How does one know that they are “truly born again” or that they are “truly in Christ”?
ShanPO,
I’m not saying at all I bear no responsibility, im saying that apart from God’s grace alone I have no ability at all to come to faith in Jesus.
With all due respect to the Heidelberg catechism, but it is certainly possible for the baptized to not bring forth fruits of thankfulness and to lack in many other virtues, as well.
These are along the lines I think when the topic comes up. They always seem to ignore that last bit don’t they?Hi Lincs,
According to this, not everyone who has faith in the Lord (enough to cast out demons in His name) will enter into the kingdom of heaven. In many protestant churches they cast out demons, perform miracles, and prophesy all in the name of Jesus. How is the ‘perseverance of the saints’ view in harmony with this?
So you’re saying that Jesus is only the advocate for the people whom He’s “already chosen?” How do you reconcile that with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:
I think the refromed view of perseverance of the saints can be perfectly harmonised with this verse; does not verse 23 make it plain; “I never knew you” Note that The Lord expressly states he never knew these people, not that he once did and they fell away, not that they were once true sheep who left the fold, but rather he never knew these people, they were never true believers.
I prefer the historic term mostly as the OSAS term is often subject to much confusion and misrepresentation, the historic term simply affirms what Jesus himself said in John 6; he won’t loose any sheep from his fold. Those who depart never to return, clearly we’re never sheep, as The Lord emphatically states he will loose “nothing” of those who are given him by the Father.
I’m saying that Jesus’ blood will only actually pay for the sins of those who trust him and depart this life in faith in him. The cross is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.
They would just have to admit to themselves that they weren’t saved to begin with because they didn’t ever have any saving faith from which good works should proceed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon the initial profession of faith. In Protestantism good works are a condition of salvation, but salvation isn’t conditional upon good works. In other words, justification isn’t apart from the existence of works, but apart from the merit of works. All the work necessary to merit justification and salvation was accomplished by Christ alone in our stead. Justification is a completed eternal work in its own right. Thus sanctification is not the basis of justification as its only formal cause as it is in Catholicism and has been defined by the Council of Trent. Yet sanctification is supernaturally produced from that same union with Christ that justifies. The works of sanctification bear witness to the reality of union with Christ and the regeneration of the one who has been justified by faith alone. If a person isn’t regenerated and sanctified, then he has never been justified by the merits of Christ because he isn’t in union with him. Hence, Protestants never say often enough: “Justification is by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.” True faith is a working faith, but works don’t justify us. They merely show that we have true faith which alone justifies and saves. If you want Lincoln to ask someone if they are ‘still saved’ if they don’t produce good works in anticipation of a negative reply, he’d have to ask a Catholic. He’d just tell you that he was never justified and saved to begin with.
I get what you’re saying, but my next question would be:
ShanPO,
That exact reason is why several of the NT letters were written in the first place. Somehow the NT writers didn’t beleive that these were not filled with “true faith”. Otherwise, why would they write to them get them to behave as they should?With all due respect to the Heidelberg catechism, but it is certainly possible for the baptized to not bring forth fruits of thankfulness and to lack in many other virtues, as well.
The highlighted word is key. IF we do these things. So it is evident that a “true” Christian, with “true” faith, can STILL choose IF they will perform the good works before them.
Indeed, it is a choice. I’m unsure how you see this as disproving reformed soteriology?
You’re asking the questions through Catholic lenses, and the Protestant of his particular persuasion will answer through his brand of lenses. In reformed Protestant theology there are the concepts of positional and progressive sanctification, which to some extent resembles the Catholic notion of the increase of sanctification and charity insofar it doesn’t involve any progression of justification for the believer through his own merits in the system of grace. Positional sanctification relates to God as a person, while progressive sanctification relates to the Divine will. The former deals with the disposition of the heart of the believer which is wholly set apart to God and from anything carnal. The latter, behavioural obedience, subsequently flows out of this relationship by the efficacy of divine grace. Thus a sanctified life rests on a sanctified heart, one which is not merely separated from the world in a moral capacity, but entirely devoted to God out of love for Him.
I propose that Satan himself smiled when the OSAS idea spread. He loves it when such followers feel secure with their spiritual destination and stop working hard to follow God’s commandments. They are easy prey for him to take to hell.
Can one who is a non-believer do good works?
There are some who stumble onto the ‘easy belief’ path, while there are others who “work all the harder” just to assure themselves that they have been saved. Both extremes are a deviation from the right path. It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that once the converted sinner is saved he is always saved, since any merits of his doesn’t apply as a means for being justified in God’s sight. The means to the end (salvation) is provided by Christ alone and his work on the cross. So the believer might preconciously ask himself wouldn’t Jesus have died in vain if he had died for me but let me go after he had borne credit for my sins and saved me through his gift of faith? The false doctrine of limited atonement proposes that all human beings deserve to be damned in hell for all their sins. But God in His mercy eternally decreed that an elect few, although inherently and totally corrupt, should be saved for the sake of God’s glorious mercy. What God decrees is immutable and irrevocable, so it’s impossible for anyone among the elect to be rejected once they have been chosen. It would certainly make a mockery of Christ’s work if any of his sheep were lost from the fold and never retrieved. In Catholic dispensationalism there are those who have been infallibly predestined to glory, but only God knows with absolute certainty who are counted among the elect. The believer can only know with a fallible moral certitude whether he is predestined to glory by examining his conscience on a daily basis and basing his judgment on signs in his practice of faith. Anyway, if our justification and salvation depended strictly on the merits of Christ by the mercy of God, why shouldn’t every human being be saved by the gift of faith through grace? Why only a portion of humanity? Wouldn’t the Divine mercy fall short of its own glory? Paul does say in his first Letter to Timothy that God desires everyone to be saved. In other words, Christ’s atonement is unlimited just as God’s mercy is infinite.