Assurance of Salvation

[fhansen]

So, if Paul tells me in Phil 3:7-14 his desire for Christ and pressing toward the goal, I understand it in the context of the Christian who, secure in his salvation per Phil 1:6 earlier, has the new nature to desire to know God and do works to glorify God. No doubt Paul was active in Christian ministry and apologetics - that is clear from Scripture.

I agree with this in essence. I agree that Paul knew himself to be a child of God, knew he’d been selected to play a special role, had been gifted with extremely profound revelations. But I’m saying that, even with all this Paul knew himself to be a servant; he was conscious of the fact that he must continue to do the work set before him, that he was responsible for what he did with his gift, that he must continue to strive, not merely for “rewards” but for justice’s sake, in order for him to remain in that state of justice/righteousness, living in the Spirit. There was still an onus, an obligation, related to humility, compelling him onward, even as he would’ve had great assurance that he was a child of God, remaining in His will.

Too much of what I see in today’s evangelicalism is a spiritual laziness born, I believe, from an over-confidence regarding one’s eternal status. At its extreme are those who seem to believe it’s virtually impossible-against the gospel- to believe that anything they do could cause them to compromise this status; they’d be slapping God in the face, in fact, if they ever doubted that Jesus would let them fall after they once placed their faith/trust in him. And this ends up being what some refer to as “fiducial faith”-actually having faith in ones’ own faith-that their faith is of the kind and quality that will save them no matter what. I believe this view can easily lead to making a mockery of God’s plan of salvation, a mockery of God.

 

[Abu]

Posts #59 and 61 demolish the error of feeling that “salvation is assured” and by none other than the great Sts. Peter and Paul.

Bur there is more.

OldProf #53
Jesus’ sheep, will never perish.

There is no blanket “assurance of salvation”, a horrendous fantasy.

As we’ve seen (post #61), St Paul explodes that myth again and again; now further:
“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).

God “will award to every man what his acts have deserved.” (Rom 2:6).

“The apostle notes that ‘there is a graciousness, then, in God, and there is also severity. His severity is for those who have fallen away, his graciousness is for thee, only so long as thou dost continue in His grace; if not, thou too shall be shalt be pruned away’ (Rom 11:22). Paul wrote this to people who were already ‘saved’, in a state of grace – a grace they could lose, becoming ‘unsaved’.

“Consider Romans 5:2: ‘We are confident in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God.’ If we….are now sure of heaven, and know nothing can deprive us of it, then we have no reason to hope because we know that heaven is ours. But ‘our salvation is founded on the hope of something’ says Paul. ‘Hope would not be hope at all if its object were in view; how could man still hope for something which he sees?’ (Rom 8:24). We hope for heaven, however well disposed we might be spiritually, because we know we still have a chance to lose it.” [Karl Keating, *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius 1988, p 174-5].

The Roman Catholic Church does teach that a person can be in a state of grace, meaning that they are a Christian, yet they can commit a mortal sin and die and perish.

If they die in mortal sin, correct. Being in a “state of grace” at death is not confined solely to being a baptised “Christian”.

 

[aragonjohn1]

www.defendingthebride.com is good too!

 

[jcrichton]

fhansen, I’ve responded to a few others and you might be interested in my “logic” on those. You mention your experience on other forums - I don’t do this much - the forums thing like this. Mostly I engage face to face. I want to find the most knowledgeable people with regards to what they believe. For example, I invited some Mormon elders to my home a few years back, and they started me on their canned study program. It wasn’t long before they had me speaking with “the man” - a retired UVA professor with two earned doctorates in engineering - the perfect guy for me, they thought (these young men, elders about 19 years old, did not know their own scriptures and history very well, so I got referred to someone who did).

This really OldProf and I did get along well, but it was the very consistency of my scriptural analysis (Bible teaches only one God, proper understanding of the Trinity, no possibility of attaining godhood, proven contradictions in Mormon scriptures) that put him off and demonstrated that he would not be consistent with his own scriptures. And, in reality, Mormons can’t be consistent and remain Mormons.

I also worked with a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, and I studied (about an hour a week for 7 years) with several Jehovah’s Witness elders (long time elders, like 20-40 years in JW service). I’ve learned a lot of Christian doctrine and Christian history through that.

My point is, when you tell me about passage conflicts, as above, it is imperative (at least to me) to systematically reconcile the conflict. So, verses in the Bible that tell us Christians will never perish, that they can be assured of their salvation, etc - see my other posts today - cannot really conflict with other biblical doctrines. So, if Paul tells me in Phil 3:7-14 his desire for Christ and pressing toward the goal, I understand it in the context of the Christian who, secure in his salvation per Phil 1:6 earlier, has the new nature to desire to know God and do works to glorify God. No doubt Paul was active in Christian ministry and apologetics - that is clear from Scripture.

Furthermore, if verses tell us to be obedient, do good works, etc., and a form of punishment make be a consequence, it is likely related to chastisement, such as a father would chastise a beloved child when they are disobedient, but not to the point of death or expelling the child from the family. Thus, we would expect chastisement for our sins, but not the loss of salvation. And we would expect encouragement and instruction to do good works and have a good witness to the world for our righteous bearing and works. But that is not to gain salvation. I see biblical consistency in that.

So, the bottom line is, regarding assurance, it does seem we can have an assurance and sin will not cause us the loss of salvation, but will bring chastisement.

Sincerely, OldProf

…again, that’s a very accommodating theology: do what you will you will not lose Salvation because it’s there in black and white!

Christ tells you that He will determine if you are to be placed on His Right or on His left… yeah, even those who, in His Name, performed the various signs that donotes fellowship with Christ ("…why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?"); Jesus’ own contempories religious elite received from Him chastisement and correction rather than praises for being legalists (both Oral and Written Word).

…as it’s been pointed out to you, the problem with legalism is that the individual/s tend to focus on a particular theme in Scriptures that support his/their preconceive theology, rejecting or ignoring everything else.

I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens your heart, mind and spirit so that you can Come to the Fold: the Body of Christ.

(FYI: I too have had intercourse with theologeans, pastors, Priests, scholars, a couple who professed to being bishops, and a wika or two [not counting the various mormons, muslims and Jehova witnesses, amongst others]–they packed up their themes and left no forwarding address!)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Angel, a person’s will is not for God and not good per Rom 3:10-28. All Christian’s are saved against their unrighteous will. They cannot do anything to gain their salvation because they are dead in the sins per Eph 2:1-9. Do we need to correct Paul?

And a Christian will abide in Christ. If they don’t, they’re not a Christian and never ever were a Christian. Isn’t that the teaching of Scripture?

But, assurance - yes, Jesus’ sheep never perish. And that IS good news!

Sincerely, OldProf

…I think you are confused… Salvation is not Granted against our desires (conscious willingness) to receive it; Salvation is Granted in spite of our affirmities (sinfulness); but if you or I or any “Christian” or non-Believer rejects Jesus’ Command to abide in Him so that He may Abide in us… well that person, OldProf or insipid pedestrian, will surely not partake of the Wedding of the Lamb!

…please, don’t be discoraged… assurance can be beat… just step into the Light (1 St. John 1:5-10) (…a play on Luke Skywalker’s quest–hoping for a little levety!)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[OldProf]

Posts #59 and 61 demolish the error of feeling that “salvation is assured” and by none other than the great Sts. Peter and Paul.

Bur there is more.
There is no blanket “assurance of salvation”, a horrendous fantasy.

As we’ve seen (post #61), St Paul explodes that myth again and again; now further:
“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).

God “will award to every man what his acts have deserved.” (Rom 2:6).

“The apostle notes that ‘there is a graciousness, then, in God, and there is also severity. His severity is for those who have fallen away, his graciousness is for thee, only so long as thou dost continue in His grace; if not, thou too shall be shalt be pruned away’ (Rom 11:22). Paul wrote this to people who were already ‘saved’, in a state of grace – a grace they could lose, becoming ‘unsaved’.

“Consider Romans 5:2: ‘We are confident in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God.’ If we….are now sure of heaven, and know nothing can deprive us of it, then we have no reason to hope because we know that heaven is ours. But ‘our salvation is founded on the hope of something’ says Paul. ‘Hope would not be hope at all if its object were in view; how could man still hope for something which he sees?’ (Rom 8:24). We hope for heaven, however well disposed we might be spiritually, because we know we still have a chance to lose it.” [Karl Keating, *Catholicism and Fundamentalism

, Ignatius 1988, p 174-5].
If they die in mortal sin, correct. Being in a “state of grace” at death is not confined solely to being a baptised “Christian”.

To “Abu” (and my other respondents on this “assurance of salvation” thread), I can see that you are clearly convinced of your argumentation. And don’t get me wrong, I like that. People who believe should have convictions about their beliefs, and should be able to back them up. In fact, it was an examination of my initial belief that a person has the ability to “believe in Jesus” that changed when I realized when Paul says we are “dead" in sins (Eph 2:1), he clearly means we have no abilities to do ANY righteous deeds nor any desire to know or follow God (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:10-28). God must be the author of faith. Glory be to God!

But, regarding the assurance of my own salvation, here’s my problem:

Abu says, “Posts #59 and 61 demolish the error of feeling that “salvation is assured” and by none other than the great Sts. Peter and Paul.”, and “There is no blanket “assurance of salvation”, a horrendous fantasy.” However, the Apostle John, after writing the bulk of a wonderful letter (1 John), finishes up with, “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.” (1Jn 5:13 ESV)

So, do I go with Abu, or with John? Abu or John? Hmmm, Abu or John?

You know, I have to go with John!

I think I can have assurance of my salvation. I don’t believe it is the “mortal sin of presumption” (I’ve read about that – you can google it), and I don’t think Jesus will lose any sheep as is PROVEN in John 10:28 and in John 6:39. I don’t think Christians should worry that God gave up on them (Php 1:6). (Note, when you see me use ALL CAPS, it is emphasis, not yelling! If you knew me, you would know I have a respectful, disciplined attitude, that does not cause rancor in my conversations, no matter how challenging my argumentation may appear in writing.)

Abu, you’re arguments in #59, 61, and here, 82, do not negate what I’ve written above, which comes from the CLEAR, EXEGETICAL analysis of God’s Word. I DO think this has implications for the understanding of salvation – and particular problems for the Roman Catholic view of “in a state of grace” vs. “not in a state of grace” – and how one can be a Christian (sheep of Jesus), commit a mortal sin so they are not a Christian, do the proper penance so they are a Christian again, commit a mortal sin … not a Christian … penance … Christian again … mortal sin … not a Christian … penance … Christian again, etc. And think about the damage this does to “eternal life” doctrine (John 5:24, John 6:37-40), and how it makes it to mean “has the possibility of eternal life,” because anyone can “will” not to trust in Jesus Christ or “will” to commit a mortal sin and then die and go to hell.

However, someone who is a Christian (as seen from evidences of List 2 of my #72 post) really can have peace with God (Rom 5:1), trusting in their salvation from Him (Ps 3:8, Ps 37:39, Isa 61:10, Jonah 2:9, Hab 3:18, John 1:12-13, Titus 3:5, 1 John 3:9), the rock of their salvation (2 Sam 22:47), and in His promise that His sheep never perish (John 10:28) because He will always finish His work (Php 1:6) in them.

So, is assurance really “a horrendous fantasy,” Abu?

Personally, I experience List 2 evidences and a desire to obey 1 Thess 5:12-24. With joy in Christ, I can tell Oumashta (who started this thread), that the Bible teaches that a Christian CAN have an assurance of their salvation. With salvation, good works and obedience will no doubt result (John 15:8, Eph 2:10, James 2:17). Examine yourself and make sure you are a Christian (2 Cor 13:5), and have assurance of your salvation.

As always, if I have misused any Scriptures, I ask for correction.

In God’s Grace, OldProf

 

[OldProf]

You are welcome. I have found that many times we (fellow Christians) can get to talking past one another if we are not careful. I note this happening often in conversations like these. Your comments below are very good and I would like to offer a few thoughts on them. I ask your patience if my comments are somewhat disjointed…

Clip …

To summarize this as briefly as possible From God’s viewpoint - He knows who are His and cannot lose them. From our viewpoint, we cannot know which category we will end up in.
Thus - from our limited view - we can be assured that, so long as we persevere, we can have confidence (assurance) in our salvation, but we should never presume upon it, for presumption is the first step toward sloth, and loss -

As Catholics, and as Christians, we do not wish to downplay assurance, we simply wish to warn against presumption.

I agree that the issue of mortal sin is a difficult one and one (IMHO) that is largely misunderstood by individuals both inside and outside of the Church. The result of this misunderstanding can be, as you say, a robbing of our peace and our assurance (trust) in God’s Mercy.
The problem as I see it is largely one of focus. The person who frets over “mortal sin” is like a man who is trying to get to the narrow gate while constantly looking over his shoulder, or even worse, while walking backwards. Since the road to the gate is narrow, what are the chances that such a one is going to fall into the ditch?
Those who focus too much on sin are those who are very immature in their faith.

They exist in that very early stage called by the great saints, “servile fear”, or fear of punishment. This is not an uncommon place to be and is mentioned in your first list (conviction of sin). They need to grow in their relationship with Christ so that Love drives out this fear. So that they face the light and can fairly run to the narrow gate.
The more fully we love, the more difficult it is to sin and especially to sin seriously.

Sorry if I’m rambling a bit…

May God keep us both secure in His flock.

Peace
James

Once again, I appreciate your comments. Am I incorrect in my understanding that Roman Catholics believe a “true” sheep of Jesus (that is, if they were to die they would most likely go to purgatory, then heaven later) can perish (go to hell) if they have committed a mortal sin and die without having done penance to return to a state of grace?

If so, that seems to be a roadblock for assurance.

Peace in Christ, OldProf

 

[JRKH]

Once again, I appreciate your comments. Am I incorrect in my understanding that Roman Catholics believe a “true” sheep of Jesus (that is, if they were to die they would most likely go to purgatory, then heaven later) can perish (go to hell) if they have committed a mortal sin and die without having done penance to return to a state of grace?

If so, that seems to be a roadblock for assurance.

Peace in Christ, OldProf

Old Prof…
I have to say that yes you are incorrect in your understanding, but it stems from a VERY common misunderstanding, even among many Catholics, concerning mortal sin. That is - a “true sheep” will never commit a mortal sin. He will not deny God and God’s Lordship which, if one examines the the conditions that make a sin mortal, MUST precede any act that might normally be considered mortal.
If a person DOES commit a mortal sin they have, by definition, cut themselves off from God and done so with knowledge and voluntary consent.

There are three conditions for a sin to be Mortal: Grave Matter, full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act, and full consent of the will. The pertinent paragraph in the Catechism says:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Often times it seems that people wish to place the greater emphasis on the “gravity” of the matter involved and thus they tend to treat sin (mortal or venial) like "crimes (felony or misdemeanor). However, this view tends to ignore or downplay these factors of knowledge and consent.

Consider…
You, OldProf, are a true Christian. You Love the Lord and seek to serve Him and please Him in all that you think say and do. So - If you know (or even seriously suspect) that some thought or act is sinful, you will not voluntarily choose to do it. Why? Because first and foremost you belong to God and doing something that displeases Him who you love, is an anathema to you. You would no more “knowingly” and “voluntarily” sin than you would drink poison.
But consider the person who does know that something is offensive to God and voluntarily chooses to do it anyway. What can be said about that persons love for God. Can a person knowingly and voluntarily choose to sin without first rejecting God’s Lordship? I think not.
Thus, by their own knowledge and choice have they cut themselves off from God, and by your understanding of “true sheep” they have demonstrated that they were NOT one of the true sheep.

I hope that my explanation above is of some help to you. If I am unclear on some point please ask.

Now - to address the last matter in your post…about one who dies without doing penance. The ability to do penance is less of a problem than the actual repentance. If the person commits a mortal sin but then repents, but dies before he is able to confess and or do penance, the repentance (and relying on God’s mercy) is sufficient to avoid hell and gain purgatory where these matters can be purged.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

As I was considering this matter of “Assurance” my mind drifted back to my days as a machinist and later as an inspector and Quality manager.
Although things have changed quite a bit over the years (fewer inspectors and such) the basic idea is still a good illustration

In any factory/manufacturing facility, there are people involved in producing product. The vast majority of them are conscientious and seek to make products that conform to the requirements. However, even though these people try to do good work, their work is still “checked” before shipping - or the customer checks it when they go to use it.

Now -

1. The person who makes the product tries his best to get it right BUT it (and he) still must be “judged” to see whether he actually DID get it right.
2. The conscientious person who makes the product has confidence, and even an assurance (through spot checks and self checks etc.) that he has produced a good product. However, the true quality of his work is assessed by another.
3. If his quality is consistently poor, this worker is going to be let go…no matter how hard he cries…“Lord Lord”, didn’t I do everything asked of me??

So, this is the thing about this idea of assurance or confidence or hope or whatever term we use. The have been told the requirements. We have even been told about some of the pitfalls and possible ways to get it wrong. AND we have been trained, and are still learning, to do our "job’ better. Using this information and training, it is up to us to have a good attitude, be conscientious workers and strive to turn out a good product that not only meets expectations but if possible exceeds them. If we do this, we can have confidence.
However - that said - for all our confidence - our output (fruits) will be judged by another.

As will all analogies, this one is imperfect and can be taken apart with "what ifs and “this doesn’t apply” etc…
I offer it as a veerrry crude and overly simplistic example…Take it for what it is…no more - no less

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

As I was considering this matter of “Assurance” my mind drifted back to my days as a machinist and later as an inspector and Quality manager.
Although things have changed quite a bit over the years (fewer inspectors and such) the basic idea is still a good illustration

In any factory/manufacturing facility, there are people involved in producing product. The vast majority of them are conscientious and seek to make products that conform to the requirements. However, even though these people try to do good work, their work is still “checked” before shipping - or the customer checks it when they go to use it.

Now -

1. The person who makes the product tries his best to get it right BUT it (and he) still must be “judged” to see whether he actually DID get it right.
2. The conscientious person who makes the product has confidence, and even an assurance (through spot checks and self checks etc.) that he has produced a good product. However, the true quality of his work is assessed by another.
3. If his quality is consistently poor, this worker is going to be let go…no matter how hard he cries…“Lord Lord”, didn’t I do everything asked of me??

So, this is the thing about this idea of assurance or confidence or hope or whatever term we use. The have been told the requirements. We have even been told about some of the pitfalls and possible ways to get it wrong. AND we have been trained, and are still learning, to do our "job’ better. Using this information and training, it is up to us to have a good attitude, be conscientious workers and strive to turn out a good product that not only meets expectations but if possible exceeds them. If we do this, we can have confidence.
However - that said - for all our confidence - our output (fruits) will be judged by another.

As will all analogies, this one is imperfect and can be taken apart with "what ifs and “this doesn’t apply” etc…
I offer it as a veerrry crude and overly simplistic example…Take it for what it is…no more - no less

Peace
James

I agree, because the truth is that were all simultaneously saints and sinners-even hypocrisy will strive to survive in some form- and until we finally, thoroughly, unwaveringly love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves we’re still not fully just, we’re still apparently attracted by things other than God first above all else. And for me this means that we can’t know, with perfect certainty, just who the true sheep are and who they aren’t, which is exactly why Trent calls on us to refrain from over-confidence. And this renders the question of who the true sheep are-who the elect are-an academic one, with perfect assurance only achievable in the end.

And at the end of the day Protestantism, generally speaking, isn’t without this tension/anticipation either. If a believer insists that his faith/trust in Jesus is solely what saves him, while still acknowledging that fruits must be present in order for that faith to be the kind that saves, then he’s still faced with the question, ‘Have I really done enough, have I truly or sufficiently done Gods’ will, was my faith really the right kind?’ Am I right in my self-assessment or ‘self-checks’? And I think that’s just an honest understanding of our human nature and situation here on earth, as well as a biblical one.

 

[OldProf]

But the whole thing is still quite subjective, don’t you think? In another post you list some qualifications-some fruits-for determining ones’ status in terms of salvation. And of course it’s true; if one walks the walk they’re probably a true believer. Only God knows for sure, though, as they could be just putting on a show of holiness; the human heart can be quite deceitful, we can even fool ourselves. Anyway, God judges by the heart.

In any case when you say that ““Professing Christians” can leave the faith because they were never known by Jesus (Matt 7:21-23) nor ever one of His sheep (1 John 2:19). They were not born of God (John 1:13) or born again (John 3:3) or a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).”, we must consider that, except for outright deliberate deception, every person who “knows” they are saved is a professing Christian, isn’t planning on leaving the faith, and believes they’ll have final perseverance. Aren’t we putting the cart ahead of the horse then if we predict that, if a person sins, God will chastise them if that person is one of His own? That may well be true but it becomes a rather moot, academic point unless we can know for sure that such will happen to any particular person. If a person is disobedient, how do we know if he fits into the merely “professed Christian” status or, alternatively, into the wayward child of God who will be restored status? It seems to me we’re waffling a bit here; in the one case we know them by their fruits, that those who don’t meet the test probably aren’t saved, but in the other case we overlook the fruits and say they’re truly saved anyway, in spite of disobedience, predicting they’ll persevere in the end. I think prudence would indicate that, for our part, we simply do our best, trust in the goodness and mercy of God, and let Him be the final judge. We do have assurance, just not the 100% certainty that God alone has.

I’d consider the Parable of the Talents. Wasn’t the wicked and lazy servant a true servant of the master nonetheless, one the master knew? And yet he was cast out of the kingdom based on what he did-or failed to do-with what he was given.,

I see two categories: false and true assurance. The assurance is a blessing regardless, and assurance isn’t limited to Christian faith. Consider two events:

1. Ernest Hemingway was an atheist. His well known quote: “All thinking men are atheists.” At age 61 (almost 62), his life ahead looked hopeless and he stuck the end a double-barreled shotgun into his mouth and blew his brains out. It’s one of the world’s most famous suicides. His assurance was that non-existence was preferable to his life and hopeless future. It was the blessing of false assurance, and no doubt he could today identify well with the rich man in Luke 16:19-31.
2. I directly asked a highly revered Mormon man (double PhD in engineering and emeritus professor at the University of Virginia, 10 children, eagle scout – a “good” person by all of societies standards) this question, “What if you are wrong about Jesus Christ and the Bible, that what I actually believe is true – what will you say at the judgment?” He wasn’t worried. He had lived a good life and provided for his family both physically and spiritually. Even if he were wrong, it would be all right, because God is forgiving. His assurance was in his own good works and in his Mormon beliefs. A smart man, no question, but, again, the blessing of a false assurance. Mormonism has the wrong God, thus, an idol. This man believes in an idol.

But, I’m betting the Bible is true and sufficient, and that we need to examine ourselves and see if we meet the biblical requirements of being a true believer. If so, we can have the blessing of assurance, as 1 John 5:13 says. But this time it is a true, not false, assurance. And that we had better make sure of.

Regarding the Parable of the Talents you mention (Matt 25:14-30, Luke 19:12-27), the lazy servant was not known by Jesus, in other words, never a sheep – he never knew him. I think it also helps to view Matt 22:13-14. The call goes out to many, but only a few are chosen (only a few are the “elect” of God – Matt 1:21 – only a few are sheep for the Son). Of course God knows all of humanity (not to mention all of everything in His omniscience), however, he only chooses a few of the many. His elect He knows, and they know Him (John 10:26-27).

Think about this parable this way. Christians are chosen by God. So, when they are called by God, they are regenerated, they come to faith (Gods gift), and that faith is evidenced by obedience and righteous works. And those works will glorify God and continue. They aren’t the frozen chosen. Hence the first two servants in the parable can be viewed this way. But the Bible still is, as far as I know, the best selling book in the world. At the very least it’s up there. It is available worldwide. Many ignore it, reject it, get it but put it on the bookshelf never to be opened, or they have it as a reference book of “great world literature” (but they have no conception that it is actually the Holy Bible, God breathed and inerrant, with the message of Jesus Christ, Creator, Lord, Savior, Sustainer, King and His saving work that leads to eternal life). The lazy servant is unregenerant. Given the Bible, he may have a nominal response that won’t last, but he probably won’t teach from it, won’t get excited about the message and tell others about it, in fact, he likely won’t do anything with it. Oh, it is possible he will use the Bible, but for his own gain. He might become a liberal biblical scholar, or false teacher, or false healer – glory be to him – but not glory be to God. His good works? Only appearances, but not genuine.

And we are told what will happen to him at the judgment.

That is how I believe the parable is to be understood.

Blessings, OldProf

 

[OldProf]

…again, that’s a very accommodating theology: do what you will you will not lose Salvation because it’s there in black and white!

Christ tells you that He will determine if you are to be placed on His Right or on His left… yeah, even those who, in His Name, performed the various signs that donotes fellowship with Christ ("…why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?"); Jesus’ own contempories religious elite received from Him chastisement and correction rather than praises for being legalists (both Oral and Written Word).

…as it’s been pointed out to you, the problem with legalism is that the individual/s tend to focus on a particular theme in Scriptures that support his/their preconceive theology, rejecting or ignoring everything else.

I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens your heart, mind and spirit so that you can Come to the Fold: the Body of Christ.

(FYI: I too have had intercourse with theologeans, pastors, Priests, scholars, a couple who professed to being bishops, and a wika or two [not counting the various mormons, muslims and Jehova witnesses, amongst others]–they packed up their themes and left no forwarding address!)

Maran atha!

Angel

Angel, I appreciate your response. I’ve been trying to stay on the subject of assurance, kind of hone in on that specific doctrine to see if my understanding is in error, and therefore I have not been “rejecting or ignoring everything else” as you say. I hope the Holy Spirit enlightens me too! If the RCC is the true church, I want in. But if it needed reform back to a biblical foundation for correct doctrine (i.e. eternal security, assurance of salvation), then the Holy Spirit has already told me some of the doctrines I need to embrace.

Blessings, OldProf

 

[fhansen]

1. I directly asked a highly revered Mormon man (double PhD in engineering and emeritus professor at the University of Virginia, 10 children, eagle scout – a “good” person by all of societies standards) this question, “What if you are wrong about Jesus Christ and the Bible, that what I actually believe is true – what will you say at the judgment?” He wasn’t worried. He had lived a good life and provided for his family both physically and spiritually. Even if he were wrong, it would be all right, because God is forgiving. His assurance was in his own good works and in his Mormon beliefs. A smart man, no question, but, again, the blessing of a false assurance. Mormonism has the wrong God, thus, an idol. This man believes in an idol.

This highlights some differences in our beliefs-and what I consider an over-confidence in ones faith, and an under-confidence in the role free will plays-to an even greater degree. IMO, the Mormon in your example may be closer to God and heaven, due to the way he’s lived his life, than the one who claims to have a superior faith (the Mormon also believes his faith to be superior, BTW). None of us have a perfect grasp on the nature and will of God; the fact that anyone humbles themselves before a Reality greater than themselves, acknowledging that said Reality is the font of goodness and love, and lives his life accordingly, speaks volumes for his faith and love-and therefore his just standing- and this in no way is meant to sanction the many ways we consider Mormonism to be off-based.

But, I’m betting the Bible is true and sufficient, and that we need to examine ourselves and see if we meet the biblical requirements of being a true believer. If so, we can have the blessing of assurance, as 1 John 5:13 says. But this time it is a true, not false, assurance. And that we had better make sure of.

You’re betting? Do I detect a minute vestige of uncertainty in that statement? Either way, we’re all betting the bible is true-but we still must determine what that truth is-there’s obviously some pretty diverse opinions out there.

 

[OldProf]

…I think you are confused… Salvation is not Granted against our desires (conscious willingness) to receive it; Salvation is Granted in spite of our affirmities (sinfulness); but if you or I or any “Christian” or non-Believer rejects Jesus’ Command to abide in Him so that He may Abide in us… well that person, OldProf or insipid pedestrian, will surely not partake of the Wedding of the Lamb!

…please, don’t be discoraged… assurance can be beat… just step into the Light (1 St. John 1:5-10) (…a play on Luke Skywalker’s quest–hoping for a little levety!)

Maran atha!

Angel

Okay, thank-you for the levity - enjoyed it!

Was I confused? Well, Paul indicates our “will” is not toward God nor are we even capable of doing righteous works. We don’t seek after God. We don’t do any good works. This is the plight of the “natural man” of Romans 3:10-28 I’ve discussed before. We are dead in sins, thus we have total inability to seek God or do good works. However, if God regenerates us, then yes, we will seek Him and find Him. We see that in the gift of faith in Eph 2:1-9, with good works to follow, Eph 2:10.

Or am I still confused, or maybe I missed your point. If so, please clarify.

In God’s grace, OldProf

 

[OldProf]

Old Prof…
I have to say that yes you are incorrect in your understanding, but it stems from a VERY common misunderstanding, even among many Catholics, concerning mortal sin. That is - a “true sheep” will never commit a mortal sin. He will not deny God and God’s Lordship which, if one examines the the conditions that make a sin mortal, MUST precede any act that might normally be considered mortal.
If a person DOES commit a mortal sin they have, by definition, cut themselves off from God and done so with knowledge and voluntary consent. …

Snip

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

Thank-you, James. I’m sure we would have a good time over coffee!

But I have to stop you here to ask a question. It is because I had this similar discussion 15 years ago with a RC Priest. He was a very good RC Theologian.

This person who commits the mortal sin you mention. They were a good RC in a state of grace, meaning they were “saved” or “born again” and they had at least some sanctifying grace. So, death to that person at that moment would put them in purgatory. Did God not begin a good work in them? (Php 1:6) It seems like He must have for them to be saved or born again, which would also mean they are one of Jesus’ sheep. So, since he doesn’t die then and commits a mortal sin, and he doesn’t repent or do penance, and then he dies and goes to hell, this proves he was not ever really a sheep of Jesus.

So God did not begin a good work in him that God could complete, even though he was “born again” or “saved”? And, even though he had passed from death to life (to be born again), he did not have eternal life (John 5:24). Is that correct?

Please help me follow this logic.

Peace to you, OldProf

 

[JRKH]

Thank-you, James. I’m sure we would have a good time over coffee!

But I have to stop you here to ask a question. It is because I had this similar discussion 15 years ago with a RC Priest. He was a very good RC Theologian.

This person who commits the mortal sin you mention. They were a good RC in a state of grace, meaning they were “saved” or “born again” and they had at least some sanctifying grace. So, death to that person at that moment would put them in purgatory. Did God not begin a good work in them? (Php 1:6) It seems like He must have for them to be saved or born again, which would also mean they are one of Jesus’ sheep. So, since he doesn’t die then and commits a mortal sin, and he doesn’t repent or do penance, and then he dies and goes to hell, this proves he was not ever really a sheep of Jesus.

So God did not begin a good work in him that God could complete, even though he was “born again” or “saved”? And, even though he had passed from death to life (to be born again), he did not have eternal life (John 5:24). Is that correct?

Please help me follow this logic.

Peace to you, OldProf

I’ll have to read this one again and more slowwwly… But I will get back to you…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Thank-you, James. I’m sure we would have a good time over coffee!

But I have to stop you here to ask a question. It is because I had this similar discussion 15 years ago with a RC Priest. He was a very good RC Theologian.

Did he give you a good answer?

This person who commits the mortal sin you mention. They were a good RC in a state of grace, meaning they were “saved” or “born again” and they had at least some sanctifying grace. So, death to that person at that moment would put them in purgatory.

If this person dies in a state of grace then yes - they will be saved.

Did God not begin a good work in them? (Php 1:6)

We would assume that He did yes. However, the reference to Php 1:6 is no guarantee that the one in whom the work is started cannot fall away. Note the Parable of the sower and the seed.

It seems like He must have for them to be saved or born again, which would also mean they are one of Jesus’ sheep.

True - so long as this sheep does not choose to leave the flock.

So, since he doesn’t die then and commits a mortal sin, and he doesn’t repent or do penance, and then he dies and goes to hell, this proves he was not ever really a sheep of Jesus.

Within your understanding of how salvation works, this would be the case. In the Catholic understanding no it does not prove this.

So God did not begin a good work in him that God could complete, even though he was “born again” or “saved”? And, even though he had passed from death to life (to be born again), he did not have eternal life (John 5:24). Is that correct?

I have a difficult time framing an answer to this because your salvation understanding, and the terminology you use is so different from our understanding and terminology. I’m afraid that any answer that I would attempt would be inadequate.

I will say this. I believe, and Scripture supports this, that there are people in the world today who believe they are good Christians and are “saved” etc, but who are going to wind up being condemned even though they prophesied and cast our demons and cry Lord Lord (Mt 7:21-23). There are those who are going to receive the word with joy but then fall away (Mt 13:20-21). There are those who will seek to enter and will not be able (Luke 13:24)
So - while we can easily say that the “Lord Lord” crowd might be the deceivers, what of those who receive the word with joy but have no root? What of those who try to enter the narrow door but are unable? Did God not start a good work in them? did they not believe that they were “saved” and “born again”?

Please help me follow this logic.

I doubt if I have been of much help to you, but then I am a simple person of simple faith. There is really only room in my personal theology for that which is of practical use on the spiritual journey.
While discussions such as this are somewhat interesting from an intellectual standpoint, I find them of little practical value since, in the final analysis, we cannot know the answer because we do not know the future (who will persevere and who will fall away) nor can we know the mind of God in full.

Frankly - for me, a sinner, I have enough to deal with just trying to do God’s will each day. To see to it that I am one who perseveres and not one who falls away. I do not know the future - what trials and sorrows may befall me, and how well I will weather them. I do know that I am committed to being Christian and to follow my Lord to the best of my ability…the rest I can only leave up to Him and not spin my wheels over things outside of my ability to understand or do anything about.

If you are right and I am already guaranteed a place in heaven - great.
If you are NOT right and my place in heaven is NOT guaranteed, then I guess I am doing well to not presume.

Peace to you, OldProf

And to yo my friend.
Happy Easter

Peace
James

 

[jcrichton]

To “Abu” (and my other respondents on this “assurance of salvation” thread), I can see that you are clearly convinced of your argumentation. And don’t get me wrong, I like that. People who believe should have convictions about their beliefs, and should be able to back them up. In fact, it was an examination of my initial belief that a person has the ability to “believe in Jesus” that changed when I realized when Paul says we are “dead" in sins (Eph 2:1), he clearly means we have no abilities to do ANY righteous deeds nor any desire to know or follow God (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:10-28). God must be the author of faith. Glory be to God!

But, regarding the assurance of my own salvation, here’s my problem:

Abu says, “Posts #59 and 61 demolish the error of feeling that “salvation is assured” and by none other than the great Sts. Peter and Paul.”, and “There is no blanket “assurance of salvation”, a horrendous fantasy.” However, the Apostle John, after writing the bulk of a wonderful letter (1 John), finishes up with, “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.” (1Jn 5:13 ESV)

So, do I go with Abu, or with John? Abu or John? Hmmm, Abu or John?

You know, I have to go with John!

I think I can have assurance of my salvation. I don’t believe it is the “mortal sin of presumption” (I’ve read about that – you can google it), and I don’t think Jesus will lose any sheep as is PROVEN in John 10:28 and in John 6:39. I don’t think Christians should worry that God gave up on them (Php 1:6). (Note, when you see me use ALL CAPS, it is emphasis, not yelling! If you knew me, you would know I have a respectful, disciplined attitude, that does not cause rancor in my conversations, no matter how challenging my argumentation may appear in writing.)

Abu, you’re arguments in #59, 61, and here, 82, do not negate what I’ve written above, which comes from the CLEAR, EXEGETICAL analysis of God’s Word. I DO think this has implications for the understanding of salvation – and particular problems for the Roman Catholic view of “in a state of grace” vs. “not in a state of grace” – and how one can be a Christian (sheep of Jesus), commit a mortal sin so they are not a Christian, do the proper penance so they are a Christian again, commit a mortal sin … not a Christian … penance … Christian again … mortal sin … not a Christian … penance … Christian again, etc. And think about the damage this does to “eternal life” doctrine (John 5:24, John 6:37-40), and how it makes it to mean “has the possibility of eternal life,” because anyone can “will” not to trust in Jesus Christ or “will” to commit a mortal sin and then die and go to hell.

However, someone who is a Christian (as seen from evidences of List 2 of my #72 post) really can have peace with God (Rom 5:1), trusting in their salvation from Him (Ps 3:8, Ps 37:39, Isa 61:10, Jonah 2:9, Hab 3:18, John 1:12-13, Titus 3:5, 1 John 3:9), the rock of their salvation (2 Sam 22:47), and in His promise that His sheep never perish (John 10:28) because He will always finish His work (Php 1:6) in them.

So, is assurance really “a horrendous fantasy,” Abu?

Personally, I experience List 2 evidences and a desire to obey 1 Thess 5:12-24. With joy in Christ, I can tell Oumashta (who started this thread), that the Bible teaches that a Christian CAN have an assurance of their salvation. With salvation, good works and obedience will no doubt result (John 15:8, Eph 2:10, James 2:17). Examine yourself and make sure you are a Christian (2 Cor 13:5), and have assurance of your salvation.

As always, if I have misused any Scriptures, I ask for correction.

In God’s Grace, OldProf

…again, the problem lays not with God’s Gift of Eternal Life nor with Scriptures but your and your denominational interpretation of Scriptures and your collective/individual understanding of Church Doctrine.

The Fact that God Grants Eternal Life (Salvation in Christ Jesus) is never questioned by the Church. However, the theology of always saved and everything not “Saved” only applies to non-Christians is a flawed theology!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Once again, I appreciate your comments. Am I incorrect in my understanding that Roman Catholics believe a “true” sheep of Jesus (that is, if they were to die they would most likely go to purgatory, then heaven later) can perish (go to hell) if they have committed a mortal sin and die without having done penance to return to a state of grace?

If so, that seems to be a roadblock for assurance.

Peace in Christ, OldProf

…sin against God is separation from God; refusal to admit that you are a sinner/have sinned and refuse to repent 'cause Salvation is “assured” to you is Death: the wages of sin is death–not the wages of the unbeliever’s sin is death!

It would be wonderful for me to hit a few of the local banks, take my neighbors’ possessions and beat/kill those who oppose me and have complete assurance that God has no power to keep me from entering the New Jerusalem because I know that once I became one of the sheeps I have acquired full immunity! :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Abu]

OldProf #86
Abu says, “Posts #59 and 61 demolish the error of feeling that “salvation is assured” and by none other than the great Sts. Peter and Paul.”, and “There is no blanket “assurance of salvation”, a horrendous fantasy.” However, the Apostle John, after writing the bulk of a wonderful letter (1 John), finishes up with, “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.” (1Jn 5:13 ESVSo, do I go with Abu, or with John? Abu or John? Hmmm, Abu or John?
You know, I have to go with John!)

The persistent self-created quandary displayed is so blatantly self-deceiving because

1. The clarity on the loss of salvation by St Paul is ignored and the fable is concocted that Abu is pitted against St John because St Paul is irrefutable, and St John is misinterpreted by a fallible individual.
2. The Sacred Scriptures are known only because Christ’s Catholic Church gave them to us as the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” Only She can interpret the Sacred Scriptures – no self–interpretation can challenge Her.

The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Would you deny St John, and St Paul too?
St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

“Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12).

St Paul is very clear: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience.

Jesus redeemed us (opened Heaven), we have to play our part. If anyone was to be saved your way it would have been Paul! But he clearly showed the error of that: “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).

“It is not those who say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Mt 7:21).
When asked “What must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus answered, “Keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:16-17).

OldProf #92
If the RCC is the true church, I want in. But if it needed reform back to a biblical foundation for correct doctrine (i.e. eternal security, assurance of salvation), then the Holy Spirit has already told me some of the doctrines I need to embrace.

1. Christ wrote nothing but Christ gave us His Church and endowed Her with His Authority to teach His name – it is quite impossible for Her to each error for if She did Christ would not be Almighty God. The Spirit of Truth does not speak against Christ’s Church!
2. That Catholic Church founded by Christ precisely to teach His truths in His Name has told us what writings by Her members form the Word of the God – the Bible.
3. Any perceived contradictions with what She teaches and Her Sacred Scriptures teach are NOT contradictions but fallible perceptions in fallible minds.

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

St. Clement died about 80 A.D., some 20 years before the last Apostle, St. John, died. Although St. John was still alive in Ephesus, which was much closer to Corinth than was Rome, the Corinthians appealed to the Bishop of Rome because he had the “keys” of authority. Pope Clement wrote to the Church at Corinth: “You, there who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.” (First Letter To The Corinthians, 57, 1; Jurgens, p. 12.)