Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[paul_c]

Is there a pattern ? We can not judge ? We can not have assurance ? We can not be predestined (like the big saints) ? “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged”, 1Cor.11:31. John 7:24- “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement”. Discernment is similar to judge- " But how is it you do not discern this time ? Why even of yourselves do you not judge what is right ?", St. Luke 12:56,57. "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way ", Rom 14:13. “Do ye not judge them that are within ?”, 1 Cor 5:12. “Do you not know the saints shall judge the world, and if so are you unworthy to judge the smallest matter ?”, 1 Cor 6:1. “Judge ye what I say.” 1 Cor. 10:15 “Judge for yourselves…”, 1 Cor11:13

I can understand your confusing. If you try to simply pick out scripture passages in a vacuum, you can certainly find ones that seem to contradict. Only when you read them in total through the lens of Catholic tradition do they all make sense.

Fro what its worth. **You can judge actions to see whether they meet the moral rules set out in scripture. **For instance, if you see someone shoot someone else in cold blood, you can judge that this is an evil act and if you have the authority, you can put that person in jail. If you see someone sinning, its actually a corporal work of mercy to point out their error (admonish the sinner). If they are scandalizing the community with their behavior and refuse to stop (like the example in Corinth of a man living with his mother -in-law), the church authorities have the responsibility of expelling the offender .
**What you can not do is judge someone’s soul. ** You just don’t know their hearts or their circumstances and intent, nor do you know whether they have reconciled their sins with God and been forgiven…

 

[pocohombre]

]You make a good point. All theology that is grounded in the Reformation comes to people from what “the bible seems to teach”. This is a major departure from receiving from the Apostles what is taught, and using that One Faith to correctly understand the Scriptures

Actually, the early church and councils had scripture as their boundary. As an early church father wrote, “It is well, that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them”, Martin Luth…oops my mistake, Barnabus (around 100 A.D.). The first council at Jerusalem, “and to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written…” Acts 15:15…Pardon my Luther humor but it is saturday night live -this is a whole other thread

 

[pocohombre]

We do! He made it clear that if we want to JUMP OUT of His hand, He will allow it. Love is free, and not coercive. We are made in HIs image and likeness, and as such, have the freedom to choose to leave Him.

 

[pocohombre]

38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ESV, full context is all about God’s everlasting love in Romans 8:31-39.)

Yes, he created us by and for His love, and He will continue loving us, even as He watches us choose to walk through the gates of hell. This love that frees us to choose should not be confused with salvation. God loves every soul He creates, and desires for all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but this does not mean that all those He loves will be saved. Here is a scriptural example of how Jesus allows those He loves to walk away from salvation:

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10367551:

You do realize that this is the very basic problem with sola scriptura, right? Two people can interpret the very same verse in contradictory ways. That’s why there must be an authoritative arbiter of scripture. and that role has always fallen to the Catholic magesterium (the Pope and his fellow bishops). Without that authority, you honestly can’t know what to believe.

I know, but could you not receive some divine illumination yourself, even just a little bit, to discern whether the above has any validity ? As some rightly insist on free will, that we are made in His image with it are we separate yet one with him ? I do not see why the same God given discernment to choose a church can not be also used to discern a scripture .

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

You do realize that this is the very basic problem with sola scriptura, right? Two people can interpret the very same verse in contradictory ways. That’s why there must be an authoritative arbiter of scripture. and that role has always fallen to the Catholic magesterium (the Pope and his fellow bishops). Without that authority, you honestly can’t know what to believe.

if you got any illumination, it would bring you back to the Catholic Church. There’s no new meaning to scripture. It was defined by Catholics and canonized based on its adherence to Catholic Tradition

As some rightly insist on free will, that we are made in His image with it are we separate yet one with him ? I do not see why the same God given discernment to choose a church can not be also used to discern a scripture .

How do you go about picking a church? Do you pick one whose doctrine’s are most comfortable for you? The one whose doctrines are most in line with what you would like to believe? The one that’s the most popular?

Or do you chose the Church with the most credible claim to the fullness of Truth? Because popularity and comfort are not synonymous with truth. And all Faiths are not equal. There’s only one Truth, therefore there’s only one Church that can teach all of it. Isn’t it obvious by now that that has to be the original One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It simply can’t be a church that some guy started 1500 years later because he didn’t like what the church taught or because there were sinners in the Catholic Church (after all, the Church is a hospital for sinners).

 

[paul_c]

Agree, but that is not the context of the scripture. God’s love will be separated at end times, it (love for goats and sheep) will not pass the test of things to come, it will not extend into hell. The context is for believers now, tomorrow and forever. The context was also in the persecution the church was receiving, from the world . That is a stretch to say that because God loves all yet not all are saved, that any specific love for the believer is also possibly not all inclusive. I would think this verse has the believers only in mind. There are plenty of other scriptures to say He loves the whole world, but there are some strictly specific to the bride as a whole, and some to the believer.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10367725:

It is a mistake to think that God doesn’t love those who enter Hell. He does. Those that enter hell are the ones that don’t love God back. it is by their choice, through their actions that they enter Hell. God loves and respects them enough to honor their own choices, thus making them real choices. IF God just over rid them, they would be no choices at all (you understand this right?)

Its a mistake to think that any bible verse is only meant for certain groups of people. Truth is truth and it applies to everyone.

I know. I don’t like it when it is done also. but don’t we both do it ? How many times have i been told that certain scriptures were meant only for the apostles, and or their successors, nobody else, or only certain believers are in fullness of Christ , or you can’t do this or that,cause it’s for the priestly class only

 

[paul_c]

paul c;10368114:

I know. I don’t like it when it is done also. but don’t we both do it ? How many times have i been told that certain scriptures were meant only for the apostles, and or their successors, nobody else, or only certain believers are in fullness of Christ , or you can’t do this or that,cause it’s for the priestly class only

Never by me. Its a weakness in theology when you have to explain away scripture by saying it wasn’t meant for you.

 

[pocohombre]

Or do you chose the Church with the most credible claim to the fullness of Truth? Because popularity and comfort are not synonymous with truth. And all Faiths are not equal. There’s only one Truth, therefore there’s only one Church that can teach all of it. Isn’t it obvious by now that that has to be the original One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It simply can’t be a church that some guy started 1500 years later because he didn’t like what the church taught or because there were sinners in the Catholic Church (after all, the Church is a hospital for sinners).

I am wondering if where you are “born spiritually” is where you are most likely to remain. I am wondering if it is wisest to then focus on whether one has found " new life ", not what church they belong to. …The more one repeats something, the more it appears to be true. So in case there is a vulnerable spirit reading here, would it be my duty and privilege to contest such statements about just what is the Church, the Body of Christ ? It is a whole other thread. It has always been quite divisive to insist that Rome is above all other patriarchs. It is one thing to be united against heresy, or for the establishment of Cannon but another to insist of one church government over another. The early church grew and flourished only in what and where she was universal, and does so today. So just what is universal today amongst all Christians ?

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10368170:

Never by me. Its a weakness in theology when you have to explain away scripture by saying it wasn’t meant for you.

Thanks but are you sure ? It reminds me of a humorous memory of my mother screaming and yelling to us, even trowing a frying pan, saying she never loses her temper…PS- In defense of my mother, such moments of wackiness was hereditary, she got it from her kids.

 

[pablope]

paul c;10367613:

I know, but could you not receive some divine illumination yourself, even just a little bit, to discern whether the above has any validity ?

.

Poco…let me cite you the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passage above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and the Apostles…and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Even St. Paul needed illumination…but the revelation to him… was to go to the Church and Peter, who then was at Jerusalem.

This is the Biblical way. If you want illumination, it will be along the example of St. Paul.

This about this…if you asking God for the truth…will God instantly zap you and you know at once the truth from God?

Or will God lead you…as the revelation to St. Paul…to someone with Apostolic lineage…to know what that truth is?

Think about this passage… from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

How would you apply this passage today, in your situation?

 

[brb3]

SA (Kingdom Inheritance) …addressed by the CCC in #1107

The Holy Spirit’s transforming power in the Liturgy hastens the coming of the kingdom and the consummation of the mystery of salvation. While we wait in hope he causes us really to anticipate the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity. Sent by the Father who hears the epiclesis of the Church, the Spirit gives life to those who accept him and is, even now, the “guarantee” of their inheritance.​

So, there we have it …if we are IN CHRIST, if his Spirit really dwells in us, the HS (presence tense) GUARANTEES our inheritance …provided our conscience’s are not being convicted of MORTAL SINS by the Paraclete !!
…we only live in the present tense & can’t speak with certitude of next week, since occasion of MORTAL sin can always knock at the door…as common sense / life experience has taught. Any man/woman can exercise free will…and go the prodigal route.

 

[guanophore]

Am I wrong in seeing the lack of consistency, for how can a new born man, yes, having two natures, the old and the new, go to hell ? If the once reborn fall, is out of grace but still reborn, and die before repenting or before even having the desire to do so, the reborn man would go to hell ?

Yes. One can be united to Christ in Baptism, and receive a new nature, and yet still turn their back on God. God loves us, and has created us for freedom. His love for us is so strong, He allows us to choose not to be with Him, even though He desires that all be saved.

A born again person, though, if they fall away, is in a state worse than if they had never known the way of salvation.

2 Peter 2:20-22
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb,

“The dog turns back to its own vomit,”

and,

“The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”

 

[guanophore]

  Paul judged himself,

Paul exhorted that we all examine ourselves, but that does not equate to assuming he was saved.

1 Cor 4:3-5
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.

He is saying that it is improper to “pronounce judgment before the time”. That time is when the Lord comes. To assume that one is “saved” is pronouncing judgment before the time.

We cannot know what is in our unconscious. Only God knows.

and he also let the Lord judge him. We can judge, but Christ said if we do,  to judge righteously. It is possible with His light.  Self righteous is just that, one's own light apart from His light Again is not our assurance, even your hope, in His righteousness ?

I think you are mixing apples and squash here. To judge righteously means to use discernment in our everyday affars. That is not the same as pronoucing a judgment as to whether one is saved.

I believe St John says something that He gives us the will to come. Yes, I believe in free will, but He sure knows how to arrest us, even quite violently. Look at St. Paul. I have been told that somewhere in scripture it talks of God pursuing us much like the pursuit of a wild stallion, running away in the opposite direction of the lassoer. That HS rope gets around our neck and we slow down, but fight and kick and jump it all the way, till we tire out, and give up, and become quite still.

Yes, Catholics call this prevenient grace, or drawing grace. It is the grace that is poured out on everyone that draws them to seek God.

God does pursue us, but He does not take away our free will to deny Him, or to refuse Him.

Matt 10:32-33

32 "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

That includes those who have confessed Him previously.

 

[pocohombre]

Poco…let me cite you the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passage above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and the Apostles…and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ. So after 14 years of preaching Paul gets a revelation to submit to the apostles and get checked out ? How about this, Paul was having big problems with the Judaizers, and the revelation to Peter was to settle the issue with the apostle to the Jews -Peter. With the sanction of the other Jerusalem apostles, Paul’s detractors would be silenced. The revelation was to submit to the others for their endorsement in light of the detractors. Paul would never have gone to Jerusalem otherwise. Paul’s gospel did not need "approval’ from Peter, until 14 years later when the Church, which began primarily as a Jewish movement, turned to a gentile movement. Scripture says Peter was graced for the Jews and Paul equally towards the gentiles. The “submission” of Paul should not be taken out context , as I believe you have. Furthermore Paul rebukes Peter face to face on the subsequent third meeting.

Even St. Paul needed illumination…but the revelation to him… was to go to the Church and Peter, who then was at Jerusalem.

Again , the illumination was on how to solve the churches first challenge -how to treat gentiles and silence the judaizers

Or will God lead you…as the revelation to St. Paul…to someone with Apostolic lineage…to know what that truth is?

Sometimes , but not always .Take a look at Job ,and the perfect, humble, polite response of the young Elihu. He waited for the 3 older, much wiser, learned men to speak before he spoke. “I am young, and you are very old,wherefore I was afraid, and dared not give my opinion, for days should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom, But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise ,neither do the aged understand judgement, I let you speak, and your words were empty. Now it is my turn and I am ready to burst forth with words,only let me not flatter with titles unto man. My heart is upright, my lips shall utter knowledge clearly, for the spirit of God made me…” Job 33

Think about this passage… from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

How would you apply this passage today, in your situation?

3 verses before “-Hereby know ye the spirit of God:every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” 'every spirit that says he did not is not of God"- If one believes in Christ as Messiah, in the flesh is he not “listening” ?

 

[guanophore]

Is there a pattern ? We can not judge ?

We can, and should, use our discernment. We need to evaluate ourselves and our own behavior. We also need to be able to distinguish sin from good works, and make good decisions for ourselves, and those for whom we have care (such as our children and partners).

We can not have assurance ?

Sure!

2 Peter 1:5-11
For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7 and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. 8 For** if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.** 9 For anyone who lacks these things is short-sighted and blind, and is forgetful of the cleansing of past sins. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. 11 For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.

We can be assured that if we are making every effort to support our faith with goodness (virtue) we will be fruitful for Christ. We can be equally assured that, if we lack these virtues, we are shortsighed and blind, and have forgotten that we were cleansed of past sins (in baptism).

We can not be predestined (like the big saints) ?

I think you are confusing God’s foreknowedge with foredecision. God already knows what we will choose, but He allows us to choose it. He desires that all are saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but not all come to Him so that they can be saved.

“Big saints” start out the same as we all do, taking baby steps in following Christ, and as Peter says, making every effort to confirm their election. We are all called to be saints, and we are all called to confirm our election.

“For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged”, 1Cor.11:31. John 7:24- “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement”. Discernment is similar to judge- " But how is it you do not discern this time ? Why even of yourselves do you not judge what is right ?", St. Luke 12:56,57. "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way ", Rom 14:13. “Do ye not judge them that are within ?”, 1 Cor 5:12. “Do you not know the saints shall judge the world, and if so are you unworthy to judge the smallest matter ?”, 1 Cor 6:1. “Judge ye what I say.” 1 Cor. 10:15 “Judge for yourselves…”, 1 Cor11:13

Yes, the Gk. word here for judge is kriterion, same as used for discernment (to choose between). It is where we get our modern word criteria. When we judge, we choose between standards or alternatives. We apply the criteria (standards) and make decisions. This is how we live a moral and Christlike life day to day. It is not the same as determining the eternal destiny of our souls, which is up to God alone.

Phil 3:12-16

Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

What does the Apostle teach us? Not to assume we have already "arrived’ at our eternal destiny, but to strive forward, and not assume that we have obtained salvation. He says that this is a mature mindset, and that those who don’t have this mindset need to be corrected by God. We are to fight the good fight, and finish the race.

 

[pablope]

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the passage above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and the Apostles…and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

So after 14 years of preaching Paul gets a revelation to submit to the apostles and get checked out ?

Poco…that is what the account from Paul says. Are you doubting what the Paul wrote?

And it is a revelation to him.

How about this, Paul was having big problems with the Judaizers, and the revelation to Peter was to settle the issue with the apostle to the Jews -Peter.

Ah…seems you are rationalizing, Poco…the verse/passage is clear…to get assurance that his gospel Paul is bringing to the Gentiles is the same as the Apostles.

It also shows one thing…obedience and humility and submission to authority.

Look at Acts 13, where Paul is ordained prior to his first missionary journey.

The revelation was to submit to the others for their endorsement in light of the detractors.

Paul does not say that, in his account. And what you are saying is contrary to the result…7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.**

Where do you see this “endorsement in the light of the detractors.”?

Paul would never have gone to Jerusalem otherwise.

Poco…it was a revelation to Paul…are you doubting God’s revelation to Paul?

Paul’s gospel did not need "approval’ from Peter, until 14 years later when the Church, which began primarily as a Jewish movement, turned to a gentile movement. Scripture says Peter was graced for the Jews and Paul equally towards the gentiles.

Then why did the revelation to Paul say to go to Jerusalem and see the Apostles? What purpose was it for?

And it became a mainly gentile movement not till the destruction of the Temple…many years later.

The “submission” of Paul should not be taken out context , as I believe you have.

It also shows one thing…obedience and humility and submission to authority.

Furthermore Paul rebukes Peter face to face on the subsequent third meeting.

So what about this one…it shows a humble leader in Peter who could accept correction of a moral failing on his part. Do you see Paul saying anything further after he corrects Peter?

Again , the illumination was on how to solve the churches first challenge -how to treat gentiles and silence the judaizers

That issue came out of Paul going to the gentiles…not anything to do his gospel, which needed apostolic approval.

T

Sometimes , but not always .

Why sometimes?

3 verses before “-Hereby know ye the spirit of God:every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” 'every spirit that says he did not is not of God"- If one believes in Christ as Messiah, in the flesh is he not “listening” ?**

Hmmm…

What does this have to do with my question?

If you read the first verse…“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world”…it is one way to know what is false and not…and that is why I qouted verse 6…which says listening and obedience to an apostle…which John is a way to determine which is from God and which is not.

So again…to my question in blue below:

[SIGN]Think about this passage… from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

How would you apply this passage today, in your situation? [/SIGN]

 

[paul_c]

I am wondering if where you are “born spiritually” is where you are most likely to remain.

Perhaps more likely, but lots and lots of people convert to other faiths or no faith during their lives. No one should feel obligated to stay in an errant faith just because their parents happened to practice it.

I am wondering if it is wisest to then focus on whether one has found " new life ", not what church they belong to.

The Church is what brings the truth about salvation to us and it is the Church that administers the life saving sacraments that Jesus initiated. You can’t find new life without the church. Even you as a Protestant, are dependent on the Catholic Church for your knowledge of Christ, however obscured, because that Bible you cling to is a product of that Church.

…The more one repeats something, the more it appears to be true. So in case there is a vulnerable spirit reading here, would it be my duty and privilege to contest such statements about just what is the Church, the Body of Christ ? It is a whole other thread.

There have been many threads to this effect but its a really hard to maek the argument that when you leave the CAtholic church for another faith, you are still part of it. That is the argument that every Protestant tries to make but think about it. If you were in a club and quit to create your own competing club, aren’t you implicitly saying that you don’t accept the original club?

It has always been quite divisive to insist that Rome is above all other patriarchs.

Its only divisive to those that desire autonomy to make their own decisions. However, no matter what they wish, the truth remains eternal and unchanging.

It is one thing to be united against heresy, or for the establishment of Cannon but another to insist of one church government over another.

If there were no disagreements on doctrine, no one would have left the Church.
Chruch governance isn’t really the issue. Virtually everyone is beholden to some church leader. Patriarchs and bishops act as their own popes one they leave the church.

The early church grew and flourished only in what and where she was universal, and does so today. So just what is universal today amongst all Christians ?

There is only one set of truths and they are not arrived at by vote.

 

[pocohombre]

test