laid down for us to be saved. If we don't give Him that faith, we cannot be saved.
But faith in what?
Faith in what He says to us that He did to save us. And He expressly tells us that our works are excluded.
But, as stated above, putting even 1% of our faith in our own righteous works will damn us forever, even if we simultaneously give 99% of the credit to Christ. Otherwise, inescapably iron logic would compel us to embrace "Christian universalism:" EVERYONE who believed 1 Cor 15:3-4 would be saved regardless of whatever other falseness they also believed was necessary to save them. And I think we know that just isn't so.
Last edited: