Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[PeaceInChrist]

Continued from Martyr’s Apology

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

This chapter goes even more in depth into the Liturgy (Mass). He outlines both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (both halves of the Mass). If you have ever been to a Catholic Mass, you can literally point out all the parts that he mentions.

So… what changed between Igantius and Justin Martyr? Is this great saint and first Christian apologist a heretic? I also find it interesting that the burden of proof is always on me. I have shown Church Fathers (before the claimed ‘apostasy’ of Constantine) that show the essential structure of the Church (the importance and authority of Bishops, the Eucharist, requirement for baptism), and yet you keep increasing the burden of proof. Tell me, do you fit the description of these early Christians? Are you obedient to the bishop? Do you despise schism? Do you celebrate Mass? Do you participate in the Eucharist, blessed by a presbyter or bishop?

 

[paul_c]

I suppose Luther.Was he not ordained ? There may have been several other ordained reformers. Not sure Iraneus proposed your head bishop postulation.He lists St. Peter And St. Paul together as co founders of Roman Church. Revelations says the church is built on the TWELVE apostles, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. St. Peter was first amongst equals is the best one could say.The Jerusalem council bears that out .We both differ on that story probably too. Where you sit is where you stand. If you are predisposed to see St. Peter as pope, you shall find it at the Jerusalem council account. If you believe him to be first amongst equal (not pope), you shall find that at the council.

This is exactly right, our scriptural interpretations are always seen through the lens of our particular Traditions. And so then it becomes a question of which tradition is the more credible. The Catholic Church can show consistency of leadership and doctrine all the way back to Jesus and his apostles. Any Protestant faith has to link up to that chain at some point and it is usually very clear because their founders are usually vain enough to identify their own innovations and where they broke off from the Catholic Church. In many cases, there are multiple branches back since Protestants often protest against their childhood churches and form new churches on yet other innovations. Hopefully you will become open to those realities in your time here at CAF.

 

[pablope]

I suppose Luther.Was he not ordained ? There may have been several other ordained reformers.

.

Sure…but when one disobeys the authority God had ordained on earth…this is what happens:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

And look at the result of the Reformation…the splitting of the Church…and thousands of denominations…each with its own flavor of Christianity. Each one claiming to be an authority of their own…their own little popes, if you will.

 

[pablope]

I think the answer is implicit . The devil knows Jesus died on Calvary, but he can not plead the Blood for his salvation, and know Jesus as Savior and Lord. My scenario has the pilgrim declaring Calvary and applying it to the question ( of entry) as His personal righteous"covering".

of this earthly life

From Rev 7…14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

They washed their robes white…not Christ who did the washing. There is no covering.

We are obligated to work togehter with his grace in that washing and but it is incumbent upon us to work together with His grace for this cleansing to happen.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yes but who said they only left twelve ? My point was that Iraneus list three of those cities, and more could have been listed but were not because 3 sufficed as an example. Leaving Iraneus behind I pointed out there were twelve apostles ,so there were at least a possibility of twelve succession provided they alone went to a different major city. Hope i am not to ridiculous with that .Sorry

Here are some Churches that maintain they are started by Apostles. Seeing as they are either Orthodox, Catholic, or have both within the area, and hold to the all-important dogmas of the Sacraments and Authority, I’d say they’re pretty apostolic.

newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm

It does

We agree on something.

That is uncharitable. I do not say you do not use historical and scriptural reasoning

My apologies. It is difficult for me to maintain perfect patience when speaking of Church history and Scripture interpretation, mostly because it appears so obvious to all but Reformed Christians that the early Christians were primitive Catholics/Orthodox.

Disagree. It is huge topic covering a thousand years of writings, and it is not as simple as you state . Do you find a rejection of consubstantiation ? If so when ? 1200 A.D ?

I find a rejection of consubstantiation in the words of Christ: “This IS my body.” He said nothing about it being bread and His body, or any kind of mixture, or physically bread and spiritually His body. Nothing.

It was not defined as transubstantiation until later in Church history because it was not disputed heavily until then. And, when a dispute arose, the Church did what they did to determine Canon, declare Mary the Theotokos, condemn various heresies, and determine essentially all of their disputes: they got together, presented theological issues, and came to a decision and stuck to it, confident that Christ would uphold His promise of sending us the Great Help (Paraclete) and that He would be with us even to the end of the Age. Just like they had done since the Council of Jerusalem, outlined in Acts of the Apostles. The authority given to the Apostles and handed down to the Bishops is always underestimated by Reformed Christians, probably because they declare the Bible (which came from these type of councils) is a higher authority than the Church that determined Canon, rather than holding them on equal footing.

“The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, “This is my body”, disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d’Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.).”

newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm

Why didn’t the early Christians define the Trinity immediately? Why didn’t they outline every single thing that has been discovered from then till now? Why didn’t they systematically write down what Christ told them during the 40 days of His Resurrection in which He taught them? Probably because He told them to go forth and teach all nations. They didn’t use writing for a while. And it certainly seems they didn’t lay out the theology and philosophy behind every single teaching. As we advance in understanding our gift of faith, and as heresy and false teachers spread, it becomes necessary to refute the heresy and false teachers. This is EXACTLY why Ignatius and Justin, and many, many, many other Fathers wrote. There was no need to define or philosophize until heresy opposed the Truth.

The other option today is Sola Scriptura, it seems. And, if the God is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit leads everyone to interpret the Bible, then why oh why are there sooooooo many different interpretations of this mysterious book? Do you see why Ignatius (not to mention Christ Himself and the Apostles, He gave the Apostles authority and they handed it down) put so much importance on authority?

 

[OldProf]

I owe several folks some responses to direct questions. I hope to provide some of them tonight.

I do have a request that we stay on the topic of “Assurance of Salvation.” Yes, it is interesting in the other areas, but let’s try to nail down if a Christian can really have an assurance of their salvation without being presumptuous.

Regards, OldProf (from my desk at work)

 

[pablope]

Interestingly, Ignatius has Jesus as the Master and not a pope. Pretty sure the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and most denominations have leadership (bishops or presbyters) , and teachers etc. Every city was autonomous in electing it’s bishop, unlike today.

Clement of Rome would disagree with you.

From Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinth:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And Irenaeus, stating how Apostolic tradition is preserved:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

 

[brb3]

I owe several folks some responses to direct questions. I hope to provide some of them tonight.

I do have a request that we stay on the topic of “Assurance of Salvation.” Yes, it is interesting in the other areas, but let’s try to nail down if a Christian can really have an assurance of their salvation without being presumptuous.

Regards, OldProf (from my desk at work)

looking forward to your scholarship & years of bible study.

Yes, everyone …classmates, – back on topic, the Head Master has returned

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Interestingly, Ignatius has Jesus as the Master and not a pope. Pretty sure the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and most denominations have leadership (bishops or presbyters) , and teachers etc. Every city was autonomous in electing it’s bishop, unlike today.

So what was to be done when theological issues of grave importance came about? These include: What was the Canon of Scripture? Was Christ both God and man? Did He have two distinct natures, or one nature, or two natures that were separate? Is God one, or is He one God in three, or are there three gods? Is the Father above the Son? What of the substance of God’s persons? Are they one? Or does the Father have a different will and intellect, and the Son have a different will and intellect from Him? What do Christians believe? What should we declare that true Christians profess?

ALL of the answers to these extremely difficult theological questions came from a council among APOSTOLIC BISHOPS.

Tell me, why do you accept the Trinity, but deny the Eucharist? The word ‘Trinity’ isn’t even in the Bible. Both have Scriptural evidence. So why the disconnect? Why do you accept the Bible, but deny the authority of the councils and bishops who determined it? If all Scripture is God-breathed, then why did God allow false teaching to circulate as Scripture for over 1,000 years before Luther liberated the masses? Why don’t we use some of the New Testament books that were accepted by many Churches back then, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Didache, among others?

It all comes down to this: GOD IS TRUTH. His Church CANNOT teach falsehood, otherwise Christ has abandoned His promise of the Paraclete and remaining with us. Christ is our Shepard. Would He really leave us without any way of determining these things? Would He want so many opposed teachings in Christianity? “…so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you.”

God is Truth. Truth is consistent. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Truth is one. If there is indeed actual, subjective Truth, then it follows that a teaching about Christ will either be right or wrong. There may be teachings that are CLOSE to Truth, but ultimately, God will not have any contradictions. So why is it that, with the same source of Protestant doctrine (Scripture), there are so darn many Protestant denominations? Is the fruit of the Holy Spirit division and uncertainty? Or does God want us to “all be one”?

And Jesus is, indeed, the master of Catholics. He is the King of kings, the Master of all. But while He is sitting on His throne in Heaven, preparing the Second Coming, He did not leave us without a body. He did not leave us without a mouth. He did not leave us without a way to resolve difficult questions and disputes. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the deputy in charge while we await the glorious return of Christ. He is not our master, merely the speaker for Christ on earth, the mouth, and the bishops make the voice. And, as Clement of Rome (I didn’t post his epistle) and Ignatius of Antioch implored us to do, we must “look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself”.

 

[OldProf]

God can place any conditions He wants on salvation. But if salvation is only available to begin with due to the merits of Christs work of redemption on the cross, then Who’s in control of salvation, regardless of whether or not we accept the offer?

This relates to the discussion we had

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9937498&highlight=synergism#post9937498

regarding synergism and monergism (from 26 Oct to 13 Nov 12, I think you read this then). The “reformed” theologian/believer will give credit only to God for their salvation. There is no room to boast. And that is biblical.

Regards, OldProf

 

[brb3]

These are chapters from Justin Martyr’s First Apology. He was born around 100 AD, and wrote around 150 AD. He lived while Polycarp lived, who was a disciple of John (just to point out how early this was in Church history).
Does any of that sound familiar? Baptism required for participation, the preparation of the gifts (Catholics still pour a slight amount of water in the wine), the Eucharistic prayer, the Great Amen, the exchange of the ‘kiss’ (we shake hands in America today), and then Communion.

Here, Justin explains exactly why they think the ‘bread’ is important.

Transmutation was his best attempt at an explanation in this early age of Christianity.Transmute - to change or alter in form, appearance, or nature and especially to a higher form

The teaching on the mode of change was later described more fully as Transubstantiation. Justin was remarkably close for such a lack of terminology at the time.

Continued…

Very good ! …explanation by Justin, using the word Transmutation (same meaning as Transubstantiation).
And, if we today, will believe and do as the EARLY Christians were taught … we can be ASSURED of Salvation, …provided we don’t lose hope/belief (as did Korah and his priestly kinsmen), and lose our Salvation as did they !!!

 

[fhansen]

This relates to the discussion we had

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9937498&highlight=synergism#post9937498

regarding synergism and monergism (from 26 Oct to 13 Nov 12, I think you read this then). The “reformed” theologian/believer will give credit only to God for their salvation. There is no room to boast. And that is biblical.

Regards, OldProf

There’s no room to boast if we must opt to humbly cooperate with His grace, either.

 

[pocohombre]

Christ commanded that we do it. Gnostics still exist, and apparently many of them practice the ‘sacraments’. They attribute some kind of special power to them, at least according to what I can gather. The Gnostics in question obviously didn’t participate in the Catholic Eucharist. They OBVIOUSLY didn’t believe that the Eucharist was His flesh, and He felt it necessary to address that. I am really not seeing how you are getting anything else from his epistle

 

[pocohombre]

There’s no room to boast if we must opt to humbly cooperate with His grace, either.

What is humble, that is, what is the truth of just what we bring to the table of salvation.

 

[brb3]

For the Record, let me quote the ‘official’ Catholic view on SA.

CCC 161-162. Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our Salvation. " Since ‘w/o faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore w/o faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’ "
Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow, and persevere in faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be "working through charity, " abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.

 

[pocohombre]

For the Record, let me quote the ‘official’ Catholic view on SA.

CCC 161-162. Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our Salvation. " Since ‘w/o faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore w/o faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’ "
Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow, and persevere in faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be "working through charity, " abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.

Again, you are at the Pearly Gates and on the front entrance it says, “Welcome pilgrim, you have persevered to the end”. You pass thru the portal and on the other side the sign reads, “You have been predestined before the foundation of the world.”

 

[paul_c]

Again, you are at the Pearly Gates and on the front entrance it says, “Welcome pilgrim, you have persevered to the end”. You pass thru the portal and on the other side the sign reads, “You have been predestined before the foundation of the world.”

so how is it that you know you have been predestined to heaven?

 

[brb3]

Researched Judas I. …regarding his having been a true believer…but turning Apostate.

PSALMS 41:9-10.

Even my BOSOM FRIEND IN WHOM I TRUSTED, WHO ATE OF MY BREAD, HAS LIFTED HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.​

Now Christ quotes David above in :

John 13:18

I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is THAT SCRIPTURE MAY BE FULFILLED ‘He who ATE MY BREAD HAS LIFTED HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.’

 

[fhansen]

What is humble, that is, what is the truth of just what we bring to the table of salvation.

Our wills. Unable to comply without grace and yet still able to reject it.

 

[pocohombre]

I have heard it said there is nothing I can do to earn His love, grace, salvation. Therefore there is nothing I can do to lose His love, grace, salvation. I can reject it but not lose it. A believer is sinning, missing the mark, if he doubts the efficacy of HIS salvation. The irony is that only a true believer may doubt his salvation, his worthiness. Notice the focus is on self which is problem # 1. This doubt is not to be condoned as if it were doctrinally correct or a normal mode of existence. It must be shown to him again the true meaning of grace. If there is an eroding sin problem, it must be dealt with, grace being the motivator, not the goal. It must be noted however, there is a proper doubting/lack of assurance for a religious nonbeliever. This is to be condoned, for how can you have assurance of something you don’t have - spiritual life !