Is Total Depravity a required belief?

[atpollard]

Does a nonbeliever need to accept the Doctrine of Total Depravity to be saved? [make it interesting] By extension, do they need to accept TULIP or the doctrines of grace before they can be saved? By extension, if not, do they have to accept/believe these things in order to keep their salvation?

Only if the Synergists are correct and salvation is a “Partnership” requiring ongoing cooperation rather than the monergistic act of an OMNI-(everything) Creator who, in the words of Corrie Ten Boom … “does as He pleases, and does it right well.”

 

[fastfredy0]

Re:
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement.
Irresistible Grace (Regeneration) or The Efficacious Call of the Spirit
Perseverance of the Saints

Does a nonbeliever need to accept the Doctrine of Total Depravity to be saved?

No

do they need to accept TULIP or the doctrines of grace before they can be saved?

No

do they have to accept/believe these things in order to keep their salvation

No

Faith consists more of certainty that “Christ is Lord and Savior” rather than “discernment of facts”

Now, if one was to ask about whether the person must believe the 5 solas to be saved ... I'd say one is walking on the edge of destruction if one did not believe in salvation by CHRIST ALONE where I am assuming one would add works to accomplish salvation and therefore one is not saved by CHRIST ALONE. (See Gal. 5:2-6) Maybe add GRACE ALONE and FAITH ALONE for the same reason.

 

[TMSO]

Re:
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement.
Irresistible Grace (Regeneration) or The Efficacious Call of the Spirit
Perseverance of the Saints

No


No


No

Faith consists more of certainty that “Christ is Lord and Savior” rather than “discernment of facts”

Now, if one was to ask about whether the person must believe the 5 solas to be saved ... I'd say one is walking on the edge of destruction if one did not believe in salvation by CHRIST ALONE where I am assuming one would add works to accomplish salvation and therefore one is not saved by CHRIST ALONE. (See Gal. 5:2-6) Maybe add GRACE ALONE and FAITH ALONE for the same reason.

Is that believing in the 5 solas, or hearing the proper and true gospel, as Paul said that he sought to make know only Christ and Christ crucified? I would believe that Paul didn't teach a class on theology for salvation, but just preached as God ordained.

The above is heretical, and hopefully not the result of the person preaching as God commanded. Again, as Paul said, if anyone teaches a gospel other than what Paul taught (Christ and Christ crucified), let him be accursed.

 

[TMSO]

Only if the Synergists are correct and salvation is a “Partnership” requiring ongoing cooperation rather than the monergistic act of an OMNI-(everything) Creator who, in the words of Corrie Ten Boom … “does as He pleases, and does it right well.”

The why do some calvinists believe arminians, who hear the true gospel, can't be saved? I mean, they believe basically as a calvinist does, but they misinterpret in themselves how salvation is working. That is, they feel that the faith came from them, and that they chose, and do not realize that it was God's work at the time. There are calvinists (many?) who were not calvinists when they were saved, but came to understand what happened as they matured in the faith, and became calvinistic.

 

[ReverendRV]

The Doctrine of Total Depravity held by Calvinists and Arminians, is not a required Belief to be Saved. But the point my OP wanted to make, is that Total Depravity can be said to be another title for Original Sin; or simply for Sin. The knowledge we're Sinners, is required to be Saved...

Combine this with our Total Inability to be Saved through Merit and Works, this combo knowledge of our Total Depravity is required for Salvation...


Is there room for YOU in Sola Christus? Is there room for Nominal Depravity within Sola Christus?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That's exactly where I'm going...

Knowing our depravity/Sinfulness is necessary to be Saved...

And "Conviction of SIN", and of Judgement by the Holy Spirit accomplishes that nicely. John 16:8

 

[TMSO]

Only if the Synergists are correct and salvation is a “Partnership” requiring ongoing cooperation rather than the monergistic act of an OMNI-(everything) Creator who, in the words of Corrie Ten Boom … “does as He pleases, and does it right well.”

So... Arminians can be saved and born again as Arminians? (Does not understanding the process mean someone is not allowed to be saved/born again, since they don't meet... conditions? Will God decide not to save them because... conditions?) There is an issue that became worse within the last couple of decades. I may be biased, but Brannon Howse ejected Justin Peters some time ago, from partnership simply because Justin Peters is a Calvinist. No other reason. He clearly stated this when he made a statement on it. So, with full honesty, this particular subject is VERY near and dear to my heart. If we have the same gospel (we do), doesn't scripture tell us to fellowship? Only if one does not bring Jesus, does not bring the true gospel, we are to have nothing to do with them, right? [That is, run from the heretic.]

 

[atpollard]

The why do some calvinists believe arminians, who hear the true gospel, can't be saved?

No one is saved by hearing the gospel. Every atheist in America has probably heard the gospel and rejected it.
One is saved by being transformed, deep down inside in a real, fundamental and profound way, by GOD. If God chooses “to show mercy on whom He will show mercy”, then what one believes at that time is irrelevant … the Holy Spirit will deal with it over time. If God does not provide “SAVED”, then no personal belief or effort will achieve “by grace you are saved through faith and that not of yourselves”. So “Arminian beliefs” are not a barrier to salvation and “Calvinist beliefs” do not save. It sounds trite, but is none the less true … JESUS SAVES!

(As to what “some people” believe, some people believe that “everything was created by nothing”, so there is no explaining what some people are willing to believe. We can only state the Truth … Jesus saves, and he requires no assistance, even if He chooses to use us as the means to spread the Word.)

 

[atpollard]

So... Arminians can be saved and born again as Arminians? (Does not understanding the process mean someone is not allowed to be saved/born again, since they don't meet... conditions? Will God decide not to save them because... conditions?) There is an issue that became worse within the last couple of decades. I may be biased, but Brannon Howse ejected Justin Peters some time ago, from partnership simply because Justin Peters is a Calvinist. No other reason. He clearly stated this when he made a statement on it. So, with full honesty, this particular subject is VERY near and dear to my heart. If we have the same gospel (we do), doesn't scripture tell us to fellowship? Only if one does not bring Jesus, does not bring the true gospel, we are to have nothing to do with them, right? [That is, run from the heretic.]

OK, if the subject is Monergist-Synergist fellowship, THAT I have practical experience with. I am a Particular (5-point) Baptist. There are an equal if not greater number of General (free will) Baptists. [Historic note: the Particular/General refers to the Atonement … Particular Individuals or All Men in General.] There have been Particular and General Baptists worshipping together in the same congregation in virtually EVERY Baptist Church that has ever existed. How? You might wonder.

There is a Baptist Distinctive (the term for those beliefs that make a Baptist a Baptist rather than some other ‘denomination’) called “Individual Soul Liberty” that states that we (Baptists) believe that every soul answers to its creator (God) in matters of conscience and that no person should be compelled to accept the beliefs of any other person or group. In the best case, that allows Christians to disagree on even important matters and still fellowship together as Christians. One is still subject to the authority of Scripture and to violate what is absolutely clear in scripture (living in unrepentant sin) can still subject one to the theoretical discipline of the church, but let’s be honest, when was the last time you ever say anyone formally expelled from a church for fornication [choosing to live together out of wedlock] or any other sin for which church discipline might be appropriate? However much backbone and mutual accountability the modern church may have surrendered, it remains a theoretical possibility.

Theological disagreement, other than denying Christ, is not grounds for Baptist breaking of fellowship. Which doesn’t mean it never happens … people sin (miss the mark) all the time, but the MARK is still the MARK.

 

[atpollard]

but Brannon Howse ejected Justin Peters some time ago, from partnership simply because Justin Peters is a Calvinist.

I was unfamiliar with either Justin or Brannon (sorry) so I went looking for information on them and by them. Based on what I found:

Justin Peters seemed like a gentle and polite individual. I did not explore his theology and have no particular interest in doing so, but I would be willing to listen to what he had to say and follow the Berean example and ‘fact check’ it against Scripture. I got a general “fruit of the spirit” vibe from him (gentle humility).

Brannon Howse was hard to locate video OF HIM, so it was hard to get a sense of the man. There was a LOT of critical press about him (which I am reluctant to accept Internet hearsay) and there were some short written comments from him. About the only clear facts were that Brannon seemed to have a “radio” centered show and Brannon seemed to have a LOT of people that he was once friends with and then attacked. I will not make a judgement without even seeing the person, but the data raised a few yellow caution flags for me.

 

[fastfredy0]

Is that believing in the 5 solas, or hearing the proper and true gospel,

Yes, the 5 solas are a summation of aspects of the true gospel that have been gleaned from scripture.

as Paul said that he sought to make know only Christ and Christ crucified?

The statement confirms my statement that we are save by Christ Alone, by God's Grace Alone by Faith Alone .... which is only Christ and Christ crucified. The problem that I eluded to is a belief in salvation that is not by "only Christ and Christ crucified" (Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith in Christ Alone).

I would believe that Paul didn't teach a class on theology for salvation

That statement contradicts Paul's writings in which he taught people the theology of salvation. See Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, yahda, yahda, yahda. Do in you a verse saying Paul didn't teach the theology of salvation and if so explain the contradiction that creates given his biblical writings.

The above is heretical

What one or both of us assert may be heretical. I've used scripture to back up my points and you have not to this point.

Again, as Paul said, if anyone teaches a gospel other than what Paul taught (Christ and Christ crucified), let him be accursed.

We agreed with this general statement. The devil is in the details (bad pun ... giggle)

Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, if you seek to be justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with God] through the Law; you have fallen from grace [for you have lost your grasp on God’s unmerited favor and blessing].

In other words if you don't believe you are saved by Christ Alone, by Grace Alone and by Faith Alone which is to say you add works as necessary for salvation then you are severed from God.

R.C. Sproul: “If you trust upon anything else than Jesus Christ in addition to Jesus Christ you lose Christ, all or nothing at all. Christ does not become of less effect; he becomes of no effect if you try to add something to Him

Sproul goes on to say that he thought Arminians are saved, but barely by which he meant “as long as they don’t take their theology to its logic conclusion. They would not be Christians if they put their trust in their own righteousness”. When Sproul initially came to faith he thought it was his choice; he didn’t know of scripture that described the process.
Gill - his view of works for salvation rendered Christ unprofitable, made his death to be in vain, his sacrifice of no effect, and his righteousness useless: besides, Christ is a whole Savior, or none at all; to join anything with him and his righteousness, in the business of justification and salvation, is interpreted by him as a contempt and neglect of him, as laying him aside, and to such persons he is of no profit
Matthew-Henry: Christ will not be the Savior of any who will not own and rely upon him as their only Savior. Let us take heed to the warnings and persuasions of the apostle to steadfastness in the doctrine and liberty of the gospel. All true Christians, being taught by the Holy Spirit, wait for eternal life, the reward of righteousness, and the object of their hope, as the gift of God by faith in Christ; and not for the sake of their own works.
Tom Constable: The Galatians would be obligating themselves to obey the whole Mosaic Code if they allowed the false teachers to circumcise them. Their confidence in circumcision would reveal confidence in their own ability to earn salvation by obeying the Law. This legal approach to salvation would separate them from Christ since what He did was provide salvation as a gift. They would fall away from the grace method of salvation if they chose the law method.
For a believer to start living again under the law to merit salvation is, in fact, to reject salvation by grace. John MacArthur – New Testament Commentary

 

[fastfredy0]

If God does not provide “SAVED”, then no personal belief or effort will achieve “by grace you are saved through faith and that not of yourselves”. So “Arminian beliefs” are not a barrier to salvation and “Calvinist beliefs” do not save. It sounds trite, but is none the less true … JESUS SAVES!

Agreed ... but the beliefs of an individual are an indicators as to whether or not God has chosen to cause a person to be saved.
Aside: I think we all are born again as Arminians (we believe our faith is generated by ourselves alone) ... hmmm, a new Arminian SOLA: "Ourselves Alone". hmmm, bad joke ... oh well

 

[Arial]

So... Arminians can be saved and born again as Arminians? (Does not understanding the process mean someone is not allowed to be saved/born again, since they don't meet... conditions? Will God decide not to save them because... conditions?)

All the "ians" and "ists" and "isms" are simply names given to differing theological or doctrinal beliefs that identifies the doctrine. It is hearing the gospel and believing it that saves. And for most, when that happens they know very little of theology and doctrine. After all spiritual things are spiritually discerned and cannot be comprehended in a changing way without the Spirit giving them spiritual understanding. Which would be as per John 3, the new birth or regeneration by God. Prior to this they most likely would have no interest in the gospel and certainly not doctrine or theology. You will find on this forum, and I am included in that, that the majority of Calvinists began as Arminianists, simply due to the fact that that is the predominant view in the modern church and it is taught, or was, (though that is changing) almost exclusively with no alternative views given.

The fact that many were saved and were default Arminianists is purely by the grace of God, gathering His people from wherever they are, no matter what man is doing.

 

[TMSO]

OK, if the subject is Monergist-Synergist fellowship, THAT I have practical experience with. I am a Particular (5-point) Baptist. There are an equal if not greater number of General (free will) Baptists. [Historic note: the Particular/General refers to the Atonement … Particular Individuals or All Men in General.] There have been Particular and General Baptists worshipping together in the same congregation in virtually EVERY Baptist Church that has ever existed. How? You might wonder.

There is a Baptist Distinctive (the term for those beliefs that make a Baptist a Baptist rather than some other ‘denomination’) called “Individual Soul Liberty” that states that we (Baptists) believe that every soul answers to its creator (God) in matters of conscience and that no person should be compelled to accept the beliefs of any other person or group. In the best case, that allows Christians to disagree on even important matters and still fellowship together as Christians. One is still subject to the authority of Scripture and to violate what is absolutely clear in scripture (living in unrepentant sin) can still subject one to the theoretical discipline of the church, but let’s be honest, when was the last time you ever say anyone formally expelled from a church for fornication [choosing to live together out of wedlock] or any other sin for which church discipline might be appropriate? However much backbone and mutual accountability the modern church may have surrendered, it remains a theoretical possibility.

Theological disagreement, other than denying Christ, is not grounds for Baptist breaking of fellowship. Which doesn’t mean it never happens … people sin (miss the mark) all the time, but the MARK is still the MARK.

I agree. I believe that there are non-negotiables of the faith, generally the gospel, the personhood and divinity (incarnation) of Jesus, basically the trinity, and perhaps some other areas that have an affect on the afforementioned beliefs. (For instance, there was a eschatological belief that stated that there is no millennium, and Jesus is not physically returning to Earth, because... He didn't come to Earth physically in the first place, and didn't die on the cross physically. It was all spiritual, because flesh is evil. So the eschatology was totally corrupted by an existing heresy.

On fornication, I saw someone ejected a few years ago. Actually had to leave the state. [I can tell you it happened, but I can't talk about it too much... reasons.] I read the above as adultery, but if they weren't married, then fornication. This was adultery.

I think the subject I was pushing for was fellowship, but also how the gospel/salvation fairs for one who is saved, but isn't a calvinist. I think they are saved if the gospel was true for them. That is they heard the true gospel, and responded, because God was there/God did it. They don't realize it, but I don't believe that nullifies anything.

 

[TMSO]

I was unfamiliar with either Justin or Brannon (sorry) so I went looking for information on them and by them. Based on what I found:

Justin Peters seemed like a gentle and polite individual. I did not explore his theology and have no particular interest in doing so, but I would be willing to listen to what he had to say and follow the Berean example and ‘fact check’ it against Scripture. I got a general “fruit of the spirit” vibe from him (gentle humility).

Brannon Howse was hard to locate video OF HIM, so it was hard to get a sense of the man. There was a LOT of critical press about him (which I am reluctant to accept Internet hearsay) and there were some short written comments from him. About the only clear facts were that Brannon seemed to have a “radio” centered show and Brannon seemed to have a LOT of people that he was once friends with and then attacked. I will not make a judgement without even seeing the person, but the data raised a few yellow caution flags for me.

Justin Peters is one whose ministry is to go after prosperity preachers, and against false prophets. (A couple of years ago, maybe three now, he put out a four hour video on the failed prophecies of that year. His seminars are basically "clouds without water". I'm sure he has had some other names/seminars, but that is the big one. He is a calvinist, though he may be one who would go with calvinistic, and not label himself, but I don't remember.

Brannon Howse is big on the eschatology scene, and I can't remember the name of his show. He is one that if you criticize or correct him, insta-ban. (I know. I lasted aboutt 4-5 minutes, and I was just trying to tell him that being calvinist is not a reason to kick break fellowhip with Justin Peter's ministry. And this was facebook comments, so he was on the ball in banning me.) He is premil, but he seems to be more on the conspiracy theory side. Justin Peters was with him because of his "clouds without water" ministry. This was some years ago, so a lot of it may have been deleted, or buried in the depths of the internet.

I think he is the host of Worldview something or other. Again, he can't take criticism or correction, and will attack you for it.

 

[TMSO]

Yes, the 5 solas are a summation of aspects of the true gospel that have been gleaned from scripture.


The statement confirms my statement that we are save by Christ Alone, by God's Grace Alone by Faith Alone .... which is only Christ and Christ crucified. The problem that I eluded to is a belief in salvation that is not by "only Christ and Christ crucified" (Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith in Christ Alone).

I understand, but for a non-believer, do they need a Thd in the five solas to be saved, or is it just Christ and Christ crucified. Yes, the five solas, right there, absolutely. However, do they have to know that to know Christ and Christ crucified. Is that not something they learn/come to truly understand as they mature in knowledge and stature? That is my question. Is it Christ and Christ crucified + the five solas, or is it just Christ and Christ crucified, followed by a lifetime of spiritual growth, and learning about the One who saved them? [I am dealing in nuance here, trying to get your take.]

That statement contradicts Paul's writings in which he taught people the theology of salvation. See Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, yahda, yahda, yahda. Do in you a verse saying Paul didn't teach the theology of salvation and if so explain the contradiction that creates given his biblical writings.

I think you misunderstand what I said. Does a non-believer have to take a course in soteriology (the theology of salvation) in order to be saved? If he fails the class, does he remain unsaved? He was teaching the non-believers nothing but Christ and Christ crucified. The gospel message. To those who are saved, he most certainly taught the theology of salvation.

What one or both of us assert may be heretical. I've used scripture to back up my points and you have not to this point.

What is heretical is to preach a false gospel. To add to the gospel.

We agreed with this general statement. The devil is in the details (bad pun ... giggle)

Bad puns are the best kind.

Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, if you seek to be justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with God] through the Law; you have fallen from grace [for you have lost your grasp on God’s unmerited favor and blessing].

In other words if you don't believe you are saved by Christ Alone, by Grace Alone and by Faith Alone which is to say you add works as necessary for salvation then you are severed from God.

"Stand[a] fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is [b]a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

It doesn't say that. Paul is saying, don't leave grace to be entangled again to the law [with a yoke of bondage]. As he testified, if you become circumcised, then you are a debtor to keep the whole law. (A debtor because... they can't.) If you attempt to be justified by the law, then grace is gone. This is not losing salvation. This is someone trying to save themselves by the law, instead of through the gospel, and the liberty found in Christ. You seem to be saying that we are saved by the gospel + our input, which in this case, is a believe that we are saved by christ alone, by grace alone, by faith alone. There is a difference between believing in these things (as a non-believer who knows nothing about theology) and these things being in place. That is, the non-believer heard the true gospel and believed the true gospel. (if you can track all that.)

R.C. Sproul: “If you trust upon anything else than Jesus Christ in addition to Jesus Christ you lose Christ, all or nothing at all. Christ does not become of less effect; he becomes of no effect if you try to add something to Him

Sproul goes on to say that he thought Arminians are saved, but barely by which he meant “as long as they don’t take their theology to its logic conclusion. They would not be Christians if they put their trust in their own righteousness”. When Sproul initially came to faith he thought it was his choice; he didn’t know of scripture that described the process.

So according to you, Sproul didn't initially come to faith. He didn't know about the things you say we need to know.

Gill - his view of works for salvation rendered Christ unprofitable, made his death to be in vain, his sacrifice of no effect, and his righteousness useless: besides, Christ is a whole Savior, or none at all; to join anything with him and his righteousness, in the business of justification and salvation, is interpreted by him as a contempt and neglect of him, as laying him aside, and to such persons he is of no profit
Matthew-Henry: Christ will not be the Savior of any who will not own and rely upon him as their only Savior. Let us take heed to the warnings and persuasions of the apostle to steadfastness in the doctrine and liberty of the gospel. All true Christians, being taught by the Holy Spirit, wait for eternal life, the reward of righteousness, and the object of their hope, as the gift of God by faith in Christ; and not for the sake of their own works.
Tom Constable: The Galatians would be obligating themselves to obey the whole Mosaic Code if they allowed the false teachers to circumcise them. Their confidence in circumcision would reveal confidence in their own ability to earn salvation by obeying the Law. This legal approach to salvation would separate them from Christ since what He did was provide salvation as a gift. They would fall away from the grace method of salvation if they chose the law method.
For a believer to start living again under the law to merit salvation is, in fact, to reject salvation by grace. John MacArthur – New Testament Commentary

Remember, we only plant the seed, or water the seed, God is the one who brings in the increase. Does God make mistakes?

 

[TMSO]

All the "ians" and "ists" and "isms" are simply names given to differing theological or doctrinal beliefs that identifies the doctrine. It is hearing the gospel and believing it that saves. And for most, when that happens they know very little of theology and doctrine. After all spiritual things are spiritually discerned and cannot be comprehended in a changing way without the Spirit giving them spiritual understanding. Which would be as per John 3, the new birth or regeneration by God. Prior to this they most likely would have no interest in the gospel and certainly not doctrine or theology. You will find on this forum, and I am included in that, that the majority of Calvinists began as Arminianists, simply due to the fact that that is the predominant view in the modern church and it is taught, or was, (though that is changing) almost exclusively with no alternative views given.

So, indirectly, you understood my point. [An aside for explanation. I get rather miffed when people say someone can't be saved because they are some "ian", "ist", etc. Even if they here the true gospel and respond. Because they have a different label, its no good. It is for this reason that I bring up points like these when discussion is close enough to brush up to this, so don't misunderstand my comments or my reasonings for bringing it up.]

The fact that many were saved and were default Arminianists is purely by the grace of God, gathering His people from wherever they are, no matter what man is doing.

A lot (I hope) of those Arminians will grow in stature and truth and discover what Augustine first touched on, and which was further expanded and expounded on by Calvin. There are a lot of moving pieces that are thrown around by non-calvinists that muddy the water for those who are seeking to learn more about God and Christ. And then there is ourselves. My sticking point in the end was faith and regeneration. I believed tooth and nail that faith came first. Then one day, *snap*, it all made sense. Why regeneration had to come first, exactly how this solidifies monergism and our inability to do anything to save ourselves. And how we are still responsible even with all that. It is REALLY deep.

 

[fastfredy0]

Is it Christ and Christ crucified + the five solas, or is it just Christ and Christ crucified, followed by a lifetime of spiritual growth, and learning about the One who saved them? [I am dealing in nuance here, trying to get your take.]

I think we are getting lost in the weeds (nuances) and we should just let it go.

I think you misunderstand what I said.

Agreed (probably) .. giggle

So according to you, Sproul didn't initially come to faith. He didn't know about the things you say we need to know.

Sproul in the clip explains the situation. Sproul said when he came to faith he didn't understand the underlining causes. He goes on to say that if one goes on to believe the logical conclusions of Arminian theology then they would not be saved. So did the others come to this conclusion that I quoted. It is nuanced so we won't come to agreement.

Aside: Just because people are Arminians or Roman Catholics does not mean they are not saved. They are not saved if their beliefs are one and the same a Arminians or Roman Catholics stated beliefs.
If one think he is the First Cause of their salvation in some way, then they are in serious peril IMO and I grant that it is nuanced.

What We Must “not” Believe? (Roman Catholics)
If we change the question to be more specific, however, we can have a definite answer: “are Catholics who adhere to official Roman Catholic beliefs and practices saved?” The answer to this question is “no.” Why? Because the official teaching of Roman Catholicism is that salvation is not by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must have good works and observe the rituals of Roman Catholicism in order to be saved. https://www.gotquestions.org/are-Catholics-saved.html

 

[TMSO]

I think we are getting lost in the weeds (nuances) and we should just let it go.



Agreed (probably) .. giggle



Sproul in the clip explains the situation. Sproul said when he came to faith he didn't understand the underlining causes. He goes on to say that if one goes on to believe the logical conclusions of Arminian theology then they would not be saved. So did the others come to this conclusion that I quoted. It is nuanced so we won't come to agreement.

Aside: Just because people are Arminians or Roman Catholics does not mean they are not saved. They are not saved if their beliefs are one and the same a Arminians or Roman Catholics stated beliefs.
If one think he is the First Cause of their salvation in some way, then they are in serious peril IMO and I grant that it is nuanced.

The concern with Roman Catholicism, is that with the beliefs held by catholics it is impossible to be saved. John MacArthur would say that if they were truly believers, why are they still in the Catholic Church? You can't fellowship with people who worship idols. That is like one of the few most stated sins throughout the New Testament. Stay away from idols. You cannot be connected to that. You can come out of that, sure... but to stay? I believe it was III John or Jude (I could be off by some digits) that ends with, stay away from/avoid idols. One of the few times one really can question someone's salvation.

What We Must “not” Believe? (Roman Catholics)
If we change the question to be more specific, however, we can have a definite answer: “are Catholics who adhere to official Roman Catholic beliefs and practices saved?” The answer to this question is “no.” Why? Because the official teaching of Roman Catholicism is that salvation is not by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must have good works and observe the rituals of Roman Catholicism in order to be saved. https://www.gotquestions.org/are-Catholics-saved.html

This is true. If they are believing the Catholic church, they are not hearing the gospel, but heresy. They are not hearing Christ and Christ crucified, but follow the church and what the church teaches. A reason to state that the gospel message is the most important thing. Christ and Christ crucified, Christ the heart of the gospel, Christ, the entirety of the gospel. No room for man, or man's beliefs. After salvation, that is an entirely different journey. You have already found the Savior, now it is time to walk with Him and learn about Him. To seek Him with all your being.

 

[fastfredy0]

The concern with Roman Catholicism, is that with the beliefs held by catholics it is impossible to be saved. John MacArthur would say that if they were truly believers, why are they still in the Catholic Church? You can't fellowship with people who worship idols. That is like one of the few most stated sins throughout the New Testament. Stay away from idols. You cannot be connected to that. You can come out of that, sure... but to stay? I believe it was III John or Jude (I could be off by some digits) that ends with, stay away from/avoid idols. One of the few times one really can question someone's salvation.

Agreed. Again I state that I believe: Faith consists more of certainty that “Christ is Lord and Savior” rather than “discernment of facts”. (Salvation is nuanced to a degree from a human standpoint). I'm glad that if Christ chose me then it's not up to me to get the nuances correct in order to be saved)
So, though I doubt an idol worshiper could be a Christian I'm not sure its impossible... for example: I consider The Mass to be idol worshiping. Could someone who participates be unaware or barely aware?... maybe .... do some Roman Catholics who participate in The Mass believe “Christ is Lord and Savior” in a saving way ... I sort of think so.

his is true. If they are believing the Catholic church, they are not hearing the gospel, but heresy. They are not hearing Christ and Christ crucified, but follow the church and what the church teaches. A reason to state that the gospel message is the most important thing. Christ and Christ crucified, Christ the heart of the gospel, Christ, the entirety of the gospel.

Agreed.
Aside: I don't even think one MUST believe Christ was crucified to be saved. It would be very unusual to be a believer and not believe Christ was crucified but, is it essential to believe in His crucifixion for salvation? I sort of think NO. Maybe 1 Cor. 15:1-4 would be a text to prove me wrong.

After salvation, that is an entirely different journey. You have already found the Savior, now it is time to walk with Him and learn about Him. To seek Him with all your being.

Agreed. After salvation I still think God is doing all the work to which we respond.