Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[h2oplyer7]

View attachment 16117

Test test

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10327362:

Poco…here is the original question I asked which you have evaded so far also:

I am asking for you to explain your response to paulc:

paulc said: God’s grace is freely given. But not everyone cooperates with grace.

Poco responded: You can’t unless you are saved/born again.

So my question is: How can you start being saved/born again…unless you first accept God’s grace that He freely gives to you to be born again?

paulc said: God’s love is freely given, but not everyone loves God back

Poco responded: You can’t unless you are saved/born again.

Same question: How can you start being saved/born again…unless you first accept God’s grace/love that He freely gives to you to be born again?

Can you explain the conundrum here?
It has been said here by better brothers here that the very accepting of God’s grace (which I agree must occur) is a grace in itself, a scripture was given also .He gives us the will right ?

 

[h2oplyer7]

Sorry I am testing my signature block.

Good thread. It’s a good break from my International Law class.

 

[pocohombre]

View attachment 16117

Test test

can you hear me now ? .good night folks.Blessings to all

 

[brb3]

No, was just thinking of the sower and the seed and the 4 “soils” .

Yes, …you have arrived at the DEFINITIVE text, given by the LOGOS !!!

Much of Soteriology is explained in that Parable … and it is 100% c/w Catholic understandings.
Naturally, …since the Church was founded by the LOGOS, on the 12 (that persevered), plus Paul.

 

[brb3]

paul c;10327298:

Upon further reading.it seems only the 4th soil was truly born again…A seeds true fruit is when the plant matures to bear fruit. That is the word of God as gospel, the seed, comes to full purpose when a life is born. It’s like the other three soils thought about the kingdoms invitation, but in the end declined, and never entered to be given clean robes to dine.

Nope…

Keep looking, 3rd time might be charm !

Is a man/woman mature at their Births ?
Heard the term BABY Christian, still on milk ?..those that Paul was so worried about .

 

[pablope]

pablope;10327550:

It has been said here by better brothers here that the very accepting of God’s grace (which I agree must occur) is a grace in itself, a scripture was given also .He gives us the will right ?

Poco…I am not asking what others said or have said…I, or rather, the Catholics here…I am sure, would like to know your own answer…you provided an response…and now you seem to be evading at further expounding or explaining it.

So, so as not to lose the question…I will repost…and expect your further explanation:

Poco…here is the original question I asked which you have evaded so far also:

I am asking for you to explain your response to paulc:

paulc said: God’s grace is freely given. But not everyone cooperates with grace.

Poco responded: You can’t unless you are saved/born again.

So my question is: How can you start being saved/born again…unless you first accept God’s grace that He freely gives to you to be born again?

paulc said: God’s love is freely given, but not everyone loves God back

Poco responded: You can’t unless you are saved/born again.

Same question: How can you start being saved/born again…unless you first accept God’s grace/love that He freely gives to you to be born again?

Can you explain the conundrum here?

 

[pablope]

pablope;10326499:

How about this, one side of the coin says, “Choose you this day whom you will serve” and the other , "I have chosen you ".

Here is the original question…Poco:

Poco said:

quote=pocohombre;10326306]
Quote:

Where am I trampling free will ?

I’ve said before, one side of the coin says free will, the other side predestination.

Question: I do have another question, PocoH…so which side is right? Both cannot be correct, so how does one determine which is right and which is in error?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
You see, St. Paul is thinking in Catholic terms, that you have to cooperate with God’s grace to get to heaven and that we shouldn’t be overconfident that we will persevere to the end.

I know this is difficult for you because you have been preconditioned to think through the lens of Reformed tradition, but the text of the parable of the sower clearly states that those on rocky ground were believers until they were persecuted and that those among the thorn bushes also were believers until the anxiety of the world choked out their faith. And Paul clearly is telling the Believers in Corinth not to be overconfident because they too could fail to persevere. God IS faithful and will not allow you to be tempted to the point where is is impossible to remain faithful, (and remember to some that means martyrdom). It is man that is unfaithful. and many fall from grace through unrepentant sin.

 

[brb3]

I’m wondering where Old Prof is . He got us off to a good start .

…its time he checked back on the class … and starts grading papers !

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Stop worrying about whether your salvation is assured.

The reason that we are trying to hep you see that your salvation is not assured is so that you might take the steps to in fact be saved.

This is not to say that you are on the path to heaven or hell today (although presumption can be a sin), we simply are not your judges and are in no position to know.

But over the years on threads such as these, we have encountered people who will blatantly say that having professed Jesus as their Lord and savior, no future sin committed will be counted against them (because they are in the hands of the merciful God). Some even are fooled into thinking in essence its a license to sin (which I am hopeful that you see it is not). I suspect that you would judge those individuals as never really having " saving faith".

There alternative is to believe that those with true saving faith will never sin. I have yet to see those in action, however.

So in practice, those who believe in Reformed theology either believe that God will condone the sins of the sheep or will keep the sheep from sinning.

Catholic theology is much different in practice. God allows us the freedom to sin but definitely does not condone it. We are held accountable for our actions. This forces the Christian to work diligently on his personal holiness, aided immeasurably by the grace of the sacraments. If you believe that you are saved no matter what, the motivation to devote yourself to sanctification is greatly reduced. Granted, there are those who are properly motivated by the love of God to ignore their presumed assurance and to pursue holiness, but lacking the grace of the sacraments, this is nearly impossible (recognizing that nothing is impossible with God). This is what we are trying so hard to communicate to you.

 

[paul_c]

I’m wondering where Old Prof is . He got us off to a good start .

…its time he checked back on the class … and starts grading papers !

Perhaps he is considering what has already been said. He will join in his own time as the spirit moves him.

 

[brb3]

Perhaps he is considering what has already been said. He will join in his own time as the spirit moves him.

I’m sure he is preparing well & will pick his opportune time to re-engage. Probably just waiting to see what Poco comes up with on this topic.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

My goodness. This thread is a continuation of the ridiculousness of the last one. It is a Scripture war that will never end. One part of the Bible can be used to disprove another, all based on the interpretation of the individual. This is why I love looking back to the early Church, as I have recently begun to do. It is ever so relevant. Let me explain…

Irenaeus of Lyons, made bishop of Lyons (ancient Lugdunum) in 177 AD, wrote a work now known as Against Heresies in about 180 AD. The Gnostics, who started spreading while the Apostles were still alive, were still a huge threat to true Christianity. What is more, they used Scripture extensively to ‘prove’ their point. Irenaeus, before expounding on the proper interpretation of Scripture, first wrote on where he got his authority. He declared that authority, and unity of doctrine, was the only sure way of knowing if a church was genuine, and in his mind, that authority came from the Apostles:

And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Against Heresies, Book 1, Chp. 3

In like manner he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics.

Book 1, Chp. 9. I liked this quote for baptism, too.

But since what may prove a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms an a priori proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.

Book 1, Chp. 9. Heretics differ in opinion of interpretation? You don’t say!

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Book 1, Chp. 10

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Book 3, Chp. 4

This whole discussion is irrelevant. If there is no authority with which to judge the interpretation of Scripture, then the Gnostics (along with every other heretical sect) had perfectly valid Scripture interpretations. Catholics appeal to the Apostolic Church and history to interpret Scripture. To whom do you appeal? The “spirit” within you? So did the Gnostics (especially the Montanists). Tertullian even held to Apostolic Succession, and wrote about it extensively before he became apostate. And so when he did become a heretic, he knew he couldn’t gain validity by claiming Apostolic authority, too, so he simply claimed that Montanus had received a new divine revelation after the Apostles (like Joseph Smith and Muhammad).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

And now to “Assurance” or “Once Saved”:

To me, the position of “Once saved, always saved (if I am really a true believer, which only God knows)”, and “Assurance of Salvation (if I really am a true lamb, which only God knows)”, and lastly “Once Saved, Always Saved (do whatever the heck I want)”, are absolutely ridiculous ways of reconciling predestination, reprobation, and mercy.

The Catholic Church DOES teach predestination and reprobation. However, God wills that we should “choose life”, and thus gives us the option to refuse Him. He desires “that none should perish”, and His “grace is sufficient”. We must “run the race” and “fight the good fight”, lest we be “disqualified, even after preaching to many”. So, God gave us free will. He gives us the commandments to protect us from death, and grace to accept Him. Some will commit “sins of death” and be disqualified. They will not persevere. God knows who will persevere. God knows who will reject Him. God also (according to Thomism) DOES elect some to heaven, purely by His good will, and His sheep “will not be snatched away”. But God, the author of all good, does not damn without demerit. He does not create to condemn. His grace is sufficient. But Scripture has been quoted over and over here, again and again.

So, while I’ve got “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus (who learned from Polycarp when he was a boy) open:

Free will:

This expression [of our Lord], How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not, Matthew 23:37 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness.

Against Heresies, Book 4, Chp. 37

Mortal Sin/Final Perseverance:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Against Heresies, Book 1, Chp. 10

And some from Ignatius of Antioch:

"And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?

Letter to the Ephesians

And Hermas (~80 AD):

But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord

The Shepherd

I don’t see “assurance” taught anywhere by early Christians. At least, not in the way it is taught now. Assurance of Christ’s mercy and grace, certainly. But actual sin seemed to be the thing that would cause damnation, even after initial repentance.

 

[brb3]

PeaceInChrist…

1. 
   
   Lots of good quotes from 2nd century !!! And, the quote from Ignatius of Antioch …to the Ephesians speaks to the question of the Redeemed having Fallen From Grace…
   
   .and yet, ABLE TO REGAIN FAVOR with God, via repentance.
   
   Clearly the Early Church viewed Salvation in the PRESENT TENSE. Free will always can change our future circumstances. And any sheep can choose to wander away from the Good Shepherd …back into error and Mortal Sins.
   
   Christ NEVER TAKES HIS EYE OFF THE SHEEP…and periodically calls to the wayward, reaching out his hand to us. But, if we don’t reach up and take hold of his …we can gravely err and fall over the cliff, into the abyss.

 

[fbl9]

The thing about fore knowledge is that it does not have effect on whether one accepts God’s grace or not. Any more than say knowing that a person on death row is going to die is the reason they will die.

 

[pocohombre]

My goodness. This thread is a continuation of the ridiculousness of the last one. It is a Scripture war that will never end. One part of the Bible can be used to disprove another, all based on the interpretation of the individual. This is why I love looking back to the early Church, as I have recently begun to do. It is ever so relevant. Let me explain…

Irenaeus of Lyons, made bishop of Lyons (ancient Lugdunum) in 177 AD, wrote a work now known as Against Heresies in about 180 AD. The Gnostics, who started spreading while the Apostles were still alive, were still a huge threat to true Christianity. What is more, they used Scripture extensively to ‘prove’ their point. Irenaeus, before expounding on the proper interpretation of Scripture, first wrote on where he got his authority. He declared that authority, and unity of doctrine, was the only sure way of knowing if a church was genuine, and in his mind, that authority came from the Apostles:

Against Heresies, Book 1, Chp. 3

Book 1, Chp. 9. I liked this quote for baptism, too.

Book 1, Chp. 9. Heretics differ in opinion of interpretation? You don’t say!

Book 1, Chp. 10

Book 3, Chp. 4

This whole discussion is irrelevant. If there is no authority with which to judge the interpretation of Scripture, then the Gnostics (along with every other heretical sect) had perfectly valid Scripture interpretations. Catholics appeal to the Apostolic Church and history to interpret Scripture. To whom do you appeal? The “spirit” within you? So did the Gnostics (especially the Montanists). Tertullian even held to Apostolic Succession, and wrote about it extensively before he became apostate. And so when he did become a heretic, he knew he couldn’t gain validity by claiming Apostolic authority, too, so he simply claimed that Montanus had received a new divine revelation after the Apostles (like Joseph Smith and Muhammad).

Yes, a whole other thread could be on authority. There is a difference between authority, and the "Spirit within you " bearing witness. Is it not the Spirit within you that tells you it is right to accept the authority of the Church because she tells you to ? As far as the Church being unmovable we both thank our forefathers of the faith, old and new testament for holding on to the “truth/promises” . That being said, the early church was universal, but it also did not stray far from the necessary basics. This discussion is valid and really was defined much later, by saints discussing it. The church is unmoveable in only what she has decreed. Not sure when the current CC position was postulated . As far as “differing amongst themselves”, yes we do. Apparently there are 3 positions that I can tell. Calvin, Armenian and CC. CC seems to be a mix of the first two. St Augustine taught predestination for the elect but held free will fro the reprobate. Again, you may rest authority on the Church for this topic, but at one point the church did "get together " to decree it’s postulations/clarifications on proper scripture/tradition interpretation on this matter.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, a whole other thread could be on authority. There is a difference between authority, and the "Spirit within you " bearing witness. Is it not the Spirit within you that tells you it is right to accept the authority of the Church because she tells you to ? As far as the Church being unmovable we both thank our forefathers of the faith, old and new testament for holding on to the “truth/promises” . That being said, the early church was universal, but it also did not stray far from the necessary basics. This discussion is valid and really was defined much later, by saints discussing it. The church is unmoveable in only what she has decreed. Not sure when the current CC position was postulated . As far as “differing amongst themselves”, yes we do. Apparently there are 3 positions that I can tell. Calvin, Armenian and CC. CC seems to be a mix of the first two. St Augustine taught predestination for the elect but held free will fro the reprobate. Again, you may rest authority on the Church for this topic, but at one point the church did "get together " to decree it’s postulations/clarifications on proper scripture/tradition interpretation on this matter.

this article does a good job of discussing the various positions. its worth a read if you are interested in knowing how they differ from each other.
newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yes, a whole other thread could be on authority. There is a difference between authority, and the "Spirit within you " bearing witness. Is it not the Spirit within you that tells you it is right to accept the authority of the Church because she tells you to ? As far as the Church being unmovable we both thank our forefathers of the faith, old and new testament for holding on to the “truth/promises” . That being said, the early church was universal, but it also did not stray far from the necessary basics. This discussion is valid and really was defined much later, by saints discussing it. The church is unmoveable in only what she has decreed. Not sure when the current CC position was postulated . As far as “differing amongst themselves”, yes we do. Apparently there are 3 positions that I can tell. Calvin, Armenian and CC. CC seems to be a mix of the first two. St Augustine taught predestination for the elect but held free will fro the reprobate. Again, you may rest authority on the Church for this topic, but at one point the church did "get together " to decree it’s postulations/clarifications on proper scripture/tradition interpretation on this matter.

The forefathers of the Church placed great importance on authority. Clement, Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus have all placed extreme importance on the value of obedience to authority (the bishops and priests), and the adherence to tradition and the Church for resolving disputes. THIS IS HOW YOUR FOREFATHERS HANDED THE SCRIPTURE TO YOU. Further, the heretics USED SCRIPTURE EXTENSIVELY to prove their doctrine. Irenaeus condemned this, and said that the only sure way to know a valid interpretation was through the Church.

My friend, I hope you will read the Fathers. I hope you will read all of them. Even read Tertullian, even though he became a heretic. Simply read. Origen, Augustine, Jerome, the Councils (you can actually read what they determined). Read the History of the Church by Eusebius. Read, read, read, as I am now doing. I find the Fathers and their methods comforting. Even where there is disagreement among them I know the result: that they would come to agreement. I find their reference to the Eucharist and the Liturgy and bishops and councils confirming. You may not, but you owe it to yourself to at least approach this with an open mind.

I have said my part, I have done all I can do. I will pray for you, that you seek truth, and do it sincerely, with no agenda.

“…so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”