Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[mackbrislawn]

This article might be of interest:

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219811/k.850D/What_Is_the_Sin_Unto_Death.htm

The difficulty I (and likely, you) have with the idea of “mortal sin” in which RC doctrine indicates a loss of salvation was stated earlier my earlier posts (e.g. Post #273 on 15 Feb 13). This indicates that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can have sheep that perish, and that is in direct contradiction to the clear Greek teaching by Jesus that the they will, in fact, never, not at this time or at any future time, perish. (John 10:28)

Thus, the physical death interpretation of this 1 John 5:16-17 passage makes the most sense and avoids this contradiction. And, further, it logically follows from the “assurance of salvation” message of 1 John, does it not?

Regards, OldProf

Yes, that article is interesting. I don’t find much to disagree with, in fact very little. It points out that various times in scripture people who sinned, died. Annanias and Saphira are examples. Hence it is apparent that mortal sin can cause one’s physical death. It is also apparent that this mortal sin also caused these persons’ spiritual death as well. So however we interpret “sin that leads to death” we know that in any event it causes spiritual death too. So, we are back where we started. We have sins that don’t lead to death (venial) and sins that do lead to death, both physical and spiritual (mortal).

However, as far as the context of 1 John, I think the primary context of Chapter 5 is eternal life and how we know it. Eternal life, as we all know, refers not to physical life, but to spiritual life. Because of this, it makes sense that when John speaks of sin that leads to death, he is talking about spiritual death. Otherwise he would be comparing physical death to spiritual life which doesn’t make sense. The parallelism is stronger if spritual life is contrasted to spiritual death and how by sin we can lose our spritual life and have spiritual death instead.

And John is right about the uselessness of praying for someone in hell, that is, someone who died in mortal sin. But we can certainly pray for those sinning otherwise. It is usefull to pray for those. Because by intercessory prayer it is possible for them to get back on the right track, the track that leads to eternal life, and not eternal death.

(not eternal life, since that life is determined by one’s personal faith decision).

This quote from the article is a tiny part I disagree with. Yes, eternal life is determined by one’s personal faith decision, but eternal death is too. Why one would chose eternal death after having once chosen eternal life, I don’t know, but that is the nature of sin. I also find contradictions in the position that one is locked into eternal life by a faith decision made in the past. If so, why pray for them? Since they have eternal life anyway and are going to heaven? What else is there? That is the contradiction.

 

[brb3]

pocohombre;10411481:

brb3;10410386:

It applies to individual congregations, not to “denominations.” And then to particular individuals in them. Not all persons in the congregations warned were guilty. Certainly not to the Church as a whole. Christ is head of the universal church so the universaal church cannot stray.

Good answer !!

Poco …
You notice the church in Rome didn’t get warned !!! PETER taking good care of !!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

mackbrislawn;10412058:

pocohombre;10411481:

Good answer !!

Poco …
You notice the church in Rome didn’t get warned !!! PETER taking good care of !!

Actually, it was likely Clement of Rome that was presiding over the Roman Church at that time (around 95 AD). Peter had been dead for a while. But yes, the fact that John felt it unnecessary to preach to Rome, probably because it was out of his jurisdiction and had its own authority, is telling. Also telling is that Clement wrote an epistle to Corinth admonishing them for disobedience to the bishop and presbyters, while John yet lived and was closer to Corinth (Ephesus) than Clement (Rome). Clement took charge and wrote with authority while a living Apostle was closer to the problematic city. Interesting, no?

 

[brb3]

brb3;10412448:

mackbrislawn;10412058:

Actually, it was likely Clement of Rome that was presiding over the Roman Church at that time (around 95 AD). Peter had been dead for a while. But yes, the fact that John felt it unnecessary to preach to Rome, probably because it was out of his jurisdiction and had its own authority, is telling. Also telling is that Clement wrote an epistle to Corinth admonishing them for disobedience to the bishop and presbyters, while John yet lived and was closer to Corinth (Ephesus) than Clement (Rome). Clement took charge and wrote with authority while a living Apostle was closer to the problematic city. Interesting, no?

Good point on Clement. However, we can’t be certain of date for Rev. There is some evidence for an early date, …pre 70 AD, with Nero the antiChrist. What evidence have you seen to favor late date ?

 

[paul_c]

Many would say the sin unto death is not a spiritual death but a mortal death. One must not contradict the "knowing assurance of Salvation with your definition of “sin unto death”.

why would John, the most spiritual of evangelists, be worried about mortal death?

 

[paul_c]

PeaceInChrist;10412842:

brb3;10412448:

Good point on Clement. However, we can’t be certain of date for Rev. There is some evidence for an early date, …pre 70 AD, with Nero the antiChrist. What evidence have you seen to favor late date ?

It has been traditionally dated later than that because revelations says he saw teh vision when he was exiled on the island of Patmos. the catholic encylcopedia says this: With Eusebius (Church History III.13.1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10411481:

brb3;10410386:

It applies to individual congregations, not to “denominations.” And then to particular individuals in them. Not all persons in the congregations warned were guilty. Certainly not to the Church as a whole. Christ is head of the universal church so the universaal church cannot stray.

Well still a bit inconsistent, between us all. I think congregation is a bit too small. It could apply to denominations if they are one and act in unison, as did the rev. city churches.

 

[brb3]

mackbrislawn;10412058:

pocohombre;10411481:

Well still a bit inconsistent, between us all. I think congregation is a bit too small. It could apply to denominations if they are one and act in unison, as did the rev. city churches.

U hope it applies to denominations. But no support for that view.

All those churches named were Catholic …and known to John in First Century.

 

[pocohombre]

This article might be of interest:

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219811/k.850D/What_Is_the_Sin_Unto_Death.htm

The difficulty I (and likely, you) have with the idea of “mortal sin” in which RC doctrine indicates a loss of salvation was stated earlier my earlier posts (e.g. Post #273 on 15 Feb 13). This indicates that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can have sheep that perish, and that is in direct contradiction to the clear Greek teaching by Jesus that the they will, in fact, never, not at this time or at any future time, perish. (John 10:28)

Thus, the physical death interpretation of this 1 John 5:16-17 passage makes the most sense and avoids this contradiction. And, further, it logically follows from the “assurance of salvation” message of 1 John, does it not?

Regards, OldProf

Yes. I read an article that thinks that another explanation may be plausible. The "brother " in John is a Christian in name only. There are a few instances when the term is broader. It is this supposed “brother” who if he persists in his habitual sin that can spiritually perish. Actually he is already lost and destined to perish as are all unregenerate men. It is just that continued sin in light of the gospel can separate you from your only avenue of hope. This also does not contradict the earlier assurance of salvation given by John. And how many times have we said of one who does fall away, that he was never really born again.

 

[pocohombre]

To me, the point of the prodigal son story is our Father’s forgiveness. But, had the son despaired or had insufficient faith to return, he would have remained and died with the pigs, away from his father and his forgiveness and grace. In other words, hell. In this case we would have had someone who was “born again,” yet left of his free will and and did not return, hell.

I know, but he did return, was drawn back .

But for those who do return, covered with pig dung (what could be more unclean to a Jew?), our Father by His grace will clean us of the dung (we can’t do it ourselves), and give us clean garments so we can enter the heavenly banquet.

Agree with cleansing but given clean garments i thought was always symbolic of the new birth, being given His righteousness.

Perhaps your interpretations of the parable are not wrong; maybe you have to intepret it in such a way as to avoid its obvious implications. However, I think mine is also right and more straightforward and less forced. To me it is a story of a son who left on his own, who in this case did come back, but if he had not he would have remained in hell.

Understand . The " if he had not " is subjective also, and really sheds no light on the parable. For instance the so called “righteous brother” represent the Pharisees and priests. Were they all saved ?

"

Many are not sons, are not ‘born again’." This type of statement has always seemed to me to be an escape clause, a way out. A form of sophistry.

A sophistry used by John in his epistle ? “Those that went out from us, were not of us”. They were supposed"brethren". Jesus said those disciples that left him at the “bread of life/ eat his flesh” discourse that they “did not believe from the beginning”. Jesus did not say they believed then they did not believe- that is sophistry.

I do not know how a Protestant determines if he is truly born again. It must be quite a worry; I suppose he frantically goes around doing good works to show to himself he is actually born again and not just hoping he is

You know, I am gonna run with this and say you are absolutely correct. It is most definitely a thing to worry about, in the sense of it being the number one thing to worry about. It is the number one thing that matters. It is the same for a Catholic knowing the number one thing is to make sure you will go to heaven - the number one thing. Some have worried so much that they joined monasteries. Some wore sackcloth and beat themselves silly. Some worried themselves sick for months, even years. I have heard that many saints went thru this, their dark times. Yes, quite an anxiety to have. But to the rescue is God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever would believe would be saved. And that by grace a gift. Wow, stop your sackcloth and beating Luther , recover from your soul sickness Charles Wesley (or was it John who was sick for months). One can not appreciate relief unless your are in something to be relieved from. To a protestant the new birth in Christ brings with it the assurance of having passed from death to life. To the Catholic, it is not so much being born again for you are baptized, but the hope is that at your last breath you will be in grace. so it always remains conditional on yourself. So while you stress perseverance after new life, we stress making sure you have the new life. I believe most biblical warnings deal with the latter. I would not rest on a NT baptismal ceremony, as Paul showed OT circumcision was of no avail either, in and of itself and even though both rites were God ordained.

 

[pocohombre]

biblebb.com/files/J90-11-1.htm

This article might be of interest:

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219811/k.850D/What_Is_the_Sin_Unto_Death.htm

The difficulty I (and likely, you) have with the idea of “mortal sin” in which RC doctrine indicates a loss of salvation was stated earlier my earlier posts (e.g. Post #273 on 15 Feb 13). This indicates that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can have sheep that perish, and that is in direct contradiction to the clear Greek teaching by Jesus that the they will, in fact, never, not at this time or at any future time, perish. (John 10:28)

Thus, the physical death interpretation of this 1 John 5:16-17 passage makes the most sense and avoids this contradiction. And, further, it logically follows from the “assurance of salvation” message of 1 John, does it not?

Regards, OldProf

biblebb.com/files/J90-11-1.htm i like this article ,as mentioned earlier.

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn;10412058:

pocohombre;10411481:

Well still a bit inconsistent, between us all. I think congregation is a bit too small. It could apply to denominations if they are one and act in unison, as did the rev. city churches.

Do we know how big each of the 7 churches were? I suppose it could apply to denominations, because some are small enough, and some have heterodox doctrines. At any rate these were sub-churches within the universal church. The Great Church as was sometimes called.

 

[pocohombre]

However, as far as the context of 1 John, I think the primary context of Chapter 5 is eternal life and how we know it. Eternal life, as we all know, refers not to physical life, but to spiritual life. Because of this, it makes sense that when John speaks of sin that leads to death, he is talking about spiritual death. Otherwise he would be comparing physical death to spiritual life which doesn’t make sense. The parallelism is stronger if spritual life is contrasted to spiritual death and how by sin we can lose our spritual life and have spiritual death instead.

 

[pocohombre]

mackbrislawn;10412058:

pocohombre;10411481:

Good answer !!

Poco …
You notice the church in Rome didn’t get warned !!! PETER taking good care of !!

None of the other patriarchal churhces were mentioned either.

 

[pocohombre]

brb3;10412448:

mackbrislawn;10412058:

Actually, it was likely Clement of Rome that was presiding over the Roman Church at that time (around 95 AD). Peter had been dead for a while. But yes, the fact that John felt it unnecessary to preach to Rome, probably because it was out of his jurisdiction and had its own authority, is telling. Also telling is that Clement wrote an epistle to Corinth admonishing them for disobedience to the bishop and presbyters, while John yet lived and was closer to Corinth (Ephesus) than Clement (Rome). Clement took charge and wrote with authority while a living Apostle was closer to the problematic city. Interesting, no?

If 95 is the date, an aged apostle, perhaps on Patmos prison would not be the way to go . Certainly the Greek churches had a strong connection to Rome because of Paul and Epaphroditus. The road to Rome was better "paved’ literally , and a quick response was requested from the Corinthians as you know. “Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you:” ch 65 Letter to Corinthians. Finally Clement was careful to accurately say it was not him but the church in Rome that counciled the admonition. “The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth,” ch1 Let.to Cor.

 

[pocohombre]

PeaceInChrist;10412842:

brb3;10412448:

Good point on Clement. However, we can’t be certain of date for Rev. There is some evidence for an early date, …pre 70 AD, with Nero the antiChrist. What evidence have you seen to favor late date ?

and if the earlier date, Clement wrote for the council, not as head bishop ( for he was not at that early date), but as an ambassador for the church in Rome, as Hermas suggests a century later.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10416006:

mackbrislawn;10412058:

U hope it applies to denominations. But no support for that view.

All those churches named were Catholic …and known to John in First Century.

So a denomination is not “any body of believers, calling themselves a church” that need to apply rev., as you stated in thread 379 ?

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10416006:

mackbrislawn;10412058:

Do we know how big each of the 7 churches were? I suppose it could apply to denominations, because some are small enough, and some have heterodox doctrines. At any rate these were sub-churches within the universal church. The Great Church as was sometimes called.

Perfect. She remains the universal (catholic) church , the Great Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[brb3]

This article might be of interest:

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4219811/k.850D/What_Is_the_Sin_Unto_Death.htm

The difficulty I (and likely, you) have with the idea of “mortal sin” in which RC doctrine indicates a loss of salvation was stated earlier my earlier posts (e.g. Post #273 on 15 Feb 13). This indicates that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, can have sheep that perish, and that is in direct contradiction to the clear Greek teaching by Jesus that the they will, in fact, never, not at this time or at any future time, perish. (John 10:28)

Thus, the physical death interpretation of this 1 John 5:16-17 passage makes the most sense and avoids this contradiction. And, further, it logically follows from the “assurance of salvation” message of 1 John, does it not?

Regards, OldProf

Old Prof…

We all will see physical death. Thats a given. Its spiritual death that needs concern us.

Christ told us those sins that would separate us from the kingdom, if not confessed and that lifestyle abandoned. A mortal sin, if unconfessed, leads to habitual sin & spiritual death …which separates us from God & the Kingdom.

Matthew Chp. 25 /// gives us the parable of ten maidens…5 took no oil & were rejected. Then those servants (adopted children of the master) …2 of the 3 made use of gifts/talents to help promote Christ’s Great Commission & Kingdom hope, one sat on his hands and had no works for the Gospel & Master.

Those with habitual mortal sins, belong to secular world …and will miss the King & Kingdom.

 

[pocohombre]

the parable of ten virgins again is dealing with regenerated souls and unregenerated -hence the wise and the foolish. Foolish is synonomous with lost, unregenerate. Oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit, which is received , indwelt when you are regenerated. The 5 wise virgins were born again, the other were never saved in the first place, and had religion but not a relationship with the Lord of that religion. Your point would be upheld if the foolish ones had some oil and ran out (saved then losing salvation). But, they had no oil from the beginning.