From Catholic Apologist John Martignoni’s newsletter #118:
Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):
Question: Are there people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?
Answer: Yes, there are.
Question: Are you saved?
Answer: Yes, I am.
Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?
Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.
Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?
Answer: I suppose so.
Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?
Answer: I just know.
Question: How do you know?
Answer: I just do.
The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t. As you ask these questions, I guarantee you will not be able to keep from smiling as the folks you’re talking to can do nothing but go ‘round and ‘round in a circle of illogic.
That last sentence provides a little insight into the character of this particular Catholic apologist, don’t you think?
Martignoni can’t seem to figure out how a believer can believe they are saved. He apparently has no confidence in his own faith, ells why would he be so mystified? Is it really so odd for a believer in Jesus Christ to believe he is saved? Is it illogical? Let’s compare the logic of someone believing they are saved with one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church: Holy Matrimony.
Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church is a sacrament that rightly depicts and represents the relationship between Christ and His church (true believers). Fr. Thomas Richstatter, an expert in liturgy and sacramental theology stated:
“Christian marriage is the sacrament which shows us God’s desire to be one with us.” .”1
In addition, the Catholic Church does not believe that a Christian marriage can be ended. Richstatter further declares:
“The Church does not want to say that a sacramental marriage comes to an end because we consider the love of the husband and wife to be a sign of God’s unending love for us.
God’s love for us can never end in divorce. God is faithful even if we are not. The Church desires that even if one of the partners of a marriage is faithless to the marriage bond, the other, by remaining faithful, gives a powerful witness to the community of the way God loves us.” (ibid)
Amen to that! God is faithful even when we are not. If we truly possess a loving relationship with Him, even though we are not always faithful to His commandments, He promises never to forsake us. (Heb. 13:5) But what becomes of couples who are not really committees to each other; their marriages will surly fail. In this situation, the Catholic Church may provide and annulment – “a legal declaration that a valid sacramental marriage never existed.” (ibid)
In the Catholic Church marriage represents God’s love for His people. The relationship is either permanent or it never really existed. But when it comes to our relationship with God, all this seems to go out the window for Martignoni. When a groom says his vows and believes in his heart that he truly will commit to them, he knows he is committed to his bride. But when a groom harbors doubt in his heart he knows he is not committed, even though he may say, “I do.”
A person who says he is saved is not necessarily the same as a person who truly believes they are saved. Both say it, one knows it. It is not possible for us to judge the heart of another. But the Catholic Church, which appears to grasp the sanctity of marriages, should not be confused by the idea that one can know they are saved. One is either committed to God or they are not.
In John 15, Jesus tells us to abide in Him. We do that through love which enables us to obey His commandments. And when we unwillingly fail to keep His commandments, He is our advocate with the Father who is quick to forgive because we are covered by Christ’s blood. So a person who loves God will cherish their relationship with Him, and by Him they will be nourished and bear fruit. Jesus promises that those who bear fruit will not ever be cut off, but pruned so that they might bear more fruit. But those, like the doubtful groom who bear no fruit, will be cut off.
Although we cannot tell by simply asking someone if they are saved if they really are, the person who professes their salvation knows deep down inside where he stands, whether he is able to face that reality or not.
Any persons that doubt another’s ability to know they are saved must have doubts as to their own salvation. Perhaps that should be their cue to refocus their criticism from others to themselves.
1. http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0596.asp
June 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
Uhhmmm…I don’t mean to be rude here, but the author of this particular blog, whatever his name may be, completely missed the point I was making. He stated the following: “Martignoni can’t seem to figure out how a believer can believe they are saved.” If he would actually take a moment, or maybe two or three, to re-read what I wrote, I hope he will see that his comments completely miss the mark. I have absolutely no trouble figuring out how a believer can believe they are saved. I do, however, have a problem figuring out how a believer, who believes in once saved always saved, can believe they have, as the phrase goes, “absolute assurance” of salvation, when they readily admit that there are people out there who believe they are saved (and believe they have absolute assurance of their salvation); yet, they aren’t. If you believe it is possible for someone to “think” they’re saved, yet not actually be saved, how can you have absolute assurance that you are not one of those people who merely “thinks” they are saved, but, in reality, are not saved?
And, again, not meaning to be rude, but the fact that this person chose to comment on a point that it is so very obvious I was not making (can you say “straw man”)…well…that provides a little insight into the character of this particular non-Catholic apologist, don’t you think?
June 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
In defense of the post, there is no difference between believing something and having absolute assurance. If you are not absolutely sure, you don’t really believe. I am absolutely sure I will never walk away from my wife and child; I don’t need someone coming along and telling me I might. That is ridiculous.
If a branch bears fruit it will not be cut off. If a Christian is not sure of their relationship with Christ, perhaps… just perhaps, it is because they bore no fruit.
I should have provided a link to Martignoni’s article. I apologize for not doing so.
October 21, 2009 at 4:53 pm
There is no difference between believing something and having absolute assurance that it’s true??? Boy, is that wrong! I believed I was going to get a double paycheck a few days ago, where’s my assurance?
All of us, at one time or another, believe something that’s just not true. When I was an evangelical, I thought it was true, but it wasn’t, totally. Same when I became a baptist, a Presbyterian, and a Methodist. The question is “How can we be assured of the truth of the Catholic Faith”, and the answer is that Jesus told us it was true.
June 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
By the way, for those that are interested in reading the entirety of my remarks that were quoted on this blog, you may do so on the “Newsletter” page at http://www.biblechristiansociety.com.
June 16, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
By the way, a question for you dear blogger:
Is it possible to think you’re saved in your heart for say, 10 years or 15 years, but then lose your faith and turn away from God and turn out to not really be saved, after all? If so, were they saved or not during those 10 or 15 years when they really thought they were saved?
And, how can you judge your own heart and really know what is in your own heart, when even St. Paul wouldn’t go that far? St. Paul said that he doesn’t judge himself, he leaves that up to God.
June 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
Is it possible for one to believe in the idea that one can be saved by accepting Jesus into their heart and 10 or 15 years later fall away? Yes. Is it possible for one to hear the word, believe the word, grow and be nourished by the word and bear fruit in Christ for 10 or 15 years and then walk away? No! “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” (Rom 8:14)
Of course Paul didn’t judge himself; why would he? It is God who justifies. (1Cor. 4:4) I don’t think Paul would tell the Corinthians to be followers of him if he didn’t have assurance of salvation. What if he walked away? That would be a pretty dangerous prospect.
Here are a few more verses that indicate Paul had assurance of salvation.
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phi. 1:21)
If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. (Rom. 14:8)
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. (Rom. 9:3)
And if maybe you are wondering, “what about the Galatians who were persuaded by the Judaizers keep the Law”? Paul reprimanded them and told them this:
My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you! (Gal. 4:19)
Once Christ was formed in them there was no need for Paul to watch over them like babes. Someone who very recently believed the Gospel of Christ cannot understand what assurance of salvation is. It is a growing process that will test their heart as illustrated by Jesus in the parable of the sower. If a person has been a Christian for a long time and doesn’t understand what this means, they might want to evaluate their own situation.
My questions are:
How can a believer in Christ bear fruit and not know it?
Where in the bible is it taught that a person who bears fruit unto the Lord is ever cut off from Christ?
And what about sin? If one of these fruit bearers in Christ sins, does he loose his fruit and die? If so there would be none who bear fruit in Christ and the word of God would provide no hope for anyone. Thanks be to God that is not the case.
August 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
I have transcribed a study on what I means to be ’saved’. I couldn’t upload it to my blog as my wordpress is down but its here at my other website.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15761387/Believe-on-the-Lord-Jesus-Christ
October 22, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
Please don’t tell me your assurance comes from Jesus or your church; it doesn’t. Your assurance is from whatever you believe in, otherwise you wouldn’t really believe in it. That was the point I was trying to make.
Do you doubt that Mary hears your prayers when you bow before her statue and pray to her? If you do you don’t really believe she hears you; if you don’t doubt, however, then you are fully assured in your own mind that she does hear you. Having assurance in something does not mean it is true; it simply means you truly believe. Do you believe you might one day walk away from Catholicism? If you do you don’t really have faith in it.
October 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
Well, first, Brian, you mischaracterize. I don’t bow to a statue of Mary, and if I did, so what? But no, I know she hears my prayers. And I will never walk away from my faith. Go ahead and believe in your self-assurance. God promised us things-eternal life for one, if we believe in him and follow his commandments. Jesus died for our salvation, which assures us of certain things if we do our part.
October 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
So what you’re saying David is that Jesus gives you assurance that the Roman Catholic Church is THE church that you should belong to? Did He name it specifically or did He come to you in a vision (like Brian mentioned) or did Jesus show you any other way? Because it sounds like you just got tired of church hopping and you settled on a church that says “we are THE church” without being able to back up its claims.
October 26, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
Jesus founded ONE church Matt 16:18. He changed Simon’s name (don’t you know that when God changes someone’s name in the Bible, something pretty important is happening?) to Peter and said he would build his church (singular) on Peter the rock. Jesus is the builder, and Peter is the foundation. After this, he gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, cited from Isaiah 22, and the authority to bind and loose, representing legislative and judicial power in Rabbinical law. Jesus tells Peter, “Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:3132). In John 21, Jesus directs Peter to feed his sheep. Jesus told Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (again, singular). He said that all power had been give to him, to therefore go and make disciples of all nations in his name, and that he would be with us always to the end of the age.
There is only one church that has existed since that time. It was born on Pentecost, and has continued to the present time.
You’re right, I did get tired of church hopping. God loves everyone equally, not selectively. And how can you be the one true church if you call yourself “Baptist” or whatever, but if I go in one Baptist Church, they teach one thing, and in another they teach something different. I am secure in the teachings of the Catholic Church-they are the same as they were in Acts, just defined and matured. Jesus used the parable of the mustard seed quite frequently, which indicates to me that when he commissioned his Church it was meant to grow and mature, which it has in the Catholic Church.
October 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm |
The thing of it is though David is that the church didn’t start in Rome, that’s one problem. Also, many churches can claim to have come directly from the disciples and claiming Peter as their head even without being in communion with the pope, that’s another problem. Plus, when I have looked into history, if there is any church that deserves to be an unbreakable chain to the disciples (physically) it would be the Eastern Orthodox Church. The church of Jerusalem sided with Constantinople throughout history, not with Rome.
Plus, what you’re taught in one parish can be very different than what is taught in other parishes. I one time attended a mass at St. John’s student parish in Lansing, MI where one of the priests said during his homily that we should accept priests who are homosexual, because we aren’t loving if we don’t accept them. There are so many ways that people can interpret the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, there’s just as much division within as there is outside of it. Fortunately, if we stand on the words of Jesus we know that we are saved.
October 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
David, the Church started when Jesus instituted his Church by declaring Peter the Rock. The Christian Church moved away from Jerusalem because the Jews incited the Romans to destroy their temple.
The point is that the pope is the direct successor to Peter, so while you might be willing to say that you descended from Peter, if you’re not in communion, it’s not true. You say many churches can claim this, but you’ll need to show that.
You need to review your history, David, Constantinople was a Catholic city before it fell away from the Latin Rite…Eastern Orthodox actually do have the line of succession, and in fact many of the rites are trying to reconnect with Rome.
Regarding what one priest states in his homily = teaching of the Catholic Church, that’s a wrong supposition. What that particular priest said, though, is correct, except for one thing. Identifying a priest with a sexuality in and of itself is disordered. There are no ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ priests. There are priests with same-sex attraction and priests who have opposite-sex attraction. If a priest is a homosexual, meaning he’s practicing, then he’s an apostate priest. Same if the priest is a practicing heterosexual. But regardless of a priest’s human nature, he needs to be accepted as a human, regardless of his sinful nature. If we don’t embrace them as humans, we’re not living as Christ wanted us. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with whatever stand they take on sexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And that’s the way it is.
I belonged to a parish where the priest openly supported Obama. But he doesn’t represent what the Church represents. I also left that parish and found one where the teachings of Catholicism are faithfully taught, and am active there. There’s no such thing as walking in lock-step about everything. But on faith and morals, we are to act in obedience with the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
October 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Hi David,
I do understand and realize that what one priest teaches at one church does not mean that he speaks for the entire Roman Catholic Church. But, he is a representative of it and I agree with you that a Roman Catholic priest is not called to be homosexual or heterosexual. So I disagreed with the priest from a Christian moral standpoint and also with a Roman Catholic understanding of the position. I gave you the example to show that just because they fall under the name “Roman Catholic Church” that doesn’t mean that they are faithfully teaching what they are suppose to teach. Your example of the priest supporting Obama shows my point as well. There are many divisions inside of Roman Catholicism, and it goes all the way up to the pope himself.
As far as what churches claim apostolic succession, I will provide a link and you can do with it what you want. It was not my original source for the information, but I figured sense it is the most neutral to our topic, than it would be the easiest for both of us to accept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession
As you can see, many churches claim direct apostolic succession all the way to the apostles themselves. There is nothing unique about Roman Catholicism regarding this.
Also, I believe that it is completely wrong to deny the Eastern Orthodox Church the right to say that they have direct apostolic succession because they can provide evidence of their claim. There was no difference between the east and the west until Rome decided that it deserves to be the head of the church, not because of Scripture or history, but because it was the head of the empire itself. There are many other reasons, but these are just a few that make Roman Catholicism less and less believable regarding their position as the “only” true church. Roman Catholicism had it’s start in east-west schism since it didn’t want to be in union with the rest of the church (and the same goes for the Eastern Orthodox Church as well).
October 26, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
There is a good article on the Catholic assertion about 30,000 Protestant denominations by Eric Svendsen. His research illustrates the illusion being created by Catholic apologists. He also points out, as you mentioned David of MI, all the Catholic factions. When you reach the end of the article you can see that the playing field is pretty even. The article can be found here:
http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
October 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
David, first you folks want to criticize the early church for being obedient, then you criticize the modern church for not being obedient. Which is it? We are called to obey the teachings of Christ presented to us through the holy Spirit to Jesus’ representatives on Earth. It really doesn’t matter what some priest teaches when it doesn’t involve our faith and morals. What matters is how we know our faith, and know it well enough that when a priest teaches error, we know it, and if he does it often enough, to bring it to the attention of his bishop. I’ve done this several times. The Catholic Church is holy in spite of its leaders or members because Jesus is holy-there’s no other reason.
Your wiki article on Apostolic Succession is enlightening, because all those others who claim apostolic succession are off-shoots of the Catholic Church. Rome did not decide it wanted to be the head, Christ gave the leadership to Peter who took it to Rome because Jerusalem was, for all intents and purposes, not a viable seat for their faith anymore.
October 28, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
What makes you say that Jerusalem wasn’t a viable seat for our faith?
October 29, 2009 at 11:36 am
It was destroyed by the Romans, and Christians were shunned by the Jews.
October 30, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
I think you’re getting your history confused David. According to Roman Catholicism Peter died around 64-67AD, and Jerusalem fell to the Romans in 70AD. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Peter left Jerusalem because it “was destroyed by the Romans.” I appreciate your effort, but your not helping your case any.
God Bless
November 2, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
I believe, David, that you’re missing a few years when the Romans were persecuting all the Jews. Jerusalem was besieged for years, very cruelly. Peter went to Antioch and ran that church for several years before continuing to Rome. But to answer Brian’s question. Peter was THE leadership. We have evidence of his travels, we have evidence of his death, we have evidence of his bones, all in Rome.
Brian, I know you will use Peter’s own words against him, but it was common during the persecutions to not put in documents exactly where you were.
November 2, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
Where in the world did you get the idea that Peter took the “leadership” to Rome?
November 2, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
No offense David, but now you’re changing what you wrote earlier to mean something entirely different. The Romans may have been persecuting the Jews in Jerusalem for some years, but that isn’t at all what you had said. You told me that Peter went to Rome because Jerusalem “was destroyed by the Romans”. I clearly pointed out that you were mistaken there. Also, if the Romans had been persecuting the Jews (and Christians I will assume) in Jerusalem, why would it seem like a good idea for Peter to go to Rome…to get away from the Romans? Your idea just doesn’t hold water when it comes down to it.
Peter may very well have been in Rome, and I have no problem with that. But there is no evidence at all that suggests that Peter was THE leadership of the church, because Peter wasn’t always in charge of the church. Thank you for your dialogue though David.
God Bless
November 2, 2009 at 7:58 pm |
If that’s what you were asking, I’ve answered it over and over. That answer is purely in scripture. Matt 16:18-20. Peter was the preeminent disciple, always named first, named the most, the only one who was given a name-change, the one John deferred to at the tomb. He was the spokesman for the apostles. Paul spent 15 days with Peter prior to Paul’s beginning his apostolate. Jesus promises the stewardship of the Church to Peter, referencing Isaiah 22, as well as the power to bind and to loose. Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says to the apostles that Satan has demanded to have you (plural)to sift you (plural) like wheat, but prays for you (singular), Peter, that your faith won’t fail. In John 21 he commands Peter to feed my sheep and tend my lambs. Feeding and tending meant to teach, and govern. And in Acts 15, the assembly is not silent until Peter binds them to the rule they discussed regarding the Christianization of the Gentiles.
So wherever you want to go with this, believe it or not, you’re incorrect.
God bless you, too.
November 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Hi David, thank you for the blessing!
I appreciate you showing what the Scriptures have to say about Peter, no problems with you there. The only thing is that you have to read into the text that Peter is THE leader of the apostles, and that in turn makes him the leader of the entire Christian Church. It’s a large step to make, one that stretches the integrity of the Scriptures themselves because by doing so, Peter is made the head of the church instead of Jesus Christ, who is our true head, and our true rock. I pray that you realize this someday, that you can rely completely in Jesus for EVERYTHING, and that you need no man to lead your life except for Jesus Christ Himself. David, you don’t need priests to go to Jesus, because He is already with you. You have a great zeal for truth, and that is also something that I can appreciate. It is unfortunate that you have believed that Roman Catholicism is completely true, because as many people have shown, it is full of half truths, and sadly it is Roman Catholicism that is incorrect.
As always, God Bless
November 2, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I don’t think there is any creditable doubt about Peter going to Rome, the evidence that he was there seems pretty clear to me. But you are basing your opinion that Peter was the leader of the whole church on what you have been taught rather than on what history actually attests.
Our most ancient and most creditable extra-biblical source of information, concerning the origins of the church in Rome, comes from Irenaeus who clearly stated that Linus was the first bishop of that church, and its founders were Peter and Paul. Eusebius, who wrote Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century, labeled Linus “the first who presided over the church at Rome.” (E.H. 3:2) Peter and Paul also founded the church in Antioch and appointed Evodius to the episcopate. So what’s the difference? If Irenaeus and Eusebius did not recognize Peter as the head of the whole church, and no similar claim was made for Peter in Antioch, why do you think he was the head of the church, because your church tells you so?
Unlike what you are being taught, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Peter and Paul all recognized the true Head of the church, Christ Jesus.
November 3, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
Where do you get the idea that Catholics don’t think that Christ Jesus is the head of the Church? The Pope is his representative on earth.
I understand that some people put the Pope and Mary on the same level, but this is not what the Church teaches.
But when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, he was using the OT example of the prime minister who was the King’s representative. Prime minister (singular). This does not diminish the importance of the other apostles in any way. In fact, that Peter is the head of the church of Rome does not diminish the other Churches. In Jesus’ example, when James and John asked Jesus to put them at his right and left, Jesus said that to serve him, the first would be last and the last, first. That Peter is the prime apostle makes him the servant of the others. Same is true with any pope. Not that ever pope remembered this all the time, but this is their example to follow.
November 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm |
I think that the words of Martin Luther show clearly why we believe that Roman Catholics don’t see Jesus as the head of the Church.
“A man is a vicar only when his superior is absent…How much more properly did the apostles call themselves servants of the present Christ and not vicars of an absent Christ?” – Martin Luther
An organization cannot have two heads. We follow only one, a rock that is unbreakable and has no weakness because He defeated death itself.
On Jesus Christ the rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand
God Bless
November 4, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Have you looked up the word, David? There is no interpretation of its meaning that would suggest what Luther said.
Catholic Church only has one head. But His visible representative on earth is the Pope.
November 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
Where in the Bible does it say anyone on earth is Christ’s visible representative, including the Apostle Peter?
November 4, 2009 at 8:17 pm |
I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at David. I only say this because when you said the word “word” it wasn’t capitalized. If you are asking me if I have looked up what is said in the Bible, then the answer is “yes”. There is no place in the Bible that shows Jesus telling Peter that when He is gone that He will need a visible representative to carry on His work until He returns. There is no mention of a need of an infallible leader, at least infallible only if he is speaking ex cathedra in Rome. There also is no mention in the Bible that makes me think that having some kind of foundation in Rome is critical for salvation.
If you are asking me if I have looked up the meaning of the word “vicar” then I guess I would say that you made me look it up just now. I found that the word “vicar” means “substitute” or “deputy” or “representative”. So, I guess that would give credit to Luther’s position (which I happen to agree with). I mean, the Roman Catholic Church does expect you to see the pope as a representative of Jesus Christ.
I say, why don’t we expect all Christians to be representatives of Jesus Christ?
God Bless
October 21, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
But you just said that having assurance in what you believe is wrong! How can you turn around and say that you have assurance in the “truth” of the Catholic faith? Jesus told you? Did you have a vision?
October 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
I said no such thing Brian. You can believe anything you want, but to have assurance comes from authority. Our authority is God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, to the apostles and their successors. Our assurance is from Jesus.