Assurance of Salvation

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

Wow! I had no idea you had so much to do - no wonder you can only jump in and out of this thread from time to time … but, truly, keeping the Scriptures fom contradicting one another must be a challenge! But, my guess is that the real work comes from keeping the conflicting and conflicted personal interpretations of Scripture straight has you working over-time,weekends and holidays!

Actually, Jesus is not the good shepherd… He’s the Good Shepherd - and that is an important distinction. Yes, unfortunately, Free Will means that we can reject our Good Shepherd and not persever until the end. If you recall, I invited you to look at Matthew 25 and see Christ’s stories about all those ‘sheep’ who thought they were saved - but wound up very surprised and eternally damned.

Angel did not misstate anything - and I think you do a disservice to make these sniping remarks but somehow just can quite find the time to actually defend this ‘AoS’ heresy you keep on proclaiming. I am telling you that Calvin never had a case - it certainly appears that he simply lacked Faith and traded whatever he had for ‘assurance’ - and just look how he lived with his ‘assurances’ concerning Michael Servetus in 1553 and the executions of those who did not agree with him. I guess it was ‘fortunate’ for Calvin that he had his ‘assurance’ - but managed to doubt the ‘assurance’ of others.

The Bible is not a smattering of verses strung together like pearls - that can be arranged any way you wish. The Bible is loving communicatin between God and His People and it takes two major forms: 1.) the formation of a People who will recognize the Promise, worship and obey God in the OT and then recognize the Fulfillment of this Promise and our role in cooperating with God’s Grace through the use of our Free Will. Carving out new ideas by the artful restringing of pearls is simply a tradition of men. And, please note - the splintering of Protestantism (or the restringing of the pearls) by Calvin because he did not like Luther’s string, or Cromwell because he did not like Calvin’s string was a preview of the upcoming chaos (and while the 30 Years War may come immediately to mind) I am just thinking of the thousands of Protestant groups - all claiming Sola Scriptura and Personal Interpretation - and all disagreeing with one another… it is really sad.

Angel’s statement about Christ’s comments to His followers is right on - by the very fact that we are branches on the Vine of Christ - we are united. And, just as surely as we freely choose to sin - we are no longer united with Christ - we will be removed. Christ gives no statement that He will save anyone against their will. God knows who will ultimeately be with Him in Heaven - but, we don’t KNOW. We do, however have Faith in Christ and Hope in His Promises and Pray for the Grace to persevere. Do you have any quotes from Christ about ‘assurance’? Seriously, make a return visit to Matthew 25 and just imagine the tremendous surprise when these self-inflating individuals are suddenly deflated and are now bound in misery.

God bless

Angel, I try to keep the Scriptures from contradicting one another. What you are telling me is that Jesus is not a good shepherd because His sheep can perish (John 10:27-29). What you are telling me is that the Father can give people to Jesus that then go to hell (John 6:37-40, 44, 65). And I could go on and on. But you have seen many of my posts and know the Scriptures I have used to show that Salvation is of the Lord, and He is the Author and Perfecter of our faith. “We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4:19

I believe the interpretations I have provided to John 15 and Hebrews 6 provide a better systematic theology.

Regards, OldProf

 

[guanophore]

Let's look at Hebrews 6:4-8. Before I even start, note there is much written on this section of Scripture, so it will hardly do it justice in the short answer I will attempt below in this thread.

You have provided what I was seeking, which was to find out if you espouse the canned Reformed response, which I see that you do.

The idea that "tasting" may be likened to "sampling" - checking it out, so to speak.

Can you provide some biblical evidence to support this position?

I think this notion is imposed upon the text to set aside the point of the passage, which is that those who have entered into Life can also exit that Life. Your rendering is also inconsistent with your own “systematic theology”, because you have already espoused the position that the unregenerate are “dead in their sins”. It would be impossible, from the systematic perspective, for such a person to be describeds as “enlightened” in any way. Systematic theology teaches that the soul CANNOT respond to the light of Christ unless and until that soul is regenerated by the HS, which happens when the person hears the Gospel (if they are among the elect they will then believe).

Heb 6:4-7
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come

This passage is describing “those who have once been enlightened”, which means that their souls have received the grace of God. Catholics believe that “tasting” of the heavenly gift is a reference to the Eucharist, to which no one but believers are admitted. And again to become a “partaker” of the HS, we would be in agreement that the unregenerate cannot partake of the HS. Systematic theologians would say that the unregenerate are unable to do so. This means your interpretation of the passage as “unbelievers sitting in the congregation” does not adequately explain the passage, since unbelievers are unable to partake. How can the unregenerate “taste” of the powers of the age to come? Would we not agree that the age to come is the reign of Christ?

The term “to taste” here (geuomai) is more a sense of ingesting.

Then there is the term “apostasy”. One cannot “fall away” unless one has first clung to the Truth. If they were never truly enlightened and partakers, their departure could not be considered a falling away, as you have affirmed in your post by referencing

1 John 2:19 which says, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

So, you can’t have it both ways. Either they were “of us” and commtted apostasy, or they were never “of us” and went out.

The audience is a group of Jewish Christians since Gentiles are not mentioned. When addressing a “congregation” of professing Christians, we realize that some in the group may not be true believers. It is useful to engage them and warn them of God’s righteous wrath.

“We realize” is an example of inserting a modern church experience into the historic text. In the early church, unbelievers were not admitted.That is because, especially in the early centuries of the Church, being identified as a Christian was likely to be lethal. Persons had to be sponsored (as we see that Barnabas did with Paul of Tarsus) to be admitted, and had to complete sacraments of initiation and catechesis. We can see the remnant of this practice in the Eastern Liturgies, where the Deacon calls out “the doors! The doors!”. The doors were closed against unbelievers, because the mysteries were only open to partakers.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Angel,

You’re not wrong!

The idea that any man can claim they are (singlehandedly, I bet! ) keeping the Scriptures from contradicting one another exhibits a degree of Pride and Presumption that is of ‘Industrial Strength’ No garden variety bull droppings in this farm!

God bless

…again, Scriptures do not contradict each other… the reason why you seem to believe that you are the elect and the sheep and have attained the security of Eternal Salvation is due, in part, because you see such themes in Scriptures… but to suggest that you are guaranteed by God to always be Saved regardless of what you choose to do is contradicting God Himself Who has repeatedly demonstrated that He, as Powerful as He is, does not force Salvation upon anyone and that He, as Just as He is, will not condemn man on a roll of the dice!

Salvation is Eternal because it is Granted by God. We are elect in Christ Jesus for Salvation but that does not mean that God deliberately wills most of humanity to damnation. It is clear from Scriptures that God wants all to be Saved… so either you are correct and I am wrong or it is simply an error in your interpretation of Scriptures:

…so if the “elect” or “sheep” or “Eternally Save” do exist (in the manner in which you understand it to be), which would mandate that those who are not are implicitly damned, that would make God disingenuous since He has promised that there is Salvation for those who hear His Word and Believe!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

  ... then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

So, how can it be said they cannot “restore then again to repentance” if they have not been previously repentant? Your “system” does not seem to have an explanation for that. According to your system, one CANNOT repent without first being regeneratedy by the HS!

Only those who have been enlightened and partaken of grace can understand that we have all “crucified the Sond of God”. The unregenerate cannot apprehend such a truth. So if a person crucifies Him again and holds Him up to contempt, then by necessity such a one previously did not have contempt for Jesus ’ sacrifice.

 Imagine some people within this congregation of believers that learn and understand, intellectually, the Gospel, who have participated in communion and tasted or sampled it all (the didn't receive it, they only tasted or sampled it),

Indeed, I believe what you are offering here is quite imagined. And further, that your imagination of what occurred in the first century has been colored by modern experience. In the first centuries, no one was admitted to communion who had not been baptized and confirmed.

who have seen the Holy Spirit at work within their fellowship, participated in the fellowship, and yet they have not truly believed in Jesus.

To partake (Gk. metochos) means to share in. I think we would agree that the only way to share in the divine nature is to be united with Christ. In the systematic view, we are either children of Adam, or children of Christ - there is no grey area. Children of Adam cannot partake of the divine nature because they are “dead in their sins”, isn’t that right?

And the Apostle clarifies what it means to partake of the divine nature:

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

It is clear that becoming a partaker of the divine nature means that we inherit the precious promises, and that we escape the corruption of the world. Systematic theology says that there is no escape from the corruption of this world apart from being united to Christ. Therefore, to be united to Christ is equivalent to partaking of the divine nature. Your interpretation fails to be consistent with your own system again.

The early Christians did not “fellowship” with unbelievers as we do today. 2 Cor 6:14-16

14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

For them who know that much truth yet reject Jesus Christ as Savior and leave, it is "impossible" that they could repent and believe.

This is a very weak arguement OP. Head knowledge of Jesus is not sufficient to quallify for apostasy… One cannot fall from that to which they were never clinging.

To them, no sacrifice could be adequate. (I think we could place Judas, whom we have discussed on this thread, into a similar group. Herod, per Mark 6:20, also comes to mind since he liked to listen to John the Baptist even though he feared him, but when pressed Herod rejected him and had him beheaded.)

I think these are also poor examples. There is no evidence that either of these characters ever tasted of the heavenly gift, or was enlightened. Again, you cant apostasize from something you never believed. You can’t have it both ways, OP. Either they believed, and fell away, or never believed.

This is a dire warning to Hebrew Christians in the congregation that may be considering leaving. If they leave, then they will remain in unbelief.

This passage has nothing to do with the modern concept of “congregation”. This is simply inserted into the text. On the contrary, the writer describes his audience this way:

Heb 3:1
3:1 Therefore, **holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, **consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.

Heb 3:12
Take care,** brethren, **lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Heb 6:9-10

9 Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation.

He is addressing those who are believers!

 

[guanophore]

No new birth. No real love for Jesus. Though they may look and talk like Christians and participate in all the rituals and events for now, but if they leave they won't be restored to the fellowship - that would be "impossible." They may fool people in the congregation, but they left because they were AND they remain spiritually dead. Without any Savior, they will receive the punishment for their own sins in hell for eternity.

This is a description of a modern day Reformed congregation, not the Church described in Hebrews.

Heb 4:1-2
4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

Again believers are addressed as “us”, and unbelievers are called “them”. Those receiving the letter are those in whom faith has mixed with Grace in hearing the Gospel. According to the systematic model, when faith meets with grace in the hearing of the Gospel, the hearer is regenerated. And yet, you claim the unregenerate cannot fail to reach God’s rest?

Verses 7 and 8. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

The Gospel is like rain that falls to the earth. The Christian, the elect, will hear it and bear fruit that brings glory to God since God has given His grace that resurrects the spiritually dead sinner with the new birth - born again with spiritual life. Not so for the unbeliever who, though a witness to Christianity, never embraces the Gospel and never believes in Jesus nor bears any real fruit (they may do “good works” with the motive a looking good in the eyes of their friends or family - but not for God’s glory). That unbeliever will endure the fires of hell forever.

Regards, OldProf

We are in agreement about the fate of those who reject Christ, but if you look at the following verses, you can see that the writer is not referring to unbelievers:

Heb 6:10-12
10 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Do you believe that the unregenerate serve the saints for the sake of Jesus?

Do you believe that those who begin with Christ will realize the full assurance of hope in the end? Your systematic theology claims that one who is united to Christ cannot fail to attain this hope. So you can’t have it both ways. Either they are unbelievers, or they are believers, for whom it is possible to fail to inherit the promises.

 

[OldProf]

It appears that many are checking this out on Thanksgiving. I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving! In America we DO have MUCH to be thankful for!

In post #839, guanophore has given a thoughtful response to my commentary on Hebrew 6:4-8. I will work on a response to that since I think he is incorrect on several points.

Regards, OldProf

 

[guanophore]

It appears that many are checking this out on Thanksgiving. I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving! In America we DO have MUCH to be thankful for!

In post #839, guanophore has given a thoughtful response to my commentary on Hebrew 6:4-8. I will work on a response to that since I think he is incorrect on several points.

Regards, OldProf

Thank you OP, and yes, we have a great deal to be thankful for in America.

Father read Abraham Lincoln’s address on Thanksgiving at Mass this morning.

 

[october_baby]

I commented on that website in post #42 on 31 Mar 12. Since it doesn’t handle real arguments and glosses over them, I certainly cannot recommend it. If you are impressed by it, then I suggest you follow up and see how it handles some of the verses that I have posted in this thread. There are significantly more challenges that I believe support AoS doctrine.

Regards, OldProf

This is proof that Old Prof is trying convert catholics!

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Angel,

You’re not wrong!

The idea that any man can claim they are (singlehandedly, I bet! ) keeping the Scriptures from contradicting one another exhibits a degree of Pride and Presumption that is of ‘Industrial Strength’ No garden variety bull droppings in this farm!

God bless

Hi, Tom!

…yeah… I have come across such strategy before… I think that they make such claims because they want to believe (and make others believe) that it is Catholic theology (which includes all Catholic thought) that creates a false sense of contradiction in order to level *their *exegesis… what I find totally incomprehensible is how people are so quick to fill the gaps in their Faith with almost any teaching that contradicts the Church’s… it is reminiscent of St. Paul’s observation about those who so quickly accepted “a different Gospel!”

What is also surprising to me is the fact that while most who reject the Church’s Authority would point to a system or scholar or religious leader while the Church, as I struggle to do, point to the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit and Sacred Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So, how can it be said they cannot “restore then again to repentance” if they have not been previously repentant? Your “system” does not seem to have an explanation for that. According to your system, one CANNOT repent without first being regeneratedy by the HS!

Only those who have been enlightened and partaken of grace can understand that we have all “crucified the Sond of God”. The unregenerate cannot apprehend such a truth. So if a person crucifies Him again and holds Him up to contempt, then by necessity such a one previously did not have contempt for Jesus ’ sacrifice.

Indeed, I believe what you are offering here is quite imagined. And further, that your imagination of what occurred in the first century has been colored by modern experience. In the first centuries, no one was admitted to communion who had not been baptized and confirmed.

To partake (Gk. metochos) means to share in. I think we would agree that the only way to share in the divine nature is to be united with Christ. In the systematic view, we are either children of Adam, or children of Christ - there is no grey area. Children of Adam cannot partake of the divine nature because they are “dead in their sins”, isn’t that right?

And the Apostle clarifies what it means to partake of the divine nature:

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

It is clear that becoming a partaker of the divine nature means that we inherit the precious promises, and that we escape the corruption of the world. Systematic theology says that there is no escape from the corruption of this world apart from being united to Christ. Therefore, to be united to Christ is equivalent to partaking of the divine nature. Your interpretation fails to be consistent with your own system again.

The early Christians did not “fellowship” with unbelievers as we do today. 2 Cor 6:14-16

14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

This is a very weak arguement OP. Head knowledge of Jesus is not sufficient to quallify for apostasy… One cannot fall from that to which they were never clinging.

I think these are also poor examples. There is no evidence that either of these characters ever tasted of the heavenly gift, or was enlightened. Again, you cant apostasize from something you never believed. You can’t have it both ways, OP. Either they believed, and fell away, or never believed.

This passage has nothing to do with the modern concept of “congregation”. This is simply inserted into the text. On the contrary, the writer describes his audience this way:

Heb 3:1
3:1 Therefore, **holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, **consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.

Heb 3:12
Take care,** brethren, **lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Heb 6:9-10

9 Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation.

He is addressing those who are believers!

I just don’t get it… is this not St. John 1:12-13?

…and is Heb 3:12 not a warning similar to Jesus’ on St. John 15:1-10?

Why can’t OldProf and all the systematic theologeans not understand? …is painting by the numbers so complicated? :banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is a description of a modern day Reformed congregation, not the Church described in Hebrews.

Heb 4:1-2
4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

Again believers are addressed as “us”, and unbelievers are called “them”. Those receiving the letter are those in whom faith has mixed with Grace in hearing the Gospel. According to the systematic model, when faith meets with grace in the hearing of the Gospel, the hearer is regenerated. And yet, you claim the unregenerate cannot fail to reach God’s rest?

We are in agreement about the fate of those who reject Christ, but if you look at the following verses, you can see that the writer is not referring to unbelievers:

Heb 6:10-12
10 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Do you believe that the unregenerate serve the saints for the sake of Jesus?

Do you believe that those who begin with Christ will realize the full assurance of hope in the end? Your systematic theology claims that one who is united to Christ cannot fail to attain this hope. So you can’t have it both ways. Either they are unbelievers, or they are believers, for whom it is possible to fail to inherit the promises.

…and he still does not see that it is “hope,” “Faith,” perseverence and “inheritence” of “promises.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It appears that many are checking this out on Thanksgiving. I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving! In America we DO have MUCH to be thankful for!

In post #839, guanophore has given a thoughtful response to my commentary on Hebrew 6:4-8. I will work on a response to that since I think he is incorrect on several points.

Regards, OldProf

Happy (Biblical) Thanksgiving to you too!

…and it’s only your word on guanophore not being correct!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is proof that Old Prof is trying convert catholics!

…much like the Jehovah Witnesses who want to “share” Scriptures with Catholics… what Catholics need to do is become convicted of their Faith by studying Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church!

…you can’t shapren a knife by storing it away… it must be worked with a whetstone (or a more technically advanced method)!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

This is proof that Old Prof is trying convert catholics!

I don’t see how you got this conclusion out of that post. Of course OP is going to think his own sources back up his doctrine better…

The Apostolic faith is not derived peicemeal by cobbling together verses. It is handed down whole and entire, in such a way that makes sense of the entire Scripture.

Anyone who is “impressed” by Calvin would do well to follow up. One of the reasons evangelical churches are so successful in sucking up Catholics is because most don’t know their faith well. I know I didn’t. But it quickly became clear to me that Calvanism simply does not explain the facts.

 

[roamingcatholic]

An friend alerted me to an article by this title on an evangelical website that specifically mentions Catholic Answers and I thought a few knowledgeable people might want to go over & weigh in on the discussion in a non-polemical way.
(Edited to remove link as per CAF Policy)

Tim

 

[tqualey]

Hi, October baby,

We really can not judge intentions. His words, however, truly fall short if ‘converting Catholics’ is the goal. Seriously, it is beyond me how would think he could change anyone’s mind when all he has done is simply pour out his bag of ‘assorted verses’ that do not address the issue on those posts he decides to address, and ignores or dismisses the others. In my opinon, avoiding an issue has yet to win a debate in any area.

The snag comes in, I guess, with him knowing this - but being unable to do anything about it without rejecting his assorted false claims. My hope is that he will see this intellectual impotence for just what it is - ideas based on a bankrupt theosophy. The hallmark of the disciplined mind is going where the facts lead - and not sending the facts to some pre-determined destination.

The ancient Greeks knew about the evils of such mischief - and came up with a story to illustrate the point with a mythical bandit named Procrustes. He had his idea of reality firmly in mind - and when he came upon a victim (facts that did not agree with his view of reality) he would first rob it of anything of value - and then put the victim on a ‘bed’ that conformed to the bandit’s idea of reality. Victims (facts) that exceeded his deviated view of reality were made to fit - either they were cut to match - or stretched to fit - but in the end, the Procrustean Bed prevented genuine reality from presenting itself.

What remains is on these posts for all to see - a truly singular display of defeated arguments and failed opportunities to actually met our ideas head-on. But you know, I still think there is hope left! You see, he keeps coming back - never to engage… but to tell us how hard he is working or to extend pleasatries like ‘Happy Thanksgiving’, etc. He just can’t quite quit the thread - and I really see that as a positive sign. His arguments have been left to hemorrhage and I think this is recognized - painful as it is. Prayers are really in order, October Baby.

God bless

This is proof that Old Prof is trying convert catholics!

 

[Nita]

An friend alerted me to an article by this title on an evangelical website that specifically mentions Catholic Answers and I thought a few knowledgeable people might want to go over & weigh in on the discussion in a non-polemical way.
(Edited to remove link as per CAF Policy)

Tim

I am too short on time right now to go into it in depth. I did read far enough to realize that the author does not know the Catholic understanding of the grace that saves us (we call it sanctifying grace.)

You will find it very helpful to read the Article in the Catechism of the Catholic Church titled “Grace and Justification”. It’s not that long (paragraphs 1987 - 2011)
The Article starts here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM

Here are a couple paragraphs where sanctifying grace is explained:vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Z.HTM
#1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of **his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul **to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.(cf. 2 Cor 5:17-18

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Please note that Catholics recognize 2 basic categories or types of grace:

1. Habitual grace (This refers to sanctifying grace only.)
2. Actual grace (There are various actual graces.)
   I don’t think most Protestants believe in - or even know about - sanctifying grace. So when a Protestant and Catholic start talking about saving grace, they usually mean 2 different things; and this, of course, causes a lot of misunderstanding and confusion.

Just a couple of Scripture passages that express the reality of sanctifying grace - it’s essence - that it is a share in the supernatural life of God infused into us:

2 Peter 1:4 …by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him …

Ephesians 4:18 …they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God.

There are many other verses that address the effects of this grace.

 

[capablanca911]

It depends on what is meant by assurance. If you mean we are assured of our salvation at the end of our life, no. This is because we don’t know if we might reject the faith at the last second.

We do have assurance that if we are faithful to the Church, then we will be saved.

Calvinists and Arminian theologists use the same term sometimes in different ways.

Look at the Catholic doctrine of final perseverance. That comes close to assurance.

 

[geekborj]

An friend alerted me to an article by this title on an evangelical website that specifically mentions Catholic Answers and I thought a few knowledgeable people might want to go over & weigh in on the discussion in a non-polemical way.
(Edited to remove link as per CAF Policy)

Tim

From the article, the author wrote:

…what Christians since the time of Christ have believed the Bible teaches regarding eternal life and the assurance of salvation…

. How come Christians already has the Bible since the time of Christ?

To go straight to the point: He seems to be arguing against “faith + work” (catholic) vs. “living faith” (Bible Christians). I believe that both are right given the correct context. His arguments against the Catholic Faith is unfounded.

St. James wrote: “I shall show you my faith through my works” James 2:18]

So can Catholics have the assurance of salvation? Yes….but only when they believe what the Bible teaches about salvation.

Catholics believe what the Bible teaches about salvation. That is why, she believes in telling the truth and cannot lie in her doctrines about the Faith and morals. To know the truth, follow the lies. More “lies” in the source of Catholic doctrines in the Vatican website! Why just depend on one side (anti-catholic)?

The Bible is inerrant…the enormous religious organization based in Rome is not…and neither are the human organizations which many Bible Christians identify as their denomination.

Then how can we ALL be assured of a faith or belief? How can we depend on the promise of an Advocate/Paraclete that will show us all truth, even those not shared by Christ before Ascension? How can the promise of Christ be true: “I will be with you, until the end of times.”? If the “religious organization based in Rome” is not inerrant when it comes to faith and morals, then how can Jesus promise a Holy Spirit that will guide us to all truth?

Jesus is infallible…the pope is not.

The Pope, the Office of St. Peter (vs. Office of Judas Escariot, cf. Acts 1:20ff,25,27), according to Catholic doctrine is the primary Guardian of the Catholic Faith, among other roles — given the Keys of Heaven and of Earth to bind and release in truth (both Heaven and Earth shall agree! In fact, if Peter agrees, the Heaven agrees!).

The Gospel is for all people, and no human organization can stop people from believing the truth. But a religious organization can sure muddy the waters by teaching that there is no absolute assurance of salvation.

It all ends up whether such statement is a lie or not. If anyone says that he is sure in salvation, let him stand up and call upon God. But as mere creatures, we cannot assert to our Creator. Truly, it can only be through God’s benevolence (a.k.a. “grace”) that we can be saved.

For me, “faith” that “Bible Christians” propose, are simply works: “my faith in Jesus”, “my faith in the Bible”, etc. Thus, being boastful of our “faith”, is actually being boastful of the works.

Only God, by grace, can give us true faith. So catholics pray, everyday: “Lord, increase our faith.”

 

[Lifesong]

It strikes me as a convert that it is really the language of our respective views which gets in the way. As a Methodist I trusted in Jesus and as a Catholic I pray the Divine Mercy and my trust in Jesus is even deeper and stronger. What I now know as cooperation with grace was what I called and still call the workings of the Holy Spirit in my life. Why I am Catholic is that only the Church has the full deposit of truth- this gentleman who I believe is a well meaning servant of Christ has not yet had revealed to him how the first Christians really worshipped which was Eucharist centered and yes Baptism following repentance not just repentance and faith alone. The truth of the sacraments brought me to the Church and every day I pray for Christian unity because we need each other in this increasingly secular world which opposes Christ.

Blessings,

Val