M
mrs_abbott
Guest
Our sins, however, distract us from deepening our relationship with God. That’s what I was getting at, anyways.
- Status
Our sins, however, distract us from deepening our relationship with God. That’s what I was getting at, anyways.
M
mikeledes
Guest
I think he meant that our sins cannot cause us to lose our salvation.
God Bless,
Michael
A
apophasis
Guest
And this has been answered quite simply. Because of WHO, not what, they have put their faith in. The One who has the power and legal right to save based on His shed blood.**Rom. 3:26 **"…that He might be just and the justifier (of who?) of the one who has faith in Jesus"
P
Philthy
Guest
Ah, Apo - how have you been? I have a distant memory of praying for you as you traveled to some hurricane ridden spot or something like that - good to see you are still alive and well!
I believe we are called to unite ourselves to that sacrifice Apo. You, know, taking up our crosses daily? Paul states, “I urge you brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God” There is only one holy, living sacrifice - and we are called to unite ourselves - body and soul - to it . Doing so is an act of faith.
C
clmowry
Guest
Get some polarized lenses!
I’ve thought about doing a “little” exercise in an effort to better understand my protestant bretheren.
I was thinking about putting together the best “Proof” I can for their side of any given agrument. Gather up all the “proofs” offered and really dig into them, then and ony then would I do the same for the Catholic side of the argument.
The thought being 1.) You can’t debates something you really don’t understand. 2.) I personnaly need to be lest judgemental of those who take opposing positions. So to the best of my ability I want to “walk a mile in their shoes.”
So I’ll put on my Protestant Polerized Lenses and you can wear a Catholic pair.
Chuck
PS This of course might be a really bad idea, you know what happens if you overlap two polarized lenses out of phase with each other? You can’t see a thing.
I’ve thought about doing a “little” exercise in an effort to better understand my protestant bretheren.
I was thinking about putting together the best “Proof” I can for their side of any given agrument. Gather up all the “proofs” offered and really dig into them, then and ony then would I do the same for the Catholic side of the argument.
The thought being 1.) You can’t debates something you really don’t understand. 2.) I personnaly need to be lest judgemental of those who take opposing positions. So to the best of my ability I want to “walk a mile in their shoes.”
So I’ll put on my Protestant Polerized Lenses and you can wear a Catholic pair.
Chuck
PS This of course might be a really bad idea, you know what happens if you overlap two polarized lenses out of phase with each other? You can’t see a thing.
Yeah you are probably right but admit it that catholic put a catholic context on it too
IMHO it is hard to study the bible without some sort of pre-conceived notions.
I really try hard not to and I pray that the HS leads in the right direction and to date it is what I have talked about on the forums.
Trust me I have read the bible with my new catholic sunglasses on and, with prayer, have only seen blurry.
Of course after what I said above you know I said I cant be trustedBut I really have tried to see things from a catholic viewpoint and in doing so have relaxed some of my harsh criticisms but nonetheless still do not believe in much of the theology.
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
Could be. My head starts spinning when big vocabulary gets thrown around.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
LOLGet some polarized lenses!
I’ve thought about doing a “little” exercise in an effort to better understand my protestant bretheren.
I was thinking about putting together the best “Proof” I can for their side of any given agrument. Gather up all the “proofs” offered and really dig into them, then and ony then would I do the same for the Catholic side of the argument.
The thought being 1.) You can’t debates something you really don’t understand. 2.) I personnaly need to be lest judgemental of those who take opposing positions. So to the best of my ability I want to “walk a mile in their shoes.”
So I’ll put on my Protestant Polerized Lenses and you can wear a Catholic pair.
Chuck
PS This of course might be a really bad idea, you know what happens if you overlap two polarized lenses out of phase with each other? You can’t see a thing.
That was funny Oh and a good post too!!
M
mikeledes
Guest
Since Oneforthruth says that all of the justified will love, will obey, and will persevere until the end, I would like to present the following verses:
**26 "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; **
13"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved."
Galatians 6:7-9
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary
All of these verses touch on perseverance and Mark 13:13 says that those who endure to the end will be saved, not “are the saved.” Now the question is whether all the justified, all who are righteous in God’s eyes, will persevere to the end. Let’s look at the following verses:
Ezekiel 33:18
**18"When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. **
Ezekiel 18:24
**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **
These verses discuss the possibility of the righteous of turning away and thus not persevering to the end. Note, God describes them as “righteous”, not “externally righteous” or “righteous in their own estimation.”
God Bless,
Michael
**26 "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; **
13"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved."
Galatians 6:7-9
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary
All of these verses touch on perseverance and Mark 13:13 says that those who endure to the end will be saved, not “are the saved.” Now the question is whether all the justified, all who are righteous in God’s eyes, will persevere to the end. Let’s look at the following verses:
Ezekiel 33:18
**18"When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. **
Ezekiel 18:24
**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **
These verses discuss the possibility of the righteous of turning away and thus not persevering to the end. Note, God describes them as “righteous”, not “externally righteous” or “righteous in their own estimation.”
God Bless,
Michael
P
Pug
Guest
Well, I’d still want to go to communion, for example. I can’t imagine passing that opportunity up for the rest of my life. Also, I’d like to be made more holy now, so that I am not a stumbling block for my friends, colleagues, relatives, etc. There is a now factor as well as a future factor. If Jesus is your love and your fulfillment, even now, before heaven, one will want to spend time with him. Also, it is important to me the well-being of the people in my parish, etc.
I am not a OSAS kind of person, but I wouldn’t ever ask them this question. It makes no sense to me. At the very least the person has this entire life to go through before they get to heaven.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
All of these things can be explained. But, I have neither the time nor the space to do so. Nor, will you like the answers. You have taken these scriptures out of context and the words are bothering you as well (they bothered me too and I have studied them quite extensively in light of the full context of scripture). But, in the context of the entire scripture including election, justification (as explained in scripture), 1 John which gives the characteristics of one who has been born again, as well as countlesss other passages of scripture, your argument does not work. Anybody can take passages of scripture and confuse themselves with those passages as they stare at them for a while (I know that I have). But, these passages can be explained. It is just that you will not be happy with the explanation because it goes against the doctrine that you are holding to. But, again, in light of my postings, which you have not responded to directly, salvation is for the elect only and, therfore, is forever once the rebirth has taken place.
Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
We must persevere and we WILL…if we are of the elect. Hebrews 3:14 and other passages show perseverance as an evidence as well as a condition.
O
OneForTruth
Guest
We see this type of language elsewhere in scripture…
Lu 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the **“righteous”, **but sinners to repentance.
These are people that are righteous only in their own perception.
Sanctified - as you point out in Hebrews 10 can mean an abundance of things…see its use in 1 Corinthians 7…there are other ways to look at this as well. His sanctification can be seen as something that he only perceived but was not a reality.
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
This passage immediately follows another passage that you list…falling away does not accompany salvation. Not to meniton that there are many places in that passage that say that there was only tasting going on…“partaker”…this means they only were in association with the Holy Spirit…they were not indwelt. Tasting does not give you indwelling.
There are others, I know, but I cannot address them now. Only look at the rest of scripture and place all of these in context. I cannot let a handful of controversial passages (that can be explained in other ways) get in the way of large portions of scripture passages as well as many other scattered small and large passages that are clear and concise.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Presenly, I do not have the time to respond. But all of the Bible passages you keep pointing to do not mean what you are trying to make them say. You said the justified will persevere to the end. That is not what Ezekiel says. You try to explain warnings away by comparing it to that passage from Acts. Unfortunately, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Secondly, the issue is whether works are involved in our salvation. According to you, they are! Only that the elect will fulfill both the faith and the works required for final salvation. You said it yourself, the elect will love, will obey, and will persevere.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
When you read the passages from Ezekiel, God is contrasting the righteous with the wicked.We see this type of language elsewhere in scripture…
Lu 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the **“righteous”, **but sinners to repentance.
These are people that are righteous only in their own perception.
Sanctified - as you point out in Hebrews 10 can mean an abundance of things…see its use in 1 Corinthians 7…there are other ways to look at this as well. His sanctification can be seen as something that he only perceived but was not a reality.
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
This passage immediately follows another passage that you list…falling away does not accompany salvation. Not to meniton that there are many places in that passage that say that there was only tasting going on…“partaker”…this means they only were in association with the Holy Spirit…they were not indwelt. Tasting does not give you indwelling.
There are others, I know, but I cannot address them now. Only look at the rest of scripture and place all of these in context. I cannot let a handful of controversial passages (that can be explained in other ways) get in the way of large portions of scripture passages as well as many other scattered small and large passages that are clear and concise.
Ezekiel 3:20-21
20"Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.
21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself."
Secondly, when Jesus came, there were those who had already been made righetous in anticipation of Christ’s work on the Cross. Take, for example, John the Baptist’s parents who are described as being righteous before God. So Christ, during His earthly ministry, focused on those who needed to repent.
Secondly, regarding the quote from Hebrews. Paul expresses confidence about the community he’s writing to because of the many good works they have accomplished and all of the trials that they have endured. He is writing about that specific community. On this basis is he convinced that they have good things ahead of them. These are signs that they are the persevering kind. This in no way indicates that all of the justified will persevere or that anyone has absolute assurance that they are of the elect.
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Tiber Swin Team - Class of… of… of… Okay, so I’m not part of the Tiber Swim Team!I don’t like swimming anyway.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
To my Evangelical friends, of whom I was once one, I would like to ask a question of you.
How do you know you have what you call saving faith?
In the parable of the sower, our Lord tells us that there are some who believe for a while and then they fall away. How are you certain that you are not one of these? What verses in the Bible would you use to back up your conviction, to be sure that you are in the faith?
I have asked this of an Evangelical here on this forum, but have not heard a response. I understand that he is busy, but I want to widen up the opportunity for more responses to this foundational question. I have also asked this of an Evangelical friend of mine almost 2 years ago, and to date he has not given an answer. He has not even attempted one.
In addition to this, I will pose a second related question:
How do you know you have the Holy Spirit to guide you into the right interpretation of the bible?
Many thanks.
1. Because the God Who gives us faith is a Saviour-God
ISTM that, although it can be criticised from many POVs, the criticisms miss the point. Of course it can be criticised - what doctrine can’t ? That does not make it untrue.I think it cannot ultimately be justified rationally - not be it is false, but because reason is not competent to enquire into its depths: it’s like a mountain - the peaks can be seen, as can the valleys, paths, escarpments, & much more; they can all be described. But, they cannot be accounted for - the roots of the mountain cannot be seen.
So, while description of the heavenly gift of saving faith is, up to a point possible, it cannot be accounted for; there is no way, rationally, to prove one has it, & is not self-deluded. One accepts by faith that one has saving faith - one accepts that it cannot be accounted for by our limited intellectual equipment, and does this, not because one is able to account for it, but as a response in love to God Who has first loved us. Married love is an echo of it - & who says “Prove you love your husband” ? The only “proof” is the life of married love itself; reason is not competent here.
Faith does not come from reason. St.Peter recognised the Messianic dignity of Jesus not by reason, but by revelation from the Father of Jesus. Faith is a gift of God, or it is not, at all. Because it is God’s gift, it can be received, but not comprehended; it is, like God, incomprehensible - that is, something we cannot grasp; a bit as we cannot grasp a mountain. Because it is a gift, we cannot dig it out of ourselves - it comes from beyond the limited self of man. We can reason about once we have it - but we cannot reason ourselves into it.
- As to falling away - as the hymn says, “All my trust on God is founded…” Of ourselves, we cannot stand one instant; we stand, we walk, run, go forward, etc., because we are upheld by God. Nothing less than Divine strength will do - that is how feeble we are. In ourselves, we have no stability at all. The less we look to ourselves, the more we deny self, the more stable we shall be; this can come about only through the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Again, those who love God most are most stable - as St.Paul says:
- Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
There is no single thing that enables Christians to persevere - perseverance is aided by many things, not by any single one: all of them stem from the kindness & faithfulness of God; it is He Who makes them effective & fruitful.
?BTW - there is no place in any of this for indolence or presumption: that would be to abuse the grace of God by making of it a reason for us to sin on more. God’s grace is given that we may be “obedient children”, it requires from us a response of love & faith & hope in all we are & do & have & omit: IOW, Christians are to be “conformed to Christ”.
Hope that helps
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Thank you–I dont know how to do links
Thanks for doing it for me.
Try doing this:
{url=howtodolinks.com}How to do links{/url} - & use [these square brackets] instead of {those wavy brackets}
C
christcnection1
Guest
"Assurance" isn’t Assuring
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204fea2.asp
biblechristiansociety.com/booklets/Once%20Saved%20Always%20Saved.txt
Salvation is Conditonal.
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204fea2.asp
biblechristiansociety.com/booklets/Once%20Saved%20Always%20Saved.txt
Salvation is Conditonal.
C
christcnection1
Guest
I have a serious problem with the phrase “absolute assurance.” What does this really mean? What does it really mean to know something?
It appears to me that violent Muslim extremists who blow themselves up have “absolute assurance” that their actions will merit them Paradise. Clearly, this is ridiculous, and yet there actions speak loudly. They have a profound, but seriously misguided conviction.
I cannot accept the phrase “absolute assurance;” it’s intellectually bankrupt. It may even be a form of spiritual pride. I would, however, say that one can have a deep and profound faith. This seems very reasonable to me, particularly if one lives out the tenets of that faith.
As an Evangelical, it became apparent to me that my zealous brothers and sisters in Christ could not have “absolute assurance” concerning interpretation of the Bible. If they did, they contradicted one another. I’m certain their hearts were in the right place, and there is no doubt they loved the Lord. It’s just not possible to have non-contradictory interpretations when the final authority rests on each individual’s understanding. This, in part, is why much of the Christian world is fractured.
Ultimately this is a matter of faith. It’s not a matter of “absolute assurance.” I’m not impressed with what you think you “know.” After all, how do you “know” that what you “know” is not your imagination or self-deception? You must have faith to think that you “know,” and there is nothing absolute about that.
Again, this is a matter of having a deep and profound faith. That’s why when it comes to interpretation of scripture, I have a deep faith that the Church’s stance trumps my own understanding. (and this of course is a different “can of worms.”)
Finally, the only thing Christians can absolutely agree on concerning interpration of scripture, is that we can’t agree, particularly if each individual is the final authority. If scripture interpreted itself, we wouldn’t have thousands of denominations.
(Likewise, if Catholics had been faithful to their true beliefs, we probably wouldn’t have had a Reformation. Of course this is conjecture.)
Do any Non-Catholics here even care how the Early Church “interpreted” scripture, particularly concerning issues of justification? If no, why not?
Peace and Blessings…
It appears to me that violent Muslim extremists who blow themselves up have “absolute assurance” that their actions will merit them Paradise. Clearly, this is ridiculous, and yet there actions speak loudly. They have a profound, but seriously misguided conviction.
I cannot accept the phrase “absolute assurance;” it’s intellectually bankrupt. It may even be a form of spiritual pride. I would, however, say that one can have a deep and profound faith. This seems very reasonable to me, particularly if one lives out the tenets of that faith.
As an Evangelical, it became apparent to me that my zealous brothers and sisters in Christ could not have “absolute assurance” concerning interpretation of the Bible. If they did, they contradicted one another. I’m certain their hearts were in the right place, and there is no doubt they loved the Lord. It’s just not possible to have non-contradictory interpretations when the final authority rests on each individual’s understanding. This, in part, is why much of the Christian world is fractured.
Ultimately this is a matter of faith. It’s not a matter of “absolute assurance.” I’m not impressed with what you think you “know.” After all, how do you “know” that what you “know” is not your imagination or self-deception? You must have faith to think that you “know,” and there is nothing absolute about that.
Again, this is a matter of having a deep and profound faith. That’s why when it comes to interpretation of scripture, I have a deep faith that the Church’s stance trumps my own understanding. (and this of course is a different “can of worms.”)
Finally, the only thing Christians can absolutely agree on concerning interpration of scripture, is that we can’t agree, particularly if each individual is the final authority. If scripture interpreted itself, we wouldn’t have thousands of denominations.
(Likewise, if Catholics had been faithful to their true beliefs, we probably wouldn’t have had a Reformation. Of course this is conjecture.)
Do any Non-Catholics here even care how the Early Church “interpreted” scripture, particularly concerning issues of justification? If no, why not?
Peace and Blessings…
- Status