Are you saved?
The most common question I’ve heard from non-Catholics is probably “Are you saved?”
The majority of Protestants view salvation as a one-time event when they accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour which guarantees them entry into Heaven. This is not the Catholic conception of Salvation. Here’s the Catholic answer to that question:
Thanks to All You Can Eat Catholics for this
So the chart represents what a Catholic must say in response to the question: “Are you saved?
First off the bat, the said verses in the chart are taken out of context. Romans 8, 1 Corinthians, and Romans 5 are written to those persons who are already saved or justified before God. 1 Corinthians 1:4-6 confirms they were already justified brethren – the church Paul himself established – but there were concerns about their sanctification walk.
For God is not a God of confusion … – 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Hey John, welcome to Restless Pilgrim and thank you for your comment.
Well, Romans 8 uses “saved” in the past tense, so no problem there. However, what about the other two passages? Well, I think the issue is that you’re bringing your theological presuppositions to the text, rather than starting with the text itself. Perhaps you could please answer these two questions? I think it’d help to clarify things:
1. Can you explain why Paul uses the present-continuous tense in 1 Corinthians? If Paul can refer to himself and the Corinthians as “being saved”, why can’t you?
2. Can you explain why Paul uses the future tense in Romans 5? If Paul can refer to himself and the Romans being saved at some point in the future, why can’t you?
Surely just linguistically looking at these passages we see that Paul viewed salvation as (a) something which took place in the past, (b) is currently taking place and (c) something which will take place at some point in the future?
Hi David,
1. Can you explain why Paul uses the present-continuous tense in 1 Corinthians? If Paul can refer to himself and the Corinthians as “being saved”, why can’t you?
Paul cannot contradict himself as he said earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:6 that the “testimony” of Christ was already confirmed in them and he knew it because he himself established the brethren at Corinth. They were saved under Paul’s gospel that he confirms and brings to their memory in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
2. Can you explain why Paul uses the future tense in Romans 5? If Paul can refer to himself and the Romans being saved at some point in the future, why can’t you?
In Romans 5:9 Paul speaks about being saved from future wrath to come. But forgiveness of sin problem is already taken care by his blood – justification from the penalty of sin to those who believe the gospel. So saved in this verse is referring to the end times when God will pour out his wrath and not sin issue.
Hmmm…I’m afraid you haven’t really answered the question. He says that they are “being saved”. In what sense is that taking place?
Okay, so there is a salvation still to take place in the future then. It seems like you’re conflating the meanings of the term “saved” to only refer to the initial justification which comes about through faith.
Hmmm…I’m afraid you haven’t really answered the question. He says that they are “being saved”. In what sense is that taking place?
I have given a response taking the whole chapter one of 1 Corinthians in context and not a single “isolated” verse of 1 Corinthians 1:18. Paul cannot say “being saved” in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and at the same time say in 1 Corinthians 1:6 that the testimony of Christ was already confirmed in them. Besides 1 Corinthians 1:2 speaks about “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” – the very word “sanctified” should throw up a red warning flag that the corinthians were already justified/saved – so paul is addressing the sanctification issue as there were divisions, fornication etc. Looks like there’s a typo-error in the 1 Corinthians 1:18 verse in your bible.
Okay, so there is a salvation still to take place in the future then. It seems like you’re conflating the meanings of the term “saved” to only refer to the initial justification which comes about through faith.
No. the wrath of God is going to be poured out to those who do not obey the gospel 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9. God’s wrath will not affect those who are justified/saved and whose names are written in the lamb’s book of life. The book of Revelation also speaks about God’s wrath to come.
You seem to have more of a problem with what Paul says than anything else. In 1:6 he talks about the testimony to Christ being confirmed among the Corinthians. In 1:18 he says that both he and the Corinthians are being saved…yet you say that’s impossible. What does it mean then? Personally, I don’t see the conflict.
I’ll ask the same question again: in what sense are they being saved? Why did Paul use the word “saved” and why did he put it in the present-continuous tense?
This is what I meant by you starting with presupposed theology and then trying to make it fit the text – you’re assuming a Protestant model of salvation with a distinct one-time justification, then sanctification and then glorification. The text only poses these problems if you try and make it fit that scheme. It fits the Catholic model far better.
What do you think is the typo? Here is that version in the RSV-CE (Catholic) and NIV (Protestant):
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God – RSV-CE
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. – NIV
…or are you a KJV-only advocate?
Whichever way you cut it, there is a future judgment from which Paul hopes to be saved.
You reference 2 Thessalonians which speaks about the necessity of obedience, which is what makes sense of Paul’s words later in Corinthians where he speaks about himself:
I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me – 1 Corinthians 4:3-4
In this passage Paul doesn’t sound to me like a Once-Saved-Always-Saved by Faith Alone kind of Christian. He sounds Catholic.
Looks like there’s a typo-error in the 1 Corinthians 1:18 verse in your bible.
What do you think is the typo? Here is that version in the RSV-CE (Catholic) and NIV (Protestant):
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God – RSV-CE
And here below is the Douay Rheims (DRB) version:
For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness: but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.
So, houston you have a problem with that verse 1 Corinthians 1:18 in your bible. – So which is which? RSV-CE/NIV that says “being saved” or DRB that says “are saved” ??
One cannot go further until you reconcile the differences. So context is important which I have rightly done taking the who chapter under consideration.
…or are you a KJV-only advocate?
Why KJV only… and not DRB which both say the same thing i.e “are saved”? So whose correct RSV_CE/NIV or DRB/KJV?
So the RSV-CE and DRB both catholic bibles are saying two different things i.r.t. 1 Corinthians 1:18. So which one is a liar?
I asked if you were KJV-onlyist because they tend to ascribe inspired status to the translation and have some very odd ideas concerning the difficulties of translation.
Both translations are correct, we don’t have to accuse one of being “a liar”. It’s just that the DRB and the KJV use an archaic form of English.
The Greek τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις is a participle, which partakes of both noun and verb functions. The present participle is often used in an adjectival manner, but not always. Just as we might call someone a stay-at-home type vs an on-the-go type person, Paul contrasts those being saved and those being lost. But the status can change at any time in this life. What Paul is contrasting here the two ways of life in this world, which is a frequent theme throughout the Bible, as you know. The distinctive thing here is what distinguishes those who are going the way of salvation – their adherence to the Cross.
God has given us His word (Jesus) in the Holy Scriptures. He doesn’t give one set for Catholics and another set for Protestants. So contrasting the RSV-CE and DRB, both Catholic bibles they cannot be differing as one says “being saved” and the other says “are saved”. Either one has to be true or false. I do see that the RSV-CE has been “doctored” to fit Catholic Theology of works-based salvation. We do not need to go to the Greek to discern the differences, the English is all so simple to understand and spot the difference. I really don’t comprehend why people want to make salvation so hard when God did not intend it to be. Romans 5:1 talks about the absolute peace we have through our Lord Jesus Christ. What more can we ask for? God does not change his plan of salvation. Eternal security is always there for the believer. Paul would not address the brethren in Phillipi as “saints” (Philipians 1:1) if they were not saved.
In my first post, I therefore maintain that it is not correct to use verses out of context such as the 3 step graphic image that mentions Romans 8, 1 Corinthians and Romans 5:9 as they are written to only saved brethren. Paul cannot be saying “saved” in Romans 8 while in 1 Corinthians “being saved” – it is contradictory.
What Paul is contrasting here the two ways of life in this world, which is a frequent theme throughout the Bible, as you know. The distinctive thing here is what distinguishes those who are going the way of salvation – their adherence to the Cross.
Salvation is complete in Christ. One has just to look to Christ – trust him and his shed blood for the forgiveness of sin. If Paul is talking about those being lost, he his referring to people who minds are corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. You see man is inherent a religious animal, so doing the works of the flesh trying to please God not on his terms, is the problem and they ignore what Paul writes in Romans 1:16
True, although this does betray a Sola Scriptura presupposition.
Well, Protestants deny seven books which the Church has historically held to be God’s word, but okay, I get that you’re talking about translations here.
See, it’s comments like this that make me think that you’re a KJV-onlyist. One might contrast the KJV and the NIV and make exactly the same point. However, I’ve already explained why the RSV-CE and the DRB render the Greek text differently. There is nuance in translation, both in the source and target languages.
Well, that’s immensely problematic for four reasons:
1. It’s a valid rendering of the Greek.
2. The majority of Protestant translations do exactly the same thing (BBE, CEB, CJB, ESV, GW, GNT, CSB, LEB, NAS, NCV, NIRV, NIV, NLT, NRS, RSV, TNIV, WNT, YLT), including the New King James Version (NKJV). Would you accuse them of works-based salvation theology too?
Even those translations which don’t render it “being saved”, instead choose the phrase “are saved” which doesn’t necessarily mean that it is exclusively a past event. For example, you might say “…but to those of us who are taught Greek, this is an easy question”. This statement doesn’t exclude the possibility that the person is still learning Greek, all it shows is that the study of Greek began sometime in the past.
3. The idea of salvation being an ongoing process doesn’t necessitate works-based salvation.
4. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach works-based salvation. She condemned Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism centuries ago.
This is another mark of the KJV-onlyist. You’re starting with the KJV, assuming it’s true without even questioning whether or not that is the best rendering of the Greek (or the Latin Vulgate in the case of the DRB).
I’ve already broken down the Greek to show you how the different translators came to both renderings, as well as pointing out the nuances with the archaic language used by the KJV and DRB.
What you really mean here is you don’t understand why people don’t interpret the Scriptures in the same way as you.
Who has said any different? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing.
You mean once-saved-always-saved? Nope. If you’d like to dispute that, I’d invite you to read my article on the subject and comment there.
I also had a dialog with a commenter here which warranted a three part series in response to his attempted rebuttals.
This statement is problematic. The word “saint” just literally means “set apart”, it is a general term used in the New Testament to denote a professing Christian. I can’t think of reason why opening his letters with this would automatically give each and every member of the Pauline communities a guarantee of salvation. In fact, Paul writes to communities where people would fall away, meaning that they were once called “saint” would later apostatize… Were they then truly “saved”?
It’s not, it’s just contradictory for your 16th Century (or possibly later) theology.
So in what sense are they “lost”?
Looks like he has petered out.