Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[mackbrislawn]

pocohombre;10380435

…

As far as who gave us the bible, yes it was early city congregations that first nurtured them. But it is divisive to say it was the Roman Catholic church that gave the Book to us .The Pope was right at the Vatican Council to be more ecumenical and say it was God that gave us the Bible.

The early congregations nurtured them, sure, but there is more to it than that. The idea of a canon or fixed list of scriptures did not occur to the early congregations. Also, not all congregations had all the scriptures, and often they had what they considered sciptures which did not end up on the final canon, the canon which was decided by councils of Catholic bishops. I say Catholic bishops and not Roman Catholic bishops to include what we now think of as Orthodox. In response to the Reformation, “Roman” bishops at Trent affirmed the earlier, local, councils’ decisions.

Now, to say that the Roman Catholic church gave us the Book is accurate. That is, accurate to say it gave the Book to western Europe. Historically the Roman church evangelized western Europe and passed to western Europe belief that the Bible is inspired, as well as passing on the actual physical manuscripts of scripture. The codices the Reformers had as scripture came courtesy of the Roman church. Because, after all, the Reformers themselves came from the Roman Church.

The Pope is right to say that God gave us the Bible. Why? Because that is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church! We only believe God gave us the Bible because the Roman Catholic Church says so.

 

[pablope]

[SIGN]

[/SIGN]

Again, I believe that Christ is the Messiah, came in the flesh. I have listened. Faith comes by hearing, by the word of God, and by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved

.

I have listened to the evangelist,

How do you know the evangelist you listened to is not making an error in what he is telling you?

to the pastor,

Regarding your pastor…do you believe everything he tells you every Sunday? Why?

to the teacher, the Body, the church.

Which church should you listen to? There are thousands of denominations…so which one is teaching the true gospel handed down by the Apostles? How can you tell?

Now as you think of your responses…think of the passage from 1john4: 6…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.

John says “listens to us”…this phrase also denotes obedience, heeding and submission to authority of the Apostles and being ordained…same as Paul in Acts 13.

I have also listened to the Teacher, as St.Augustine and other earlier Fathers refer to Christ, the Trinity.

Augustine and the earlier Fathers…they were bishops…so why did you listen to them? They are catholics…by the way.

That is how I apply that scripture today ,to myself. Is there a better application ?

Poco…so you decide on matters of what are true and what are not? Who gave you such authority?

Are you sure you cannot be deceived? The bible says satan can also masquerade as an angel of light…so how do you know that you are not being deceived?

So in order not to be deceived…when you apply 1John4:6…ask who from the Apostles they listened to…who did they obey…who ordained him?

As I cited to you the example of Paul…in Gal 2:2…by revelation, he is told to go to Jerusalem and get assurance from the Apostles about his gospel…before going on his first missionary journey…a sign of obedience and submission to authority…and in Acts 13,he is ordained…not one’s own authority.

 

[pocohombre]

It is not divisive to say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Catholic Church to create the bible, it is an historical fact

.Ok, I just think some would not call it the Roman Catholic Church, but Catholic yes.

As for the sacraments, of course they are saving. They are the instruments of God’s grace. Why do you think that Jesus initiated the Eucharist? Why did he commission the apostles to baptize all the nations in Matthew 28?

Perhaps this is the crux of this thread. I could understand why assurance is more difficult if everyone ever baptized is "saved’, born again, regenerated . For many don’t act like it, hence the need to “strive”, endure etc. From my point of view most are not born again who are infant baptized, hence there carnal actions or lack of spiritual acuity even though they may be religious.Then I tell myself if they were really born again they would be different, and have that fire in their belly, with some assurance for sure.How often have we said, though religious or following, they were not really born again ? If your doctrine is telling folks they are born again when they are not, you are beckoning religious activity to fill the real void. Please don’t be offended, for other denominations /churches have the same problem, of teaching regenerational baptism.

 

[paul_c]

.Ok, I just think some would not call it the Roman Catholic Church, but Catholic yes. Perhaps this is the crux of this thread. I could understand why assurance is more difficult if everyone ever baptized is "saved’, born again, regenerated . For many don’t act like it, hence the need to “strive”, endure etc. From my point of view most are not born again who are infant baptized, hence there carnal actions or lack of spiritual acuity even though they may be religious.Then I tell myself if they were really born again they would be different, and have that fire in their belly, with some assurance for sure.How often have we said, though religious or following, they were not really born again ? If your doctrine is telling folks they are born again when they are not, you are beckoning religious activity to fill the real void. Please don’t be offended, for other denominations /churches have the same problem, of teaching regenerational baptism.

How are you born again, if not by baptism? where is THAT in the bible?

 

[pablope]

.Ok,

If your doctrine is telling folks they are born again when they are not, you are beckoning religious activity to fill the real void. Please don’t be offended, for other denominations /churches have the same problem, of teaching regenerational baptism.

Well…Poco…which then is the correct teaching about baptism and why? And how can you be sure?

 

[brb3]

.Ok, I just think some would not call it the Roman Catholic Church, but Catholic yes. Perhaps this is the crux of this thread. I could understand why assurance is more difficult if everyone ever baptized is "saved’, born again, regenerated . For many don’t act like it, hence the need to “strive”, endure etc. From my point of view most are not born again who are infant baptized, hence there carnal actions or lack of spiritual acuity even though they may be religious.Then I tell myself if they were really born again they would be different, and have that fire in their belly, with some assurance for sure.How often have we said, though religious or following, they were not really born again ? If your doctrine is telling folks they are born again when they are not, you are beckoning religious activity to fill the real void. Please don’t be offended, for other denominations /churches have the same problem, of teaching regenerational baptism.

Poco …

The first century Church practiced infant baptism. That is clearly scriptural & provable. But, Catholics also recognize the additional need for a baptized infant to be confirmed when at age of accountability. Confirmation ‘completes’ infant Baptism.

Perhaps those wayward Catholics you know never elected to present themselves for Confirmation. Indeed quite a few never stayed with the Church, and never made that Free Will choice to be confirmed in HS by Bishop’s hands.

Also, some of the confirmed will be pulled away, and fall from grace, going the Prodigal route. That’s why Catholic’s well know / admit that OSAS is inconsistent with reality & Scripture.

 

[brb3]

Poco …

Get a copy of the 1992, VATICAN EDITION CCC (Libreria Editrice Vaticana)…hardback, Wanderer Press…about 800 pages. (New runs 29 $, used for 10). It covers all the Key matters of Catholicism …Benedict & JP2 had a big role in its creation. It will knock your socks off. Best single source/compendium on Catholic teachings you will find.

Next to the Bible, its the greatest book ever written.

 

[guanophore]

Agree.But that image and likeness is dead, as with no ability to even resuscitate. Even our dead (to God) will must be “breathed upon”.

Actually this position is quite a modern innovation. It is inconsistent with the Apostolic Teaching, the history of the faith, and the Scriptures.

Scripture, in fact, teaches the opposite, that we continue to suffer from the will and desire to seek God, even though we cannot overcome the separation that exists.

We must differentiate between justification and further sanctification.

Where do you find THAT in the Bible?!

(It is not there, of course) This declaration is another modern innovation that came about 1500 years after the deposit of faith was once for all committed to the Church. It represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Of course he wishes to further pursue/perfect his ministry/calling, but he knows to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and that not down the road, but if he were to die immediately.
.and vice versa.

But Paul is not talking here about being absent from the body (through death). He is talking about the state of his soul, and he is saying that he does not consider that he has “already attained”. Our salvation is not completed in this life. From the time we enter eternal life in baptism to the end of our days on earth, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[guanophore]

 I don't have any trust in my own "good works" that fall under the category of Eph 2:10. God prepared me for those, and it is not my doing my part or my cooperating with God as I work out my salvation.

I think this is one of the most fundamental differences between the modern “different” gospels and the Apostolic faith. It relates back to fundamental differences on the nature of man, the nature of God, and the nature of salvation.

In all these areas, the Reformers made departures, some more than others. But in most cases, the grace that produces the good works in us are separated from the grace that saves us, so it is said:

 We must differentiate between justification and further sanctification.

Apparently this differentiation is necessary somehow to support the other doctrines. Such a concept was foreign to the Apostles and their disciples, and indeed, throughout the history of Christendom.

 

[pocohombre]

[Scripture, in fact, teaches the opposite, that we continue to suffer from the will and desire to seek God, even though we cannot overcome the separation that exists.

How is that opposite ? Justification is justification. Where do you get that sanctification means perfection ? That would be glorification, in heaven. Did you forget that there is the old man and new man ? Sanctification is the living out in the new man, overcoming the old man, every second of every day the wrestling match continues, up and down. The new man can and does overcome the old ( the ups)… That is where the rubber meets the road, not at justification-there you either are or are not, plain and simple. That is my understanding of the three scriptural terms.
[/QUOTE]

 

[pocohombre]

Poco …

The first century Church practiced infant baptism. That is clearly scriptural & provable.

I would say very much debateable. In fact the earliest churches had two sections, one for catechumens and one for the baptized. Later structures (centuries later) reveal a departure to what we have today, one main building, due to the development of full scale infant baptisms that became the norm, hence no need for separate building for catechumens.

 

[brb3]

How is that opposite ? Justification is justification. Where do you get that sanctification means perfection ? That would be glorification, in heaven. Did you forget that there is the old man and new man ? Sanctification is the living out in the new man, overcoming the old man, every second of every day the wrestling match continues, up and down. The new man can and does overcome the old ( the ups)… That is where the rubber meets the road, not at justification-there you either are or are not, plain and simple. That is my understanding of the three scriptural terms.

Poco …

All is explained in the CCC, I referenced a few posts above. Every possible question u have on Catholicism is expounded upon there, with all cogent scripture and ECF writings cited, oftentimes the direct quotes given there… in each topic’s discussion.

Use PM option, & give me a mailing address, and I’ll get one mailed to u in about 7 days, — book rate mailing, snail mail …ha !

 

[brb3]

I would say very much debateable. In fact the earliest churches had two sections, one for catechumens and one for the baptized. Later structures (centuries later) reveal a departure to what we have today, one main building, due to the development of full scale infant baptisms that became the norm, hence no need for separate building for catechumens.

Again, the long version CCC…Vatican edition …covers this in complete manner.

Scott Hahn said it was greatest compendium of Catholic doctrines he’s ever seen in a single book. I’m about halfway thru it, 3-4 evenings, and I can’t disagree with Scott. It is amazing, an incredible work, once in a Millennium work. Since the Bible in First Centuries … it is the second masterpiece of Catholicism !!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I would say very much debateable. In fact the earliest churches had two sections, one for catechumens and one for the baptized. Later structures (centuries later) reveal a departure to what we have today, one main building, due to the development of full scale infant baptisms that became the norm, hence no need for separate building for catechumens.

This is blatantly false. Tertullian speaks of infant baptism in 200 AD as an Apostolic Tradition (200 AD is not ‘centuries’ after Christ, and Tertullian was extremely orthodox and credible prior to his apostasy). In Scripture, it mentions that whole households were baptized. Do infants not count as members of a household or family? If you are going to argue from an historical standpoint, get you facts straight first, please.

Edited: also, as you concede, the early Christians would not even allow the unbaptized to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Justin Martyr attests to this in his apology, stating that only after a man has been illuminated in baptism was he taken to the Lord’s Supper. So tell me, why did they place such importance on baptism? It’s almost like early Christians thought it was regenerative or something…

 

[paul_c]

I would say very much debateable. In fact the earliest churches had two sections, one for catechumens and one for the baptized. Later structures (centuries later) reveal a departure to what we have today, one main building, due to the development of full scale infant baptisms that became the norm, hence no need for separate building for catechumens.

Two issues: because of the persecutions, there were very few dedicated church buildings. Until the edict of milan (313AD), most masses were held in homes.

There are still millions of adult catechumens today in the church. Lots of the people you are talking to on theses pages are in fact adult converts (many have the tag line " swam the Tiber in xxxx).

So your theory that church architecture changed because of the practice of infant baptized doesn’t hold water.

 

[pablope]

How is that opposite ? Justification is justification. Where do you get that sanctification means perfection ? That would be glorification, in heaven. Did you forget that there is the old man and new man ? Sanctification is the living out in the new man, overcoming the old man, every second of every day the wrestling match continues, up and down. The new man can and does overcome the old ( the ups)… That is where the rubber meets the road, not at justification-there you either are or are not, plain and simple.

That is my understanding of the three scriptural terms.

Okay…Poco…question for you: How do you know if your understanding is correct, the one that came down from the Apostles?

Most likely…this understanding of yours came from someone who told you their meaning…so as an extension of my question to you…how do you know where you got this understanding is correct, is from the Apostles, from the Early Church Fathers?

As you think of your reply…as I said before…apply this passage with your response…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

 

[pablope]

I would say very much debateable. In fact the earliest churches had two sections, one for catechumens and one for the baptized. Later structures (centuries later) reveal a departure to what we have today, one main building, due to the development of full scale infant baptisms that became the norm, hence no need for separate building for catechumens.

Why is it debatable? What is your basis?

 

[guanophore]

 Guanophore.....U say God knows our future, before we get chance to exercise our free will,...... next week or next year.

If that be true, Jesus can absolutely promise the Father that he will deliver all those the Father gave him.

Yes, absolutely.

Jesus can talk of Salvation Assurance, but we can’t ?

We can, but it would be immature of us, and presumptuous, since we are not omniscient as He is. We cannot know the parts of ourselves that are unconscious, where we may harbor things within against God we don’t even know.

1 Cor 4:3-5
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.

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.

Our assurance can relate only to what we have already made our own, forgetting what lies behind, and straining forwrd to what lies ahead. We can hold fast to what we have attained, but we cannot presume to know what we may do in the future.

And, even if we resolved to use only the scripture on SA that doesn’t quote Christ, …since it is all inspired of HS, it’s just as emphatic/certain as what Christ Foreknew and Taught.

Catholics do not make doctrine based upon one verse, or a handful of verses, but with the whole of scripture. Yes, Christ said many things that give us assurance about our salvation, but He also gives as many (if not more) warnings.

Rev 3:15-17
15 "I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Those who embrace the salvation assurance doctrines of Calvin believe that they may be spit out of the Lord’s mouth, and yet, still be saved. Such a concept is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

Nevertheless, foreknowledge of our futures, would seem to rule out free will, at least as humans define/view it. I can understand where Calvin hit the wall …when he tried to understand the mystery of God’s foreknowledge, Omniscience.

Yes, I can too. The idea that God is outside the space time continuum, and that He can see the future as if it were the present is mind bending.

You are right, it boils down to the concept of free will. Calvin’s thougth represents a major departure from orthodox doctrine on that point, as well as many others.

 

[brb3]

Yes, absolutely.

We can, but it would be immature of us, and presumptuous, since we are not omniscient as He is. We cannot know the parts of ourselves that are unconscious, where we may harbor things within against God we don’t even know.

1 Cor 4:3-5
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.

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.

Our assurance can relate only to what we have already made our own, forgetting what lies behind, and straining forwrd to what lies ahead. We can hold fast to what we have attained, but we cannot presume to know what we may do in the future.

Catholics do not make doctrine based upon one verse, or a handful of verses, but with the whole of scripture. Yes, Christ said many things that give us assurance about our salvation, but He also gives as many (if not more) warnings.

Rev 3:15-17
15 "I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Those who embrace the salvation assurance doctrines of Calvin believe that they may be spit out of the Lord’s mouth, and yet, still be saved. Such a concept is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

Yes, I can too. The idea that God is outside the space time continuum, and that He can see the future as if it were the present is mind bending.

You are right, it boils down to the concept of free will. Calvin’s thougth represents a major departure from orthodox doctrine on that point, as well as many others.

G4…

Good thoughts. Now, on several verses u quote.

Phil 3:15 — we are to be of ‘same’ mind, and it says …“if we think differently about ‘anything’, this too God will ‘reveal’ to you.”

Obviously, this doesn’t always happen …esp. for Protestant brethren. Is, it because they refuse to make ‘free will’ choice …to learn/know the fullness of Truth ?

And, if answer is yes ---- then, might Rev. 3:15-16 u cite above come into play ?

ie. those who stop to follow Paul’s charge to Timothy ---- 2 Timothy 2:15 " study to show yourself a workman approved unto God, w/o need of being ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth."

IMO, …Paul, James, John, and Christ …all teach that continued, good works/workmanship …keeps us hot & with present tense SA.

…w/o which ( perseverance in good works ) …say a Faith ALONE Soteriology & status… we find ourselves lukewarm, and in ‘grave peril’ of forfeiture of said faith, and being turned away at our ‘particular’ judgment & suffer Kingdom loss for all time/eternity ??

 

[pocohombre]

Edited: also, as you concede, the early Christians would not even allow the unbaptized to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Justin Martyr attests to this in his apology, stating that only after a man has been illuminated in baptism was he taken to the Lord’s Supper. So tell me, why did they place such importance on baptism? It’s almost like early Christians thought it was regenerative or something…

“He who is illumined is washed”, Justin Martyr. He mentions nothing of infants, but quite explicit that only those convinced of truth were bapstized. So was baptism was for something else, not to receive illumination.