Assurance of Salvation

[fbl9]

OP: “Sinners who go to heaven go because Jesus paid the punishment for their sins. They have the righteousness of God.”

And you say:

And this is easy to answer. What do you think a Christian with the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) will do when they realize their old, worldly nature has gotten the better of them and they have sinned - they have been unrighteous?
They will be sorry, of course, and they will REPENT. Isn’t this EXACTLY what the Bible says? I keep emphasizing 1 John, that little letter that has so much to say.

“6 If we say we have **fellowship with him **while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” 1 John 1:6-10

Christian’s sin. They don’t want to, but they do. When they do they are sorry. They realize that old, worldly nature has won again and they have sinned against God. They repent and turn away from their path of sin. They confess their sins to the one mediator, Jesus Christ.

“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John 2:1

“31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” Romans 8:31-34

We “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17), so we know God and we know when we fall short of Christ’s righteousness. This is a battle that rages in us in this fallen world.

Don’t you ever do that? I’ve done that while driving - a sinful thought that I recognize for what it is and I pray then and there and confess that sin. I’ve heard many Christians provide this type of testimony. That sensitivity to sin is an evidence that we are Christians and that Christ is in us (2 Corinthians 13:5).

I guess the other part of your question is in regards to punishment in this life. Hebrews 12:3-11 shows us that God loves us enough to not ignore our sins. We Christians can certainly can expect God to discipline us when we sin, which is a good reason to confess those sins as soon as possible.

Regards, OldProf

yet while being unrightous one is still saved, makes no sense.
yet we still have fellowship with Him when in sin, no we are lying when we say we have felowship with Him when we are in sin. Your own verses tell us that.So how is that you are saved yet not in fellowship with Him.

The price has been paid. You wouldn’t like it if you paid for something and the manufacturer came along and said hey i need more for that.

The price has been paid yet God will extract extra???

 

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10067290&postcount=890

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Angel,

You know … this is one of the areas that really bothers me - simple comprehension seems to get lost because of the agenda one must have in reading anything while maintaiing ‘OSAS’ firmly in mind.

In reading all of 1John 2 (veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_John_2) there are a number of conditional statements - statements that contain** “IF”**… “if this then that” is what is being said. There can be no ‘assurance’ with a conditional statement - and we find ourselves back to simple understanding.

There are a number of demands that Christ makes on His followers - both then and now.

** “IF”** we claim to love Christ then we remain faithful to His teaching (John 8, John 14)

** “IF”** we hear His voice we are to DO something - and that is follow Him (John 10). We show our love for Christ by keeping His Commandments.

** “IF”** we Christ’s disciples, then we are to love one another (John 13)

John is really quite clear with all of the ** “IFs”** he uses - there is no ‘assurance’ - but, there is a PROMISE. God is faithful and will keep His Word **IF AND ONLY IF **we DO what He says.

The TULIP author I previously quoted falsely claimed that Catholics teach that they are saved by their ‘WORKS’. We are saved by God’s Grace AND our cooperation with it! I submit that this is the only way to understand the ** “IF”** statements used by John. To claim that an ** “IF”** statement grants ‘assurance’ is to totally lose sight of comprehension. And, that is a problem

“OSAS” is a heresy that demands that the reader of Scripture disregard the words that are there and inject their own traditions of men in their place.

God bless

Hi, Tom!

I fully concur with you!

…what is perplexing to me is that some of these people are quite intelligent… yet they get hanged up on terminologies and human understandings… they remove the Holy Spirit as Guide of the only Church established by Christ… and their temerity goes as far as claiming personal revelations of the Holy Spirit to establish their dogmas; they reject/ignore Scriptures whenever their convictions are not validated by God’s Word… and they even boast of systems that are much too elavorate for common understanding… they see anti-Christian teaching whenever they meet with Church Doctrine and they ignore division and pseudo Christian teachings wherever their convictions find supporting elements…

Sadly, they remind me of those very unfortunate people who committed suicide under the conviction that they would reach a higher plane if they exited temporal earth’s existence (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven’s_Gate_(religious_group)–they based some of their belief on a “revelation” of a Biblical passage while ignoring all other Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Tom, see what you say above, and see what I have written previously on this thread more than once:

*According to Paul, we need to examine ourselves (2 Cor 13:5). Am I a true Christian who can be assured of eternal life? From the Bible, I can see the following evidences regarding a person who says, “I am a Christian.”

Evidence List 1:

A. VISIBLE MORALITY
B. INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE
C. RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT
D. ACTIVE MINISTRY
E. CONVICTION OF SIN
F. ASSURANCE
G. TIME OF DECISION

Evidence List 2:

A. LOVE FOR GOD
B. REPENTANCE FROM SIN
C. GENUINE HUMILITY
D. DEVOTION TO GOD’S GLORY
E. CONTINUAL PRAYER
F. SELFLESS LOVE
G. SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD
H. SPIRITUAL GROWTH
I. OBEDIENT LIVING

If list 1 is true, but not list 2, then I cannot tell if that person is a professing Christian, or if they are Christian, but such a babe in Christ that they haven’t matured to list 2.

If list 2 is true, then list 1 will also be true. List 2 “fruits” will persevere in the Christian.*

Please notice 2B this time when you are tempted to think that I apparently don’t believe in repentance. We all know the if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved, for the Bible tells us that. For a test for true Christians, List 2 will be true and it includes List 1. True Christians WILL persevere to the end. I really think we should be able to agree on this.

Regards, OldProf

OldProf… where’s that Biblical passage where St. Paul states that we must examine ourselves to see if we are true Christians who have obtained assurance of Eternal Salvation?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I hope you all realize that if you are not saved, then OSAS is not an issue. That is why I give the evidence lists. They have Scriptural backing. The conditional statements will nicely compare to the evidence lists.

1 John has conditional statements and then John, the Apostle, says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13.

That is assurance. Seems pretty clear. The whole context of 1 John works toward this bold summary statement. That is why I think the assurance of salvation is a biblical doctrine.

Regards, OldProf

…haven’t we gone through this before?:

16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that is not a deadly sin, he has only to pray, and God will give life to this brother – provided that it is not a deadly sin. There is sin that leads to death and I am not saying you must pray about that. 17 Every kind of wickedness is sin, but not all sin leads to death. 18 We are well aware that no one who is a child of God sins, because he who was born from God protects him, and the Evil One has no hold over him. 19 We are well aware that we are from God, and the whole world is in the power of the Evil One. 20 We are well aware also that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know the One who is true. We are in the One who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life. Children, be on your guard against false gods. (1 St. John 5:16-20)

OldProf, Christ is the only assurance of Eternal Salvation; those who sin a sin that lead to death cannot have Christ in them and remain as you claim “eternally saved.” Further, why would St. John caution about keeping our guards up against false gods if, as you claim, the Believers are assured that they have been granted Eternal Salvation–does using black paint to paint over a surface that has already been painted with that exact black paint make any sense… let’s take it closer to your field: would teaching the same engineering course to a person that just graduated from “x” field improve his already achieved (magna cum laude) Masters Degree in that “x” field? (remember I’m pedestrian so I might be out of range in these accomplishments)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Obviously my point was that repentance is evident in Christians and inconsistent with guanophore’s experience. The Theopedia site clearly demonstrated that fact.

Tom and guanophore, perhaps we have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the evidence lists. What I have found interesting is that the folks following and commenting on this thread had made statements that I look at and ask, why did they even say that? Isn’t it clear from Scripture (where the evidence list comes from) that if a person does that then the “evidence” says they are not a Christian.

For example. If a “professing” Christian says to me, “I don’t have to repent because I have the righteousness of Christ and am saved, so once saved always saved. I am free to sin all I want and enjoy it and I’ll still go on to heaven. No worries.”

I would tell them that they should not think they are a Christian, because the Bible says they need to repent of their sins, they need to be obedient to love God and love their neighbor, that good works not sin demonstrate true believers. Plenty of Scriptures tell us that, and that is the normal behavior of Christians. I would tell them to examine themselves to make sure they really are a Christian, because with that attitude they are demonstrating that they are not saved at all. They are in the world on the wide road to destruction.

From the other spectrum, say that I become a Roman Catholic. I will have my friends come to me and say, “Come on, let’s just sit down and go through 1 John.” And we’ll sit down and they’ll say,

“Do you agree with that verse.”
“Yes.”
“And that one?”
“Oh yes!”
“And that one too?”
“Certainly, yes!”

And on and on. During this time we’ll discuss context. There will be a lot of “yes’s” and likely total agreement.

But then we’ll get to 1 John 5:13. That is where I’ll have to say that I really cannot “know” that I will have eternal life in heaven or that “the evil one does not touch” me (1 John 5:18) because that would be the sin of presumption. I have a heavenly hope, but will only find out that I’m going to heaven for sure after I have died. This will create a lot of discussion on the doctrine of salvation.

This will happen to me if I convert.

So, it is obvious that I will have to have a strong understanding of the RC arguments regarding the proper interpretation of 1 John chapter 5 (not to mention other NT verses pertaining to salvation and election and freewill and predestination). We are to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Got to go.

Regards, OldProf

OldProf, maybe there’s been a misunderstanding… from this particular post you seem to agree with Catholic understanding of Eternal Salvation: we are Saved in Christ–apart from Christ there’s no Salvation… so as Children of God we have assurance that we belong to Christ through abiding in Christ; that rejecting evil and embracing God is the beginning of this Fellowship where we become part of the “elect” and “sheep” and “Disciples of Christ.” Further, you have acknowledged that a Child of God would show evidence of his/her standing not by embracing sin and the wickedness of the past but by producing good works (not because works Save), which is what St. Paul designate as the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5, 6, Ephesians 6)…

If this is your understanding, we may be standing closer than I thought…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Angel,

Previously, I had spoken about a ‘comprehension’ problem with you - where clearly written scripture goes through the process of ‘personal interpretation’ so that the words no longer mean what they say - and are actually turned on their head.

Maybe, it’s contageous … and, I caught it!

I really did read what OldProf wrote…several times! And, I thought to myself, “Self, what is this guy saying now and why doesn’t it fit what his numerous posts to the contrary - especially when statements like, ‘If you do not believe in ‘OSAS’, it does not matter’ are of such recent vintage?” So, believe me when I say, I am eager to hear what he has to say.

From my understanding of his previous posts - it would simply be inconsistent to renounce Calvin’s position of ‘Double Predestination’ - not only does God know and allow all that comes into being, BUT that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned - having nothing to do with their Free Will. Recall, OldProf has denied God’s Gift of Free Will - and, by the way, freely chose not to respond to my request for him to simply provide his own definition of free will. I’m not here to play any games, and I have attempted to be as clear as I can be on this issue.

Our cooperation with God’s Grace is meaningless if we are already one of the ‘Sheep’. As Catholics we believe we have a real responsibility to cooperate with Grace and not turn away from God though the free choice of mortal sin. So, when it comes to 1Tim 2:4, I really do believe that, ‘God wills the salvation of all men’. So when it comes to the teachings of the Catholic Church:

Man has freedom and responsibility:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

God predestinations no one to hell
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art12.html

So, if OldProf has had a sudden change of heart - hey, that is great! But, I am not really convinced on that point. Simply stated, let me invite him to clearly repudiate Calvinism and its ‘OSAS’/‘AoS’ doctrine - as he would have to do to stay with his last statement as we understand him OR just tell us that we are wrong, we misunderstood him and he is not repudiating Calvinism’s rejection of free will and personal responsibility to cooperate with God’s Grace by rejecting sin. There is no reason - and certainly no time - to play word games and hide in ambiguity.

What do you say, OldProf - have you made this radical change … or … not?

God bless

OldProf, maybe there’s been a misunderstanding… from this particular post you seem to agree with Catholic understanding of Eternal Salvation: we are Saved in Christ–apart from Christ there’s no Salvation… so as Children of God we have assurance that we belong to Christ through abiding in Christ; that rejecting evil and embracing God is the beginning of this Fellowship where we become part of the “elect” and “sheep” and “Disciples of Christ.” Further, you have acknowledged that a Child of God would show evidence of his/her standing not by embracing sin and the wickedness of the past but by producing good works (not because works Save), which is what St. Paul designate as the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5, 6, Ephesians 6)…

If this is your understanding, we may be standing closer than I thought…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Angel,

Previously, I had spoken about a ‘comprehension’ problem with you - where clearly written scripture goes through the process of ‘personal interpretation’ so that the words no longer mean what they say - and are actually turned on their head.

Maybe, it’s contageous … and, I caught it!

I really did read what OldProf wrote…several times! And, I thought to myself, “Self, what is this guy saying now and why doesn’t it fit what his numerous posts to the contrary - especially when statements like, ‘If you do not believe in ‘OSAS’, it does not matter’ are of such recent vintage?” So, believe me when I say, I am eager to hear what he has to say.

From my understanding of his previous posts - it would simply be inconsistent to renounce Calvin’s position of ‘Double Predestination’ - not only does God know and allow all that comes into being, BUT that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned - having nothing to do with their Free Will. Recall, OldProf has denied God’s Gift of Free Will - and, by the way, freely chose not to respond to my request for him to simply provide his own definition of free will. I’m not here to play any games, and I have attempted to be as clear as I can be on this issue.

Our cooperation with God’s Grace is meaningless if we are already one of the ‘Sheep’. As Catholics we believe we have a real responsibility to cooperate with Grace and not turn away from God though the free choice of mortal sin. So, when it comes to 1Tim 2:4, I really do believe that, ‘God wills the salvation of all men’. So when it comes to the teachings of the Catholic Church:

Man has freedom and responsibility:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

God predestinations no one to hell
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art12.html

So, if OldProf has had a sudden change of heart - hey, that is great! But, I am not really convinced on that point. Simply stated, let me invite him to clearly repudiate Calvinism and its ‘OSAS’/‘AoS’ doctrine - as he would have to do to stay with his last statement as we understand him OR just tell us that we are wrong, we misunderstood him and he is not repudiating Calvinism’s rejection of free will and personal responsibility to cooperate with God’s Grace by rejecting sin. There is no reason - and certainly no time - to play word games and hide in ambiguity.

What do you say, OldProf - have you made this radical change … or … not?

God bless

Hi, Tom!

…yeah, I do have the tendency to seem conflicting… so I am always willing to clarify any misunderstandings… :yup::nope::yup:

I too reread OldProf’s post… it seemed, a large important chunk of it, quite Catholic… so I felt the need to extrapolate and restate, in a more condensed form, what I believe OldProf means to state…

I also felt the need to extend a welcoming hand because he has accentuated that he does believe that we must abide in Christ as the means to Salvation and that we must repudiate sin… again, as pedestrian as I am, this sounds very much Catholic and voids/nuetralizes/immunizes that predestination issue/s… I also know, from personal encounters, that people do not give up easily on their convictions (just check the early Church) and when some of their belief system overlaps with Catholicism they have the hard choice to either continue their trek to the Full Communion with the Body of Christ or back track, sometimes with extreme prejudice…

It is my most fervent prayer that the Holy Spirit enlighten us all so that we truly can become one Body as Jesus has Commanded.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[OldProf]

Sorry I haven’t posted much this week - very busy with work.

Here is an old joke:

---

In 1943 a young Lieutenant and his General board a train in England and have to sit in a small coach room across from a pretty young woman and her rather stern looking grandmother. It is clear from the slight glances and minimal small talk between the Lieutenant the young woman that they are “interested” in each other, and somewhat smitten.

Alas, the train enters a tunnel, and within a few seconds what is heard is the sound of a kiss and a sharp slap. As they come out of the tunnel, each has their own silent thoughts.

The young woman thinks, “How nice and bold it was of the Lieutenant kiss me, but I’m sorry that my Grandmother had to slap him!”

The grandmother thinks, “How impertinent of that young Lieutenant to kiss my granddaughter, but I’m proud that she had the courage to slap him for it!”

The General thinks, “I’m proud of my Lieutenant that he had the courage to kiss that young girl, but why did she have to miss and slap me?”

The young Lieutenant, the only one who knew what really happened, thinks, “What a great day! I got to kiss this pretty young girl and slap my General at the same time!”

---

I use this joke to make a point. The fact is that we all have blind spots and can easily jump to conclusions when we don’t have all the facts. This is a related form of miscommunication. On this thread I’ve been told that I’ve got my “Calvin” glasses on which is why I believe or don’t understand something. I’ve been told, like in posts above, that I’m being inconsistent in my arguments.

Well, I don’t think I am, and, in fact, the systematic theologian is trained to be very careful that you do not let bias color your interpretation of the Scriptures. You need to do “exegesis” to let the Scriptures speak in their context about the biblical doctrines.

Please take a look at Post #80 by JRKH on April 5th (page 6?). He also thought I sounded very “Catholic” in my #72 post. Have I not been consistent that I agree with the book of James regarding works? That a person isn’t even saved if they live a life with little regard for Jesus and being obedient to knowing and following Him?

The question that came up early is how can you tell if someone IS a Christian. And I provided the evidence lists. But I also believe your joy should be “full” or “complete” and you should have an “assurance of your salvation.” I really do believe I’m being completely consistent.

“And we are now writing these things to you so that our joy [in seeing you included] may be full [and your joy may be complete].” (1 John 1:4, Amplified Bible)

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, Amplified Bible)

When mortal sin hangs over your head, how can your joy be full or complete? Doesn’t that dampen joy?

Regards, OldProf

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

Interesting.

As I see it you had three opportunities to make an appropriate choice:

1.) Avoid the ‘temptation’ to slight your work assignment by devoting that time to this thread on CAF.

2.) Avoid the ‘temptation’ to provide ‘old jokes’ (again, your work assignment calls to you!)

3.) Avoid the ‘temptation’ to unleash another set of Scriptural quotes that do not apply to the matter under discussion.

Maybe you wound up picking the worst aspect of each - and actually ‘gave in to temptation’! Please, let us return to focus.

As I recall, (and, maybe you remember this, too! ) you were quite delighted at the prospect of debating Guanophore - but, you still have not engaged in a direct address of the matters under debate. You are not directly addressing the issues I have raised - and I am just wondering what it is you are doing. On-going avoidance is a waste of everyone’s time - and it is doing precious little for the credibility of your position.

Finish your work, avoid old jokes - and with this new-found time - directly engage at least one of the ideas that bring ‘OSAS’ to the trash heap of theology and history.

God bless

Sorry I haven’t posted much this week - very busy with work.

Here is an old joke:

---

In 1943 a young Lieutenant and his General board a train in England and have to sit in a small coach room across from a pretty young woman and her rather stern looking grandmother. It is clear from the slight glances and minimal small talk between the Lieutenant the young woman that they are “interested” in each other, and somewhat smitten.

Alas, the train enters a tunnel, and within a few seconds what is heard is the sound of a kiss and a sharp slap. As they come out of the tunnel, each has their own silent thoughts.

The young woman thinks, “How nice and bold it was of the Lieutenant kiss me, but I’m sorry that my Grandmother had to slap him!”

The grandmother thinks, “How impertinent of that young Lieutenant to kiss my granddaughter, but I’m proud that she had the courage to slap him for it!”

The General thinks, “I’m proud of my Lieutenant that he had the courage to kiss that young girl, but why did she have to miss and slap me?”

The young Lieutenant, the only one who knew what really happened, thinks, “What a great day! I got to kiss this pretty young girl and slap my General at the same time!”

---

I use this joke to make a point. The fact is that we all have blind spots and can easily jump to conclusions when we don’t have all the facts. This is a related form of miscommunication. On this thread I’ve been told that I’ve got my “Calvin” glasses on which is why I believe or don’t understand something. I’ve been told, like in posts above, that I’m being inconsistent in my arguments.

Well, I don’t think I am, and, in fact, the systematic theologian is trained to be very careful that you do not let bias color your interpretation of the Scriptures. You need to do “exegesis” to let the Scriptures speak in their context about the biblical doctrines.

Please take a look at Post #80 by JRKH on April 5th (page 6?). He also thought I sounded very “Catholic” in my #72 post. Have I not been consistent that I agree with the book of James regarding works? That a person isn’t even saved if they live a life with little regard for Jesus and being obedient to knowing and following Him?

The question that came up early is how can you tell if someone IS a Christian. And I provided the evidence lists. But I also believe your joy should be “full” or “complete” and you should have an “assurance of your salvation.” I really do believe I’m being completely consistent.

“And we are now writing these things to you so that our joy [in seeing you included] may be full [and your joy may be complete].” (1 John 1:4, Amplified Bible)

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, Amplified Bible)

When mortal sin hangs over your head, how can your joy be full or complete? Doesn’t that dampen joy?

Regards, OldProf

 

[Philthy]

I’ve been told, like in posts above, that I’m being inconsistent in my arguments. Well, I don’t think I am

Your thoughts regarding whether you are being inconsistent aren’t relevant to the discussion, are they? They don’t add any credibility to your actual position. It is your ability to accurately, pointedly and forcefully defend your position against those who disagree with you that matters.

, and, in fact, the systematic theologian is trained to be very careful that you do not let bias color your interpretation of the Scriptures. You need to do “exegesis” to let the Scriptures speak in their context about the biblical doctrines.

You are kidding, right? I mean, unless you are prepared to claim that all “systematic theologians”, based on their training “to be very careful that (they) don’t let bias” color their interpretations actually arrive at the same theological positions, then what does this claim imply exactly? Does it imply they arrive at true theology? No it doesn’t. Does it mean they don’t allow bias to enter their theology despite the warning and training they’ve received? Not at all. Case in point: I’ve read Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” cover to cover and debated virtually every page with a group of Evangelical friends. The systematic theologians covered in that volume alone hold more contrary theological positions on basic issues than can be counted on one hand. If your claim that systematic theological training to avoid bias somehow bolsters the strength of your position, then you are sadly mistaken. Meeting the rigors of defense against those who feel as strongly about their positions as your own is the time tested method of proving a point. To that end I would say that you have come up short…

Blessings!

 

[jcrichton]

I use this joke to make a point. The fact is that we all have blind spots and can easily jump to conclusions when we don’t have all the facts. This is a related form of miscommunication. On this thread I’ve been told that I’ve got my “Calvin” glasses on which is why I believe or don’t understand something. I’ve been told, like in posts above, that I’m being inconsistent in my arguments.

Well, I don’t think I am, and, in fact, the systematic theologian is trained to be very careful that you do not let bias color your interpretation of the Scriptures. You need to do “exegesis” to let the Scriptures speak in their context about the biblical doctrines.

Please take a look at Post #80 by JRKH on April 5th (page 6?). He also thought I sounded very “Catholic” in my #72 post. Have I not been consistent that I agree with the book of James regarding works? That a person isn’t even saved if they live a life with little regard for Jesus and being obedient to knowing and following Him?

The question that came up early is how can you tell if someone IS a Christian. And I provided the evidence lists. But I also believe your joy should be “full” or “complete” and you should have an “assurance of your salvation.” I really do believe I’m being completely consistent.

“And we are now writing these things to you so that our joy [in seeing you included] may be full [and your joy may be complete].” (1 John 1:4, Amplified Bible)

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, Amplified Bible)

When mortal sin hangs over your head, how can your joy be full or complete? Doesn’t that dampen joy?

Regards, OldProf

Hi, OldProf!

…you did seem to understand Catholic theology in the post I mentioned… you express exegesis… but exegesis does not mean fully and completely clearly understood; rather, it means “critical” explanation/interpretation… so if your exegesis is based on a baised understanding so will your explanation/interpretation…

Let’s take your second to last statement:

When mortal sin hangs over your head, how can your joy be full or complete? Doesn’t that dampen joy?

Yes! That’s why Yahweh God Calls us to Be Perfect! That’s why Christ Tells us that our Righteousness must be greater than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees (St. James translates it to: ‘…be doers of the Word not just listeners…’

Sin separates us from God… the problem, I find, between your theology and Catholic theology is not sin but the perception you have… “hangs over!”

The Church is not keeping you or anyone else from Eternal Salvation! Sin is what will keep you and everyone else from Eternal Salvation.

Your theology, if I understand it correctly from your posts, claims that you cannot lose Salvation becuase you are the “elect” and “the sheep” and have been granted the status of “Eternally Saved;” it is this very understanding that will keep you from joining those placed on the Right when Jesus takes tally: those who embrace sin and minimalize their obligations (as the bad servant who abused what was left in his charge or the lazy one whose best efforts were to bury the one talent given him) while claiming Jesus as their personal exonerative agent will be rejected and ejected as Christ will firmly tell them: “I never Knew you!”

The Church is warning me, and the rest of humanity, that my Salvation is Eternally granted in Jesus but that I have to abide in Him so that He may Abide in me and that, as Jesus Commands, I (we) must persevere till the end!

Sin, OldProf, is your enemy not Catholic Doctrine!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Philthy,

Outstanding!

I’d say very short…

God bless

Your thoughts regarding whether you are being inconsistent aren’t relevant to the discussion, are they? They don’t add any credibility to your actual position. It is your ability to accurately, pointedly and forcefully defend your position against those who disagree with you that matters.

You are kidding, right? I mean, unless you are prepared to claim that all “systematic theologians”, based on their training “to be very careful that (they) don’t let bias” color their interpretations actually arrive at the same theological positions, then what does this claim imply exactly? Does it imply they arrive at true theology? No it doesn’t. Does it mean they don’t allow bias to enter their theology despite the warning and training they’ve received? Not at all. Case in point: I’ve read Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” cover to cover and debated virtually every page with a group of Evangelical friends. The systematic theologians covered in that volume alone hold more contrary theological positions on basic issues than can be counted on one hand. If your claim that systematic theological training to avoid bias somehow bolsters the strength of your position, then you are sadly mistaken. Meeting the rigors of defense against those who feel as strongly about their positions as your own is the time tested method of proving a point. To that end I would say that you have come up short…

Blessings!

 

[OldProf]

Your thoughts regarding whether you are being inconsistent aren’t relevant to the discussion, are they? They don’t add any credibility to your actual position. It is your ability to accurately, pointedly and forcefully defend your position against those who disagree with you that matters.

You are kidding, right? I mean, unless you are prepared to claim that all “systematic theologians”, based on their training “to be very careful that (they) don’t let bias” color their interpretations actually arrive at the same theological positions, then what does this claim imply exactly? Does it imply they arrive at true theology? No it doesn’t. Does it mean they don’t allow bias to enter their theology despite the warning and training they’ve received? Not at all. Case in point: I’ve read Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” cover to cover and debated virtually every page with a group of Evangelical friends. The systematic theologians covered in that volume alone hold more contrary theological positions on basic issues than can be counted on one hand. If your claim that systematic theological training to avoid bias somehow bolsters the strength of your position, then you are sadly mistaken. Meeting the rigors of defense against those who feel as strongly about their positions as your own is the time tested method of proving a point. To that end I would say that you have come up short…

Blessings!

Re: “inconsistent arguments” - I’m just setting the record straight. I haven’t been inconsistent that I am aware of.

You make a good point that theological disagreements remain. I’ve been involved in discussions with Roman Catholics that do not agree with the ecumenical statements of Vatican II and what they say about evangelizing the “good Jew” or “good Muslim.” My point is that we should try to recognize our bias and be as objective as possible when dealing with Scripture. The fact that you’ve read Grudem means you may understand me better than others on this thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)uts.

I’m working on what I hope is a thorough response to guanophore (Heb 6).

Regards, OldProf

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

Please, less art and more substance. If you are going to respond, please, just respond so we all can see what you have before we run out of time.

If I may be so bold … and suggest that you try a 100-word summary of Heb 6. This in no small measure would tell me exactly where you are coming from. By the way - I have already made such a summary, and will be happy to share with the thread so both can be compared. As I see it, all we are talking about is comprehension as to what has been written and just briefly presenting this material. Are you up for it?

God bess

Re: “inconsistent arguments” - I’m just setting the record straight. I haven’t been inconsistent that I am aware of.

You make a good point that theological disagreements remain. I’ve been involved in discussions with Roman Catholics that do not agree with the ecumenical statements of Vatican II and what they say about evangelizing the “good Jew” or “good Muslim.” My point is that we should try to recognize our bias and be as objective as possible when dealing with Scripture. The fact that you’ve read Grudem means you may understand me better than others on this thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)uts.

I’m working on what I hope is a thorough response to guanophore (Heb 6).

Regards, OldProf

 

[jcrichton]

Re: “inconsistent arguments” - I’m just setting the record straight. I haven’t been inconsistent that I am aware of.

You make a good point that theological disagreements remain. I’ve been involved in discussions with Roman Catholics that do not agree with the ecumenical statements of Vatican II and what they say about evangelizing the “good Jew” or “good Muslim.” My point is that we should try to recognize our bias and be as objective as possible when dealing with Scripture. The fact that you’ve read Grudem means you may understand me better than others on this thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)uts.

I’m working on what I hope is a thorough response to guanophore (Heb 6).

Regards, OldProf

…OlfProf… it seems that you forget that I’m quite pedestrian… what is that about Vatican II… it teaches that Catholics should adapt to all beliefs so that they can be “good Catholics?”

…we all have our personal preference… I don’t get gratuitous scenes in shows and movies… but small-minded producers and writers continue to employ them–should I then adapt to them an believe that they are a good thing?

Sacred Scriptures are not open to this sort of preferencial/selective treatment; we cannot mold them to mean what we want them to mean… that’s the difference between exegesis and eisegesis… and it does not depend upon how well read a person is (Vatican II and other sources)… it depends upon how determined the person is to hold on to erroneous conclusions based on personal understanding.

…you’ve offered your systematic approach; it has been refuted; I myself have offered way more ecumenism than you have as I have offered time again an opportunity for you to rethink your system and see Scriptures (all) for what God offers us not what man may want God to mean.

I offer you once more to reread my posts… pay close attention to Ezekiel 18… unless you think that God changes with time, you must agree that Yahweh God wants everyone to be Saved; then pay close attention to St. John 1:10-13… unless you think that Jesus is double-minded, you must agree that Jesus is the means by which all can be Saved… finally, play close attention to St. John 3:14-21… unless you believe that Christ was speaking only about the “elect”/“sheep”/“eternally saved,” you must agree that not all will choose Salvation and that all who turn to Christ and Believe (Christ’s terms not human) will be Saved!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Philthy]

Re: “inconsistent arguments” - I’m just setting the record straight. I haven’t been inconsistent that I am aware of.

I think we would all make the same claim!

You make a good point that theological disagreements remain.

I agree.

I’ve been involved in discussions with Roman Catholics that do not agree with the ecumenical statements of Vatican II and what they say about evangelizing the “good Jew” or “good Muslim.” My point is that we should try to recognize our bias and be as objective as possible when dealing with Scripture.

There are several fundamental differences however.

The documents of Vatican 2 are significantly clearer in style and language than much of Scripture

Interpreting Vatican 2 is not their job and they know it.

If they have a question it can go through the proper authoritative channels.

The fact that you’ve read Grudem means you may understand me better than others on this thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)uts.

Thanks…

I’m working on what I hope is a thorough response to guanophore (Heb 6).

I’ve learned quite a bit from him…you would do well to do the same.
Regards, OldProf

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Philthy,

I note that yours is post #912… and with mine being #913 (I guess) there are about 87 possible posts remaining in this thread. Considering how many of us have clearly identified that the type of ‘AoS’ that advocates of ‘OSAS’ proclaim is based on a denial of Free Will, enbrace of Double Predestination and adherence of personal interpretation of Scripture to mean whatever it is that fits the situation, we are simply looking at another tradition of men.

Previous efforts to support this heresy have fallen into the monotony of ignoring what has been said, dismissing criticism as unimportant, talking about other issues - and providing an abundance of Scripture that either totally misses the point or rely on skewed interpretations to appear relevant.

I don’t know about you, Philthy, but I have grown weary of this apparent topic avoidance and with so little time left - there will be no forthright response to the challenges many of have presented. Personally, I see this is very sad. My guess is that if someone believes something they are more then willing to tell you exactly why they believe it - and can respond to the objections presented by others. Now, it could ultimately conclude that, ‘You believe ‘x’ and I believe ‘y’ and that is as far as we can go’ - but this implies a frank and candid discussion of the issues. What I have seen today is someone telling us that there is a ‘Green house over ther pained blue - but, I know it is green!’

God really does know who will be with Him in Heavan and who will be in Hell. That was never in dispute. God also, ‘… wills the salvation of all men…’ (1Tim 2:4) but will not stand in the way of anyone’s choice to love Him or not. How these elements perfectly combine in the Oneness and Perfection of God is simply a mystery. Those who claim to be able to fully explain this are deceived or are deceiving others.

Over the years I have found many applications for the wise saying, “Pray like everything depends on God and work like everything depends on us!” We are not to engage in despair or presumption.

God bless

I think we would all make the same claim!

I agree.
There are several fundamental differences however.

The documents of Vatican 2 are significantly clearer in style and language than much of Scripture

Interpreting Vatican 2 is not their job and they know it.

If they have a question it can go through the proper authoritative channels.

Thanks…

I’ve learned quite a bit from him…you would do well to do the same.
Regards, OldProf

 

[fhansen]

Your thoughts regarding whether you are being inconsistent aren’t relevant to the discussion, are they? They don’t add any credibility to your actual position. It is your ability to accurately, pointedly and forcefully defend your position against those who disagree with you that matters.

You are kidding, right? I mean, unless you are prepared to claim that all “systematic theologians”, based on their training “to be very careful that (they) don’t let bias” color their interpretations actually arrive at the same theological positions, then what does this claim imply exactly? Does it imply they arrive at true theology? No it doesn’t. Does it mean they don’t allow bias to enter their theology despite the warning and training they’ve received? Not at all. Case in point: I’ve read Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” cover to cover and debated virtually every page with a group of Evangelical friends. The systematic theologians covered in that volume alone hold more contrary theological positions on basic issues than can be counted on one hand. If your claim that systematic theological training to avoid bias somehow bolsters the strength of your position, then you are sadly mistaken. Meeting the rigors of defense against those who feel as strongly about their positions as your own is the time tested method of proving a point. To that end I would say that you have come up short…

Blessings!

This is a good point. While systematic theology and other methods of applying reason to the study of scripture/theology can be beneficial and have been with us at least in rudimentary form since the beginnings of Christianity, even their modern usage in no way guarantees universal agreement. Ultimately the Catholic Church depends on no such methodology to arrive at her teachings; she simply received what she possesses and passes it on to the world. While she can defend and support her faith with a variety of means, that faith doesn’t proceed from those means. If it did, then her faith would be a moving target, she would arrive at a relatively crude and tenous and justifiably questionable set of beliefs. As it is, Catholics and non-Catholics may question her teachings, but they generally have little basis with which to support their opinions regardless of the method used to come to them. They simply lack the authority of one whose very history formed and dictated her faith.

 

[guanophore]

The fact is that we all have blind spots and can easily jump to conclusions when we don't have all the facts.

This is certainly true from a human point of view. However, Jesus did not leave us to figure out the essentials of our eternal souls with our “blind spots”. He revealed EVERYTHING we needed to the CHURCH, then protected her infallibly with His Holy Spirit, so that she would not err.

When people and groups depart from His Holy Bride, substituting their own rendition of the “facts” for divine revelation, then the blind spots continue to grow.

This is a related form of miscommunication. On this thread I've been told that I've got my "Calvin" glasses on which is why I believe or don't understand something. I've been told, like in posts above, that I'm being inconsistent in my arguments.

Well, I don’t think I am

Of course you don’t. And that is the nature of human blind spots. we don’t see ourselves as others see us. Those of us who are reading your posts can observe that you interpret the Scriptures through the lenses of Calvin, and that your arguements are inconsistent and do not reconcile large amonnts of scripture.

and, in fact, the systematic theologian is trained to be very careful that you do not let bias color your interpretation of the Scriptures. You need to do “exegesis” to let the Scriptures speak in their context about the biblical doctrines.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point. Our “context” however, differs. Catholics exegete from the point of view of those who penned the documents. They were written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. There is nothing in them that is not Catholic. But when they are removed from that context, all kinds of bizarre meanings can be assigned to them.

The question that came up early is how can you tell if someone IS a Christian. And I provided the evidence lists. But I also believe your joy should be "full" or "complete" and you should have an "assurance of your salvation." I really do believe I'm being completely consistent.

Of course you believe you are completely consistent. You seem like a devout and educated Christian, and if you could see how inconsistent you are, you might most likely do something to correct it. It is the nature of the blind spot that we do not realize we need to be corrected.

When mortal sin hangs over your head, how can your joy be full or complete? Doesn’t that dampen joy?

Absolutely. That is why it is necessary to RUN (don’t walk) to confession.