Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[brb3]

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.

Wrongo Poco !!

Verse 8 …" And foolish said to the wise ‘give us some of your oil, for our lamps ARE GOING OUT’."

Too little/light on the HS !!! We must keep ourselves FULLY GRACED, with Indwelling HS !!!..& w/o Mortal Sins, which grieve & drive out HS.

 

[pocohombre]

Again and again, does one assume because he is in the church he is indeed reborn ? Because one professes faith, goes to church, are they really genuine ? The one who buried his talents was not regenerated. He said the master was a hard man, and that doesn’t sound like he really knew the master personally, but only heard of him or heard about him incorrectly, but never really met him. For if he really met Him, he would know Him differently and acted differently. The Lord pretty much says that in the parable. The parable is about what you do with the gospel -the kingdom at hand and with the giftings given to it’s citizens. There is never an assumption that you have become a citizen though you are walking around in the kingdom. Are you wheat or tare, sheep or goat, in the Lord’s pasture. It was unregenerated, though circumcised by God’s command and deeply religious people that gave Jesus the most trouble.

 

[pocohombre]

Wrongo Poco !!

Verse 8 …" And foolish said to the wise ‘give us some of your oil, for our lamps ARE GOING OUT’."

Too little/light on the HS !!! We must keep ourselves FULLY GRACED, with Indwelling HS !!!..& w/o Mortal Sins, which grieve & drive out HS.

good point thanks but Paul says that no man is with out excuse. Even nature speaks the gospel somewhat . We all have light, testimony trying to show us the Light, and the need for His Light. If we don’t go to the Light , we will lose even the light we do have. “Go buy for yourselves”, they were told. They can not live on the light, conscience, our up bringing, what we have heard, that God gives a certain measure all men-that is the lamp, with that kind of initial oil. We need to make His Light our own, hence the other “vessel” containing the Oil , apart from our “lamp”…Again , the unregenerate in protestant churches have some light, some seed have heard the call-(their lamp) but still not reborn, have not gone to the Vessel of Oil. Again, they were called foolish from the beginning.

 

[brb3]

good point thanks but Paul says that no man is with out excuse. Even nature speaks the gospel somewhat . We all have light, testimony trying to show us the Light, and the need for His Light. If we don’t go to the Light , we will lose even the light we do have. “Go buy for yourselves”, they were told. They can not live on the light, conscience, our up bringing, what we have heard, that God gives a certain measure all men-that is the lamp, with that kind of initial oil. We need to make His Light our own, hence the other “vessel” containing the Oil , apart from our “lamp”…Again , the unregenerate in protestant churches have some light, some seed have heard the call-(their lamp) but still not reborn, have not gone to the Vessel of Oil. Again, they were called foolish from the beginning.

Yes, the fuel for our lives is the Indwelling HS. Its our spiritual food/drink that nourishes us with HS for the journey. Its the manna from heaven, the Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity of Christ…via the weekly Eucharist we receive (in faith, and literally consume within). It’s absorbed within, and taken via bloodstream to every cell of our bodies…to nourish us literally & metaphysically.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, the fuel for our lives is the Indwelling HS. Its our spiritual food/drink that nourishes us with HS for the journey. Its the manna from heaven, the Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity of Christ…via the weekly Eucharist we receive (in faith, and literally consume within). It’s absorbed within, and taken via bloodstream to every cell of our bodies…to nourish us literally & metaphysically.

I understand your enthusiasm for your -CC’s position . I like your first part. The Holy Spirit is a person, equal to Christ .You cant’t have any more in you. He doesn’t come in partial, the rest with a sacrament. He is fully in the believer. Yes to dfferent levels of maturity, but still in fullness.We view the communion as remebrance and praise. "He inhabits the praises of his people.“Leave you teeth and bellies behind”, said Augustine about communion. We partake spiritually by faith. and not in transubstantiation , but in that Christ is our Messiah.

 

[brb3]

I understand your enthusiasm for your -CC’s position . I like your first part. The Holy Spirit is a person, equal to Christ .You cant’t have any more in you. He doesn’t come in partial, the rest with a sacrament. He is fully in the believer. Yes to dfferent levels of maturity, but still in fullness.We view the communion as remebrance and praise. "He inhabits the praises of his people.“Leave you teeth and bellies behind”, said Augustine about communion. We partake spiritually by faith. and not in transubstantiation , but in that Christ is our Messiah.

Ha ! Augustine didn’t teach Transubstantiation ??
U need to join the current Transubstantiation thread …

Again your Source for all these topics / questions is the Vaticano, 1992 Ed. CCC

Your overall best source for what the Cath. Church believes/teaches. All is fully footnoted/cited from scrupture & key ECF sources. In one-two weeks of study, u will be an expert on the Full Truths about Christianity.

 

[pocohombre]

Ha ! Augustine didn’t teach Transubstantiation ??
U need to join the current Transubstantiation thread …

Again your Source for all these topics / questions is the Vaticano, 1992 Ed. CCC

Your overall best source for what the Cath. Church believes/teaches. All is fully footnoted/cited from scrupture & key ECF sources. In one-two weeks of study, u will be an expert on the Full Truths about Christianity.

I know ,St.Augustine is a mixed bag on trans…Some have debated quite well though that he would differ somewhat from current CC teaching. Some would also say he is a perfect example of a doctrine in formation.

 

[BA11]

I know ,St.Augustine is a mixed bag on trans…Some have debated quite well though that he would differ somewhat from current CC teaching. Some would also say he is a perfect example of a doctrine in formation.

I’ve come to feel, based on my readings on the early church fathers from mid-1st century to around 400 AD, that there was just as much disagreement if not MORE amongst them than there is in christianity today. At least catholics, protestants and orthodox christians generally agree on the nature of Christ.

Additionally, most individual early church fathers changed their positions on one or multiple doctrines over the course of their lives. It’s tough to find one early church father who doesnt have at least one noticeable contradiction in their writings. Augustine is claimed by both protestants and catholics because each can find dozens of “proofs” from him depending on what is being quoted.

For all the people on both sides who try and use these men as proof of their beliefs, I think all we can take from them is that as men they had different interpretations of the faith. These differing opinions dissipated once the catholic church established a formal heirarchy and achieved both religious and political power in the late-4th century. With as much respect as possible, rightly or wrongly, the lack of diversity and public questioning in the writings of ancient christians fell off significantly once the catholic church established a level of authority that surpassed that of the state.

 

[brb3]

I’ve come to feel, based on my readings on the early church fathers from mid-1st century to around 400 AD, that there was just as much disagreement if not MORE amongst them than there is in christianity today. At least catholics, protestants and orthodox christians generally agree on the nature of Christ.

Additionally, most individual early church fathers changed their positions on one or multiple doctrines over the course of their lives. It’s tough to find one early church father who doesnt have at least one noticeable contradiction in their writings. Augustine is claimed by both protestants and catholics because each can find dozens of “proofs” from him depending on what is being quoted.

For all the people on both sides who try and use these men as proof of their beliefs, I think all we can take from them is that as men they had different interpretations of the faith. These differing opinions dissipated once the catholic church established a formal heirarchy and achieved both religious and political power in the late-4th century. With as much respect as possible, rightly or wrongly, the lack of diversity and public questioning in the writings of ancient christians fell off significantly once the catholic church established a level of authority that surpassed that of the state.

Which argues for need for that to happen. Life in those days was brutal, the Northern pagans were a terror to society, and the Arab onslaught from South & East were relentless. W/0 a strong, unified Church… the barbarians would of ruled the new RCC Empire.

 

[BA11]

Which argues for need for that to happen. Life in those days was brutal, the Northern pagans were a terror to society, and the Arab onslaught from South & East were relentless. W/0 a strong, unified Church… the barbarians would of ruled the new RCC Empire.

But then it begs the question: How can anyone know or claim that they got it ALL right in doing so? Especially considering that the one thing power always does is corrupt to some degree, and also factoring in that the church’s initial power in the secular world was given by a man who simply fancied the faith.

Don’t get me wrong, as a protestant there are things I side with catholics on (I don’t generally believe in once saved always saved due to the power of free will) but I think that it is hard for anyone to claim supreme authority on matters of the faith when for nearly 400 years men disagreed on such matters.

The catholic church has done a lot of good throughout history and is pivotal in the history of western culture and I might very well be one if not for the claim of infallibility of doctrine.

 

[pocohombre]

I’ve come to feel, based on my readings on the early church fathers from mid-1st century to around 400 AD, that there was just as much disagreement if not MORE amongst them than there is in christianity today. At least catholics, protestants and orthodox christians generally agree on the nature of Christ.

Additionally, most individual early church fathers changed their positions on one or multiple doctrines over the course of their lives. It’s tough to find one early church father who doesnt have at least one noticeable contradiction in their writings. Augustine is claimed by both protestants and catholics because each can find dozens of “proofs” from him depending on what is being quoted.

For all the people on both sides who try and use these men as proof of their beliefs, I think all we can take from them is that as men they had different interpretations of the faith. These differing opinions dissipated once the catholic church established a formal heirarchy and achieved both religious and political power in the late-4th century. With as much respect as possible, rightly or wrongly, the lack of diversity and public questioning in the writings of ancient christians fell off significantly once the catholic church established a level of authority that surpassed that of the state.

Welcome and thanks . “Let all men be liars , only God is true”. It is humbling, and we should be kept from saying ,"I am of Peter ", or, " I am of Paul ". There are many things of faith quite universal . I would further add that doctrine is in flux until it is declared otherwise. I think it continued past the the centralization in Rome. As an example the Immaculate Conception was debated heatedly amongst Catholic theologians for centuries , all allowed by Rome, until 1854, when all debate was ended on the matter. Interesting comments thanks again.

 

[pocohombre]

Which argues for need for that to happen. Life in those days was brutal, the Northern pagans were a terror to society, and the Arab onslaught from South & East were relentless. W/0 a strong, unified Church… the barbarians would of ruled the new RCC Empire.

Agree. There is the good, bad and ugly in much of it, just like the old testament twelve sons who gave us the twelve tribes - take a look at their stories- can anyone really boast ?

 

[pocohombre]

But then it begs the question: How can anyone know or claim that they got it ALL right in doing so? Especially considering that the one thing power always does is corrupt to some degree, and also factoring in that the church’s initial power in the secular world was given by a man who simply fancied the faith.

Don’t get me wrong, as a protestant there are things I side with catholics on (I don’t generally believe in once saved always saved due to the power of free will) but I think that it is hard for anyone to claim supreme authority on matters of the faith when for nearly 400 years men disagreed on such matters.

The catholic church has done a lot of good throughout history and is pivotal in the history of western culture and I might very well be one if not for the claim of infallibility of doctrine.

reminds me of a recent C.Swindoll radio sermon that dealt with doctrinal diversity ,legalism, humility and love .His brother is s strict 5 point calvinist and Chuck is not, but they still love each other .The point was to leave a little wiggle room, for one may not have it altogether on all doctrine, and we will all find out that great day. I have discussed on some threads the inconsistency of arguing against OSAS-“once saved always saved” but insist on what I call ORAR- “once right always right” for their church.

 

[paul_c]

reminds me of a recent C.Swindoll radio sermon that dealt with doctrinal diversity ,legalism, humility and love .His brother is s strict 5 point calvinist and Chuck is not, but they still love each other .The point was to leave a little wiggle room, for one may not have it altogether on all doctrine, and we will all find out that great day. I have discussed on some threads the inconsistency of arguing against OSAS-“once saved always saved” but insist on what I call ORAR- “once right always right” for their church.

Cute catch phrase but its an apples and oranges comparison.

Once saved, always saved adherents claim that they are going to heaven no matter what they do on earth as long as they at some point declared Jesus to be their Lord and Savior. There is considerable scriptural condemnation for their misplaced confidence.

AS for Catholics claiming ORAR, I’ve never heard a Catholic say that. But that doesn’t change the fact that its doctrines are statements of eternal truths and those don’t change. Truth can’t be measured by public opinion and it doesn’t change.

These are very different concepts and there is no inconsistency in refuting OSAS while maintaining that the Catholic Church teaches the eternal truths passed down by Jesus through the apostles

 

[paul_c]

But then it begs the question: How can anyone know or claim that they got it ALL right in doing so? Especially considering that the one thing power always does is corrupt to some degree, and also factoring in that the church’s initial power in the secular world was given by a man who simply fancied the faith.

There are two things that you aren’t considering here.

1. You are treating the Church as a man-made institution, which is most certainly is not. It was founded by Jesus and protected by the Holy Spirit. If that wasn’t the case, the Church never would have gotten off the ground, let alone grown as it has for 2000 years despite persecution, heresy, plagues, wars, and yes, corruption.
2. The church does not create new truths. It simply passes on those truths given it by Jesus adn passed down through 266 generations of popes. Yes, it does have to re-intepret those truths for modern realities, but as you can see from all papal bulls, they always show how existing truths apply to new situations. How the church chooses to teach those eternal truths, called church practices, does change with time and place because different people and cultures learn in different ways. You couldn’t practice on line catechesis, for instance, prior to the availability of the internet.

Don’t get me wrong, as a protestant there are things I side with catholics on (I don’t generally believe in once saved always saved due to the power of free will) but I think that it is hard for anyone to claim supreme authority on matters of the faith when for nearly 400 years men disagreed on such matters.

Those people who disagreed with the church were called heretics. The one true faith has been preached consistently by the popes and those in communion with them. That some people disagreed or will ill informed is not surprising, is it? Particularly with less advanced communication and the ongoing threat of persecution. When the persecutions stopped and communication was free, the popes were able to educate the masses more effectively.

The Catholic Church has done a lot of good throughout history and is pivotal in the history of western culture and I might very well be one if not for the claim of infallibility of doctrine.

Let me ask you, would you follow a leader who wasn’t sure of the truth? Would you believe someone who claimed to teach eternal truths but then changed those truths?
The Church claims doctrinal infallibility because what it says comes directly from Jesus and can be trusted to be the truth. We have no fear that the Pope will mislead us. He knows the awesome responsibility that is in his hands and he further knows that he will answer to God in the most harsh way possible if he doesn’t adhere to the will of the Father. Plus we trust God to protect the teaching integrity of the Church as he promised (the gates of hell will not prevail against the church and Jesus promised to be with the church until the end of the age.

If you believe that the Church is truly the body of Christ, you would have no issues with papal infalliblity because you know that the church will follow its head, and that is Jesus, who directs the popes and they direct us.

 

[brb3]

But then it begs the question: How can anyone know or claim that they got it ALL right in doing so? Especially considering that the one thing power always does is corrupt to some degree, and also factoring in that the church’s initial power in the secular world was given by a man who simply fancied the faith.

Don’t get me wrong, as a protestant there are things I side with catholics on (I don’t generally believe in once saved always saved due to the power of free will) but I think that it is hard for anyone to claim supreme authority on matters of the faith when for nearly 400 years men disagreed on such matters.

The catholic church has done a lot of good throughout history and is pivotal in the history of western culture and I might very well be one if not for the claim of infallibility of doctrine.

Well, it took 300 years to Canonize the official Bible. Christ could of wrote it for us himself, but he wished his Church to do so, with inspiration of HS. Also, he didn’t baptised with water, that was reserved for his disciples to perform. Christ desires to let us flawed men/women bring his will to this earth. We are living in the Kingdom age now, …so said Christ. The Church of Christ is evolving, growing into fullness, a divine work of Christ …that we have a role in accomplishing. Each generation of Christians see slightly more clearer, able to stand on the visions/accomplishments of our forebears.

It is wrongminded to think the early century church was the pinnacle of perfection. Major gains in understanding of the Bible and the Church have occurred in recent centuries. History tells a wonderful NewCovenant story, but also one with errs that were made and overcome. Nevertheless, the Universal(Catholic) Church teaches it will face the ultimate trial in the endtimes, the final Apostasy seen by St. JOHN, the Son of Thunder. And, many will fall away, compromise their faith and their Church…and their Kingdom hope.

 

[pocohombre]

Cute catch phrase but its an apples and oranges comparison.

Once saved, always saved adherents claim that they are going to heaven no matter what they do on earth as long as they at some point declared Jesus to be their Lord and Savior. There is considerable scriptural condemnation for their misplaced confidence.

AS for Catholics claiming ORAR, I’ve never heard a Catholic say that. But that doesn’t change the fact that its doctrines are statements of eternal truths and those don’t change. Truth can’t be measured by public opinion and it doesn’t change.

These are very different concepts and there is no inconsistency in refuting OSAS while maintaining that the Catholic Church teaches the eternal truths passed down by Jesus through the apostles

Thanks for calling it “cute” . However, that is how I take the CC stance on herself, that is the impression I get apart from it being anything dogmatic, though I think it is (dogmatic). Of course it is not apples to apples ,but…OSAS deals with individuals and scriptural interpretation of the Lord’s dealing with them, shepherding them on this journey. ORAR deal with a church and scriptural interpretation of the Lord’s dealing with “her”, shepherding “her” on this journey. The corralation is that while one is about individuals the other is the “church” made up of and led by individuals . Cute but valid from my side of the fence. It also CC dogma. She does claim all her dogma correct and infallible.

 

[thenobes]

Thanks for calling it “cute” . However, that is how I take the CC stance on herself, that is the impression I get apart from it being anything dogmatic, though I think it is (dogmatic). Of course it is not apples to apples ,but…OSAS deals with individuals and scriptural interpretation of the Lord’s dealing with them, shepherding them on this journey. ORAR deal with a church and scriptural interpretation of the Lord’s dealing with “her”, shepherding “her” on this journey. The corralation is that while one is about individuals the other is the “church” made up of and led by individuals . Cute but valid from my side of the fence. It also CC dogma. She does claim all her dogma correct and infallible.

Poco,

I know that I am WAY off topic here, and if so, feel free to ignore this, but how does one, if one feels that a brother’s interpretation of scripture amounts to the leading of others into sin, bring his brother to proper conduct by following the instruction of our Lord in Matthew 18, if there is no visible and structured Church authority?

(ASV) 15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear [thee] not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is the reason, to me, for the logical existence of the Papal Authority. Basically a visible institution must have a “buck stops here” individual or council. And a council itself may split.

peace
steve

 

[pocohombre]

Poco,

I know that I am WAY off topic here, and if so, feel free to ignore this, but how does one, if one feels that a brother’s interpretation of scripture amounts to the leading of others into sin, bring his brother to proper conduct by following the instruction of our Lord in Matthew 18, if there is no visible and structured Church authority?

This is the reason, to me, for the logical existence of the Papal Authority. Basically a visible institution must have a “buck stops here” individual or council. And a council itself may split.

peace
steve

Scripture says in this new dispensation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, that every neighbor will teach his neighbor, that all are priests. It says we have the grace and authority to go to a brother and settle . Then several other brothers . Then finally the local congregation. Most denominations have presbyters,deacons etc , like the early church. The context of your scripture however is of an offense, not necessarily about doctrinal interpretation, though I suppose the offense could stem from wrong biblical foundation-like abortion,drinking gambling etc-which usually can offend someone…The fact is the earliest church thrived quite well with an Orthodox or even Protestant view of Petrine doctrine. That is papal authority and all it’s rules is something that evolved in practice. For instance, early churches elected their own bishops, from within it’s congregation. Some say Rome had no bishops for at least a century, being ruled by a council of presbyters. Some say Paul anointed his and Peter his -hence the differing lists of the first five popes or bishops/presbyters ruling as a board of “elders”, as a group . …Agree, that the first dispute was settled by council , by testimony of what God did, said and wrote. Your point that a council may split therefore a "head’ is better, is logical but still problematic. If the Holy Spirit is guiding, and I would say as Christ’s Vicar, He can just easily move a council as He could a single man over them.

 

[thenobes]

Scripture says in this new dispensation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, that every neighbor will teach his neighbor, that all are priests. It says we have the grace and authority to go to a brother and settle . Then several other brothers . Then finally the local congregation. Most denominations have presbyters,deacons etc , like the early church. The context of your scripture however is of an offense, not necessarily about doctrinal interpretation, though I suppose the offense could stem from wrong biblical foundation-like abortion,drinking gambling etc-which usually can offend someone…The fact is the earliest church thrived quite well with an Orthodox or even Protestant view of Petrine doctrine. That is papal authority and all it’s rules is something that evolved in practice. For instance, early churches elected their own bishops, from within it’s congregation. Some say Rome had no bishops for at least a century, being ruled by a council of presbyters. Some say Paul anointed his and Peter his -hence the differing lists of the first five popes or bishops/presbyters ruling as a board of “elders”, as a group . …Agree, that the first dispute was settled by council , by testimony of what God did, said and wrote. Your point that a council may split therefore a "head’ is better, is logical but still problematic. If the Holy Spirit is guiding, and I would say as Christ’s Vicar, He can just easily move a council as He could a single man over them.

As an adherent of Sola Scriptura, you must realize that I have the right to interpret 1 John where the Spirit is said will lead us into all truth, as having to do with the Church as a whole, and not as any individual. Thus all interpretations must be compared to the Church. Unless of course the Spirit does not lead us to the truth. But how would one tell without a visible Church and authority?

peace
steve