Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[pocohombre]

Let’s not focus on the water baptism right now. Let’s start with the idea that Cornelius heard the Word believed in Christ, and was baptized in the HS. I think we can both agree that these are all signs or results of regeneration.

The reason I asked is because you have asserted that mankind does not seek for God, and that all of our "good works’ prior to regeneration are as filthy rags.

Yes, I agree on both counts.

Scripture teaches us that the saving grace of God must meet with faith in those that hear. Some people hear, and yet refuse to put their faith in Him.

Luke 7:28-30
28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 **But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.) **

It was God’s desire that they be baptized into repentance by John, but they refused. If, then, God “predestined” them to damnation, how were they rejecting His purpose for themselves?

Heb 4:1-2
2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

The message of the Gospel must be combined with faith, that faith comes from inside the hearer. It is only when the Grace is combined with faith that salvation can result.

Cornelius had this faith before he even heard the Gospel.

Is this what some friends of mine mean when they say the CC has a different gospel, that it is not Christian ? I can’t quite put it so strongly all the time, but when I see what you write, profess, it is different, in a big way, enough to hinder true salvation. The seed must die for new life , and I see so much of a small portion of seed hanging on for dear life. You must lose all of yourself to gain yourself in Christ.

 

[The_Blunt_Brig]

The only churches in existence before the Protestant Reformation were the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Both state that baptism, and avoiding serious sin and repenting of serious sin is necessary for salvation.

Why don’t you buy a book or read online for free the writings of the early church fathers and see for yourself that they say this also?

 

[brb3]

Is this what some friends of mine mean when they say the CC has a different gospel, that it is not Christian ? I can’t quite put it so strongly all the time, but when I see what you write, profess, it is different, in a big way, enough to hinder true salvation. The seed must die for new life , and I see so much of a small portion of seed hanging on for dear life. You must lose all of yourself to gain yourself in Christ.

Not exactly…

If seed dies …the new growth never makes it to early plant stage (seedling).
But, if it has sufficient oxygen, nutrients, warm sunshine, & water …the seed is TRANSFORMED into a young plant. It is ILLUMINATED …by the Creator !

 

[pocohombre]

Not exactly…

If seed dies …the new growth never makes it to early plant stage (seedling).
But, if it has sufficient oxygen, nutrients, warm sunshine, & water …the seed is TRANSFORMED into a young plant. It is ILLUMINATED …by the Creator !

So are you saying the seed does not die ?

 

[brb3]

So are you saying the seed does not die ?

We scientists know that the seedling takes its DNA genetics from the seed, also gaining its carbohydrate energy source from it. The seed is slowly used by seedling to energize it…until the seedling develops leaves, and is able to generate its own food-source. This can take 3-4 weeks for a bean or wheat seedling. Aso, going out from the seed in downward direction are the roots. So, in actuality…the seed BECOMES both the roots and above-ground green seedling.

In every true sense of word … it gives life/origin to the plant, just as the egg-sac provides allows a tadpole to grow from it.

 

[guanophore]

Elect as in we are His elect. Not sure if like acts 13 -that was a missionary sendoff. Ignatius tells the Philadelphians I believe to elect themselves a bishop/deacon.

I believe you are thinking of the Didache. Most Protestants prefer to ignrore what Ignatius says about bishops.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. …] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. …] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

 

[guanophore]

You said the unregenerate do seek after God , we are made that way . I disagreed. How does Psalms say otherwise ? The unrighteous /faithless do not seek after God . What came first, faith or the law ? Has faith ever left ?

It would be more accurate to say the Apostles did not teach what Calvin did about the “unregenerate”. They taught that the image of God in which we are created was wounded by sin, but this does not remove the innate desire of humankind to seek after God. Calvin departed from this Apostolic teaching with the concepts of total depravity and “unregenerate” I asked you about Cornelius because this is one of the best scriptural examples to show that Calvin was in error on his ideas. If Cornelius was not “regenerated” until the HS fell upon him, then nothing he could have done prior to that would be pleasing to God. However we read in Holy Scripture:

Acts 10:2-5
2 He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. 3 One afternoon at about three o’clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” 4 He stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” He answered, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa …

Clearly his devotion, alms, and prayers were pleasing to God. They were not considered by God as “filthy rags” or “dung”. They were deeds done in faith, but they were done PRIOR to his becoming “born again”.

The Psalm is clear that there are two types of individuals, the righteous, and the unrighteous. The righteous seek for God, and find Him. They seek even before they are “regenerate”.

Acts 17:26-30
26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him — though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we too are his offspring.’

29 Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent…

The Fall did not prevent humans from the innate tendency to grope after God, or from finding Him within, as it is in Him that we live, move, and have our being. The image of God in us is not “dead” or absent.

 

[guanophore]

Is this what some friends of mine mean when they say the CC has a different gospel, that it is not Christian ? I can’t quite put it so strongly all the time, but when I see what you write, profess, it is different, in a big way, enough to hinder true salvation. The seed must die for new life , and I see so much of a small portion of seed hanging on for dear life. You must lose all of yourself to gain yourself in Christ.

There certainly are many poorly catechized Catholics who do not grasp the concept that the seed must fall into the ground and die.

However, one must not confuse the misunderstandings of Catholics who do not grasp the faith with the Teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that we must die in order to find our life in Christ - picking up the cross daily to follow Him.

The seed cannot have life in itself. It has the potential for life, but unless it fallsinto the ground and dies, no frut will come.

 

[brb3]

G4…

Excellent point on Cornelius !! Scripture is full of such examples. Enoch, Noah, Abram, Elijah, all the Prophets, Ruth, Naomi, Daniel, etc. Those who seek God with whole heart & keep the Law …will be exalted. The gentile Cornelius was such a man.
This total depravity invention is w/o basis in Scripture. Christ teaching that even the heathen unbelievers know how to give good things their kinships !

 

[pocohombre]

We scientists know that the seedling takes its DNA genetics from the seed, also gaining its carbohydrate energy source from it. The seed is slowly used by seedling to energize it…until the seedling develops leaves, and is able to generate its own food-source. This can take 3-4 weeks for a bean or wheat seedling. Aso, going out from the seed in downward direction are the roots. So, in actuality…the seed BECOMES both the roots and above-ground green seedling.

In every true sense of word … it gives life/origin to the plant, just as the egg-sac provides allows a tadpole to grow from it.

Sorry, you guys brought up the verse. I guess it is John 12 :24, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” I hope you are not saying Jesus was scientifically wrong or my application of it.

 

[pocohombre]

The only churches in existence before the Protestant Reformation were the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Both state that baptism, and avoiding serious sin and repenting of serious sin is necessary for salvation.

Why don’t you buy a book or read online for free the writings of the early church fathers and see for yourself that they say this also?

Well, there were a few others, very small churches before the reformation. As far as the first fathers, it is a mixed bag, subject to interpretation, just like scripture. I would say there writings were very universal, acceptable to all true Christian denominations/churches.

 

[pocohombre]

There certainly are many poorly catechized Catholics who do not grasp the concept that the seed must fall into the ground and die.

However, one must not confuse the misunderstandings of Catholics who do not grasp the faith with the Teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that we must die in order to find our life in Christ - picking up the cross daily to follow Him.

The seed cannot have life in itself. It has the potential for life, but unless it falls into the ground and dies, no fruit will come.

Ok .just don’t understand how you insist the seed has faith, or others that the seed has reason (516, 520 thread) . " Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God", John 1:13

 

[pocohombre]

G4…

Excellent point on Cornelius !! Scripture is full of such examples. Enoch, Noah, Abram, Elijah, all the Prophets, Ruth, Naomi, Daniel, etc. Those who seek God with whole heart & keep the Law …will be exalted. The gentile Cornelius was such a man.
This total depravity invention is w/o basis in Scripture. Christ teaching that even the heathen unbelievers know how to give good things their kinships !

So Cornelius had good in him from birth ? Depravity does not mean that those have not heard the gospel can’t be saved . Depravity does not mean OT saints weren’t saved . Enoch and all those others, did they have faith ? What accounted for righteousness before the Law ? even after the Law ? What is faith ? Where does it come from ? Why did these righteous seek him ? Were they born good, to that end ? Did they hear the word of God first, the promise ? Did not nature itself witness to them ? Weren’t they also drawn of God ? When did God first put out “His Word”, His promise(s) ? Is scripture wrong in that they chose God , and not that God chose them ?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Well, there were a few others, very small churches before the reformation. As far as the first fathers, it is a mixed bag, subject to interpretation, just like scripture. I would say there writings were very universal, acceptable to all true Christian denominations/churches.

How about this one:
Ireneaus in Against Heresies:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, **in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles **manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Or these:
Ignatius in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Ignatius in the Letter to the Philadelphians:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.

Or these:
Justin in the First Apology:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Yes, these are totally compatible with Protestant faith.

 

[pocohombre]

It would be more accurate to say the Apostles did not teach what Calvin did about the “unregenerate”. They taught that the image of God in which we are created was wounded by sin, but this does not remove the innate desire of humankind to seek after God. Calvin departed from this Apostolic teaching with the concepts of total depravity and “unregenerate” I asked you about Cornelius because this is one of the best scriptural examples to show that Calvin was in error on his ideas. If Cornelius was not “regenerated” until the HS fell upon him, then nothing he could have done prior to that would be pleasing to God.

Who said he was unregenerate before Peter ? That would be like saying all humans went to hell except righteous Jews . I would say he was not indwelt with the HS,but nor was anybody in OT. How do you explain the teaching that those who have not heard the gospel can be saved ? But thank you, never looked at Cornelius in depth before.

Clearly his devotion, alms, and prayers were pleasing to God. They were not considered by God as “filthy rags” or “dung”. They were deeds done in faith, but they were done PRIOR to his becoming “born again”.

Do you think he used his prayers and alms as self justifying, or did his “fear” because of the witness of God lead him to devotion- a broken, contrite heart he can not turn away ?

The Psalm is clear that there are two types of individuals, the righteous, and the unrighteous. The righteous seek for God, and find Him. They seek even before they are"regenerate".

Where does it say they sought him before regeneration ? Where does it say God did not draw them first ? Where does it say Jehovah did not grant them faith to believe His word first ?

The Fall did not prevent humans from the innate tendency to grope after God, or from finding Him within, as it is in Him that we live, move, and have our being. The image of God in us is not “dead” or absent

Isn’t there a difference between, relation by creation, and relation by the spirit ? We have our being in His creation, but not in Him unless your are made righteous. No one seeks after God as he truly is, but in our own image of Him that we make as fallen creatures (hence gold,statues etc ). I was not saying men are totally ignorant of the idea of a God , or that somehow men don’t know they are more than animals, or don’t have a conscience. I am saying that without the aid of God no one is truly broken and says, " I am totally ignorant and God you must show me yourself". I have not read Calvin and am not sure of his complete definition of depravity, or even total depravity.

 

[pocohombre]

How about this one:

Or these:

Or these:

Yes, these are totally compatible with Protestant faith.

So the ancient Christian Church was founded in Rome ? What was Jerusalem or Antioch suburbs ? Why does Paul , infer the church was already existent in Rome before he got there ? So Paul was co- pope ? No mention of any Petrine doctrine -(Peter -rock ) Would have been a great time for it ,to show God’s carefulness in one man leader approach . He lists succession of two other cities

 

[PeaceInChrist]

So the ancient Christian Church was founded in Rome ? What was Jerusalem or Antioch suburbs ? Why does Paul , infer the church was already existent in Rome before he got there ? So Paul was co- pope ? No mention of any Petrine doctrine -(Peter -rock ) Would have been a great time for it ,to show God’s carefulness in one man leader approach . He lists succession of two other cities

Ignatius was from Antioch. Irenaeus was not from Rome, either. He said that all other churches must agree with Rome. Besides, the ‘Peterine’ doctrine of ‘the rock’ is actually just straight Scripture, and when united with the works of the fathers, it becomes quite obvious that Rome held authority. What else do you want? And how does that conflict with Petrine doctrine, that all Apostolic Churches must agree with Rome? Additionally, I’d like the chapter in which he lists the succession of other churches as equal to Rome. In the chapter from which my quote comes, he lists only Rome, and mentions also that Polycarp was taught by the Apostles, and refuted heresy while Irenaeus lived.

Also, you didn’t address the actual quote. You simply asked questions that have no bearing on what he actually said. You didn’t even touch the other excerpts, and understandably so. The first apologetic work among Christians is, after all, quite opposed to Protestantism, as are the precepts found in the writings of all ante-Nicene fathers. And, come to think of it, all post-Nicene fathers, too. I’m sure you can cherry pick some doctrine if you try really hard, though. I like posting in entire sections, to prevent this issue, but hey, have at it!

These are three of the earliest ante-Nicene fathers that ever wrote. All three hailed from different parts of the Christian world, yet taught the same thing. They were quite concerned with the authority of bishops and unity of the Church in a very visible way. They were intent on refuting heresy and teaching one doctrine. Are these doctrines in these excerpts universal to Protestants?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, you guys brought up the verse. I guess it is John 12 :24, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” I hope you are not saying Jesus was scientifically wrong or my application of it.

Jesus is teaching metaphorically and practically, not scientifically. Although I am sure He is well aware that it is a matter of transformation.

The seed “dies” in the sense that it goes into the ground, and can never again go back to being a seed. Once it sprouts the seed is gone forever.

Well, there were a few others, very small churches before the reformation. As far as the first fathers, it is a mixed bag, subject to interpretation, just like scripture. I would say there writings were very universal, acceptable to all true Christian denominations/churches.

Poco, he early fathers’ writing is evaluated in the same way as modern holy theologians, in the light of Sacred Tradtition. If the writings are consistent with the One Faith that has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit, then the are acceptable to the faithful. To the extent that the writings do not, then they are not commended to the faithful.

Ok .just don’t understand how you insist the seed has faith, or others that the seed has reason (516, 520 thread) . " Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God", John 1:13

Jesus uses the seed as a metaphor of the human soul, and the interaction of that soul with the message of the Gospel. Those souls who receive the Gospel with a ready and willing heart will sprout. Not all human hearts that respond in faith persist to the point of bearing fruit. Some souls, though starting in faith, are choked out by the cares of the world or wither under persecution. Calvin’s notion that these souls were never “true believers” in the first place is not consistent with Jesus’ teaching.

 

[guanophore]

 So Cornelius had good in him from birth ?

God created humans and called His creation “good”. The Fall did not destroy the good that God created.

Depravity does not mean that those have not heard the gospel can’t be saved .

No, but Calvin’s notion of the state of the unregenerate soul encounters problems with this passage. Either the unregenerate can do nothing to please God, or Cornelius was regenerated before he was “born again”.

Deut 30:14
4 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

Depravity does not mean OT saints weren't saved . Enoch and all those others, did they have faith ? What accounted for righteousness before the Law ? even after the Law ? What is faith  ? Where does it come from ? Why did these righteous seek him  ?

All human beings are created in the Divne Image. We are all given a desire to seek after Him, and to find Him. Each soul is given sufficient grace to act upon this drawing from God. When they respond, they are given more grace. If they refuse to respond, even what they had is taken away.

Were they born good, to that end ?  Did they hear the word of God first, the promise ? Did not nature itself witness to them ? Weren't they also drawn of God  ? When did God first put out "His Word", His promise(s) ? Is scripture wrong in that they chose God , and not that God chose them ?

Yes, we are given many ways to see and know God, in nature, in His Word, and in our own hearts, that bear witness to our Creator. Those that choose to respond to His call find the grace to do so, those who choose not, find their hearts hardened. God desires that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth. He pours His grace out upon the just and the unjust alike. Those who chose Him are chosen by Him.

Deut 30:19
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life

God does not “pretend” to offer the choice.

osh 24:15
15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,

Gen 4:7
And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

 

[guanophore]

 Who said he was unregenerate before Peter ? That would be like saying all humans went to hell except righteous Jews . I would say he was not indwelt with the HS,but nor was anybody in OT. How do you explain the teaching that those who have not heard the gospel can be saved ? But thank you, never looked at Cornelius in depth before.

That is why I asked you, at what point was he regenerated. It it is when he is “born again” then there is a problem.

I agree, God did not change the manner in which people are saved. Human beings have always been saved by grace, through faith. My point is that Calvin’s doctrines cannot be reconciled with these scriptures. He claims that people are unable to respond to God’s grace unless they are “regenerated”. This concept is inconsistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Do you think he used his prayers and alms as self justifying, or did his “fear” because of the witness of God lead him to devotion- a broken, contrite heart he can not turn away ?

I think we must understand that his deeds reflected a contrite and belieiving heart.

  Where does it say they sought him before regeneration  ?

On the contrary, what evidence is there that any of the people that God created were regenerated before they sought HIm? How could Paul say “that which you worship as unknown we proclaim to you”? Are you saying they were regenerated, yet still did not know God?

Where does it say God did not draw them first ? Where does it say Jehovah did not grant them faith to believe His word first ?

This is the point. God gives every human person He creates enough faith to respond to His drawing grace. Those who choose to respond mix their faith with His grace. Those who do not die in their sins.

Isn’t there a difference between, relation by creation, and relation by the spirit ? We have our being in His creation, but not in Him unless your are made righteous.

Yes. When we are adopted as sons, our relationship goes from created to Creator to son to Father. Being “born again” is an ontological change, which cannot be undone (like the seed). That is why the situation of Cornelius is pertinent.

No one seeks after God as he truly is, but in our own image of Him that we make as fallen creatures (hence gold,statues etc ).

But they do! that is what the rest of the Psalm says.

Yes, we cannot come to God without the aid of grace. God affords sufficient grace to all so that we can respond to His drawing us. When we respond, more is given. This is the Apostolic faith, not consistent with Calvin’s doctrines. Calvin disagrees with Jeuss, Calvin says the seeds that sprouted but did not persist were never “sprouted” in the first place.