Faith Alone

[Pax]

Okay, from what you posted here:::
I don’t read anywhere that we are saved by works. I read that by Grace we are saved through Jesus. And yes, once you are saved, Jesus then lives through you and therefore you do good works but it is because of him but not for your salvation, for HIS GLORY.

Maybe Pax should read your post.

Trust me…I read them all. So what is your point to me?

 

[Philthy]

Getting a little nitpicky there, Phil? No, not necessarily in possession of it, but certainly personal exposure to it.

Im not being nitpicky in the context of an apologetics discussion according to the arbitrary criteria I have established in my own mind Seriously though, Im trying to understand you and Im trying to make sure that I understand your use of the terms you supplied. The reason Im being so critical is because my understanding of your definition of apostasy is that your definition is self contradictory.

Apostasy defects from something. In this case, true Christianity.

You continue to fail in your attempts at clarification. Apostasy involves both a particular content of information(ie the “defection” from “true Christianity”) and a particular type of individual who engages in it (the defector). Im comfortable that we both agree substantially on much of the particular content of information involved. That is not what this discussion is about, however. This discussion is about what type of person engages in apostasy: Is it or is not someone who once identified themselves as a Christian? Someone who once believed that they believed or not?
You used the word “defects” - do you realize the implication of that choice? It’s like a traitor - someone who onced belonged to one side of a conflict but who “defects” to the other side. Is that really what you meant to say?

So you did understand it.

Understand it? I will say this much: I have constructed one of several possible definitions derived from your ambiguous, contradictory explanations. If you look at the simplicity of my definition(which you now apparently approve of) and compare it to your attempts, you will see that you added much that was not only unnecessary but erroneous and therefore confusing. For example, renunciation, renounce and repudiate when you simply meant reject -

Same place you do, but I don’t read into it the idea of true belief.

Sorry friend but this is an insufficient responce. In case you’re not following what’s happening I will explain it. I believe you made up your definition to fit your theology. I admit that I could be wrong, but I dont think so. In an effort to determine the truth I would like you to reveal where you got your definition from. You said you go it from the “same place I do”, but I got my definitions from dictionary.com - which all contradict your definition of apostasy as well as your use of renunciation and renounce. Now if your definition were from “the same place” as mine, then your definition would be that apostasy involves someone who once believed that they had accepted the gospel and considered themselves “saved” and believed that they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Apostates actually think they have believed, and they can’t be convinced otherwise.

And once again I am of the opinion that you need to believe this statement to make your theology coherent, but I dont believe that you have any source to substantiate it - no biblical source and no external source. In laymens terms, you simply invented it. Again, I could be wrong and if I were it would be very easy for you to demonstrate as I did your inappropriate use of several terms.
Why not demonstrate rather than obfuscate?
N.B. Because it is off topic I wont even begin to discuss how this declaration of yours destroys the heart of “salvation by faith alone”

 

[Philthy]

(continued from post #822)
That brings me back to my question.
Answer the following question with a simple yes, or no:

​

Oh I see, you get to play the “yes or no” game, but when I do it like I did hereon post 556

philthy:

I need a one word answer from you on the following question:
Does God direct the desires of men’s hearts which direct their wills? Yes or No, please.

You didnt wanna play that game…

Sandusky:

I can’t comply with your request as restricted.

Seems a little disingenuous to me. Why dont you take another crack at it - I’ll remove the Yes or No restriction and allow you to expand briefly…​

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Oh I see, you get to play the “yes or no” game, but when I do it like I did hereon post 556… You didnt wanna play that game… Seems a little disingenuous to me. Why dont you take another crack at it - I’ll remove the Yes or No restriction and allow you to expand briefly…

I posed that question in response to the last statement of CD’s post #760, in which he said
of me:

You cant be unconvinced considering the last time we had the Abraham argument you so clearly painted yourself in a corner that you couldnt even answer single and direct yes or no questions.

Neither could Catholic Dude. **Proverbs 16:9

The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

Proverbs 21:1

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He wishes.**

 

[guanophore]

Amen, the believer is sealed by Holy Spirit and posseses Eternal Life. If heaven is based on cooporation with grace, and the believer can lose heaven, then the believer never had ETERNAL life, By definition eternal life has no end and is, well, eternal!

It would be more accurate to say that it had not yet been attained, rather than “lost”. So long as we are on earth, we can renounce our inheritance.

If I have eternal life, it cannot end, by definition. If I can lose it, then IT cannot be called eternal, for it can end.

I agree about the nature of eternal life. The believer can get in it, or out of it, like getting into or out of a river. eternal life continues flowing, and an individuals choice to be in or out of it does nothing to change the nature of it.

In reality RC theology gives only conditional life base on cooportation (merit, works, no longer grace, basis for boasting, Rom 11:6, Gal 3:18).

You will have to rephrase your accusation, I fear, since this is not “Roman” theology. This is Apostolic theology, and is taught and believed by each and every community founded by the Apostles and their disciples.

In addition, it is not “Roman” that is conditional, but the teaching of Jesus. It is He who has instructed us that we will not inherit eternal life unless we stand firm until the end.

You are wrong that merit and good works are a basis for boasting. Anything that a believer does that is meritorious or beneficial flows from God’s grace. If it does not, it is not meritorious.

The imputed righteousnes of Christ is what gives Eternal Life, sanctification is what follows, but does not add to the eternal destiny.

I suppose we need a thread on merit.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

If you really do not believe that justification and God’s grace are more than simply imputed then I wonder just what your experience of spiritual rebirth in Jesus was like. If you do not believe that being “created in Christ Jesus” is an ontological change in man, then I wonder just what you have experienced in this regard. I do not intend this query as an insult, but you might want to explain this.

Likewise, you might wish to examine the following scriptures for how God’s grace works** “in”** man:

2 Cor 5:14-15
For the love of Christ controls us,

2 Cor 3:5-6
Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has **made us **competent…

Phill 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, and enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Eph 3:16
I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit,

Eph 3:20
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine,

Phil 4:13
I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

Col 1:11
May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power,

2 Thess 1:11
To this end we always pray for you, asking that our God will make you worthy of his call and will fulfill by his power every good resolve and work of faith, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Heb 13:9
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the **heart **to be strengthened by grace,

2 Peter 1: 3-4
His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature.

John 15:5
I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I **in them **bear much fruit

2 Tim 1:7
for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline.

2 Tim 3:2- 5
For people will be lovers of themselves, … lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.

God tells us "…my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” [Isaiah 55:11]

I believe that when God delares us to be righteous, we are made truly righteous. His declaration is both imputed and infused. We are washed, sanctified, and justified. We are a new creation and the importance of this cannot be over emphasized. Paul shows this emphasis when he says:

Gal 6:17
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

2 Cor 5:5
Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

 

[Pax]

In reality RC theology gives only conditional life base on cooportation (merit, works, no longer grace, basis for boasting, Rom 11:6, Gal 3:18).

…
…

If Catholic theology cannot be in error when it comes to the conditional issues surrounding salvation because scripture uses conditional terminology over and over again.

Here is a sampling:

1 John 2: 24-25
Let what you heard from the beginning abide[remain] in you. **If **what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

James 5: 19-20
My brethren, **if **any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

2 Peter 1: 10-11
Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election,** for if you do this** you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Romans 11: 20-21
That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

Hebrews 2: 1-3
Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

Hebrews 12: 14
Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

2 Timothy 2: 11-13
The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; **if **we endure, we shall also reign with him; **if **we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.

2 Peter 3: 17-18
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed to yourself and to your teaching;** hold to that**, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Colossians 1: 21-23
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, **provided that you continue **in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

I can go on with many more passages of scripture, but these should be sufficient. I hope this helped.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I posed that question in response to the last statement of CD’s post #760, in which he said
of me:

Neither could Catholic Dude.
​

Like I said - disingenous. And I’ll now add whimpy as well. :yup:

****Proverbs 16:9 ****The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

**Proverbs 21:1****The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; **He turns it wherever He wishes.

**

Hmmm - hiding behind verses again - I guess that is, selectively, your “modus operandi”. Thats OK. It’s not that I deserve much from you, but I would have thought you had something constructive to offer or that you would have refrained from offering anything at all. What you have offered is somewhat insulting, though as I said I dont deserve much. **​

 

[moondweller]

If not, the perhaps you can explain how come you are saved, and there are some people who are not? How did you get the work of Christ on the cross applied to yourself? Obviously the saving grace is not applied to all…

“…through faith.” Not all believe. From where do you get the idea that “grace” is “applied” to a person? Grace is the means by which God saves a person, "through faith; that being unmerited, undeserved, and unrecompensed. "Grace isn’t “applied,” salvation is gifted upon belief.

moondweller:

I believe in Christ, I don’t “accept” Him - He accepts me because He met all the conditions for my salvation - perfectly.

guanophore:

How is it that you were able to meet these, and others died in their sins?

How is it you ask me this question when in my statement I clearly stated that He (Jesus Christ), not me, met all the conditions for my salvation? One dies in his sins because of unbelief (Jn. 8:24).

I think you may have a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is a faculty of man, and is under the control (willpower) of man. Man can choose to place his faith where he so desires. This act of the will is a “work” (something a person does). As we can see in the following passage, it is a work required by Jesus:

John 6:27-29
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

(1) What is the prepositional phrase just after the word “work” in the above verse? (2) As I said in my previous post, Paul says that we are saved, “by grace, through faith…not as a result of works.” Faith, then, is not a work according to Pauline theology. Now, you keep harping that it is, but according to Paul, whose writing is “God-breathed,” it is not.

So, in order for one to apostasize, one must have embraced something first, right? Or do you maintain that it is possible to apostosize when one has never embraced a belief?

One can for years culturally embrace Christianity, yet never enter into personal belief. And then in unbelief turn away completely to embrace and defend a false gospel.

Many protestants unwittingly have replaced Christ with the Bible.

This “Protestant” has wittingly believed the message of the Bible concerning belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and has entered into salvation, waiting his future glorification with Christ.

I agree. What you seem to be saying is that “millions of Catholics” have fallen into perdition by doing this (apostasy?) and I am wondering how you came to this conclusion.

Those are your words, not mine. I simply said apostasy begets apostates (by the millions). It can do nothing else; like leavened dough can only produce leavened bread.

 

[moondweller]

Please explain why apostasy “this side of the cross” is different than apostasy on the other side.

I didn’t say that.

If one has fallen away from grace, then such a person cannot beget anyone in grace, therefore, the followers of an apostate have never been in grace. How do they meet the definition of “apostate”? Are they not just run of the mill unbelievers?

“In grace?” According to Scripture it is said of a true believer that he is not “under law” (the principle of), but “under grace.” “In grace” is a Catholic term. Like, “in a state of grace.” Your goal and hope is to remain and die in a “state of grace.” But Scripture says a believer is “under grace.” It’s his rule of life in his relationship with God.

No, those who have given themselves over (sold out) to apostate teachings are not just your run of the mill unbelievers. They help to perpetuate the apostasy.

I think the divine gospel of grace can be replaced by a great many things…

I don’t know what the “gospel of grace” is. I do know about “the gospel of the grace of God” by which He saves, forever, those who believe in His Son.Acts 20:24 "But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God."Those who believe are then partakers of divine grace (His unmerited favor toward them)hil 1:7 "For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.“Now the “gospel of the grace of God” certainly can be replaced by a gospel of grace” by which it is said men are ritually “infused” with “grace” (whatever that is) and work to retain it until death for salvation. But that’s not the “gospel of the grace of God” by which He Himself saves men "by grace, through faith (in Christ alone), not as a result of works. And these are now “under grace.”

 

[sandusky]

Like I said - disingenous. And I’ll now add whimpy as well. :yup:

**

Hmmm - hiding behind verses again - I guess that is, selectively, your “modus operandi”. Thats OK. It’s not that I deserve much from you, but I would have thought you had something constructive to offer or that you would have refrained from offering anything at all. What you have offered is somewhat insulting, though as I said I dont deserve much. **

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Moondweller maybe you can answer this question. Back to the topic at hand “faith alone”

Seriously, what it the purpose of adding the word “alone” to the plain and clear scriptural understanding of faith. Isn’t scripture phased well enough on it’s own since it is inspired by God?

Why add a word that changes the meaning of scripture? Scripture is written for people in faith to understand, correct? Why not allow it to stand on it’s own.

Why add “alone” to faith when scripture doesn’t say it?

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller maybe you can answer this question. Back to the topic at hand “faith alone”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Boyle View Post
Seriously, what it the purpose of adding the word “alone” to the plain and clear scriptural understanding of faith. Isn’t scripture phased well enough on it’s own since it is inspired by God?

Why add a word that changes the meaning of scripture? Scripture is written for people in faith to understand, correct? Why not allow it to stand on it’s own.

Why add “alone” to faith when scripture doesn’t say it?

Why do you add the word “initial” to justification? One cannot contextually justify it:Rom 3:24 "…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,In the first verse our justification is gifted by His grace (unmerited) and based on nothing other than the redemptive work of Jesus Christ (the cross). In the second, it states that we “have been justified” (a done deal) by faith, which is the grounds for our now having peace with God.

None of the writers ever imply that the justification the believer receives from God by faith, according to His grace, and based on Christ’s redemptive work, is only initial in nature. Nor can that conclusion be warranted by the wording or the context.

Now a verse like, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; the gift of God; not as a result of works,” explicitly restricts salvation to being “by grace” (alone) and “through faith” (alone). And to expel all doubts Paul adds, “not as a result of works.”

Scriptural evidence itself argues for the word “alone.” Exegetically it’s demanded by the context. And the only reason why it’s disputed at all is because there are those who refuse to, as you say, “allow it to stand on its own.” They simply won’t believe it. Such grace is repugnant to them.

“Alone” in no way changes the meaning of Scripture. In fact, it defends the integrity of its message.

 

[ryanoneil]

Justification is ongoing, not a one time event.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and maker is God. Heb. 11:8-10 proves Abraham’s justification occurred in Gen. 12:1-4

**For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” ** Rom 4:3 proves Abraham is further justified in Gen. 15:6.

**Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” ** James 2:21-23 proves that Abraham is further justified in Gen. 22:1-18. These verses prove that justification before God is an on-going process, not a one-time event. It also proves faith and works.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Why do you add the word “initial” to justification? One cannot contextually justify it:Rom 3:24 "…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,In the first verse our justification is gifted by His grace (unmerited) and based on nothing other than the redemptive work of Jesus Christ (the cross). In the second, it states that we “have been justified” (a done deal) by faith, which is the grounds for our now having peace with God.

None of the writers ever imply that the justification the believer receives from God by faith, according to His grace, and based on Christ’s redemptive work, is only initial in nature. Nor can that conclusion be warranted by the wording or the context.

Now a verse like, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; the gift of God; not as a result of works,” explicitly restricts salvation to being “by grace” (alone) and “through faith” (alone). And to expel all doubts Paul adds, “not as a result of works.”

Scriptural evidence itself argues for the word “alone.” Exegetically it’s demanded by the context. And the only reason why it’s disputed at all is because there are those who refuse to, as you say, “allow it to stand on its own.” They simply won’t believe it. Such grace is repugnant to them.

“Alone” in no way changes the meaning of Scripture. In fact, it defends the integrity of its message.

Let me see if I have this right. You are claiming that Scripture argues for the word alone to be added to faith, right? Yet it doesn’t argue likewise for the word infused? And further since infused is not written in Scripture directly then it can’t be backed up but the word alone in faith alone can? Likewise while Scripture states the case for Mary from Genesis to Revelations, just because it is not specifically written saying so that it can’t be argued but faith alone can because you say Scriptures argues the case for it? You sure are presenting an interesting twist to sola scripture.

Faith is the tool with which we use to believe in God and all that He has done for us. The need for faith is so oftened stated in the Pauline letters because of the need for it to keep the early christians and us on the right path to God even though that sometimes it is does not seem logical or necessarry to do it. Faith simply enables us to believe when there is no provable reason to believe.

Faith is also an inverse ratio to the person who has it. IOW, the greater one’s faith is, the less of it they have. The more you know God, the less need you have of faith to believe in Him. Peter and Paul for example did not need faith to know that Christ exists. They knew so first hand. Peter and the Apostles did not need faith to know that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. They saw it for themselves. Their faith, like that of Abraham and Moses, was one that was not nec. to believe that God does exist but rather it was one that enabled them to believe that He loved them individually and that He would bring about what He promised. Faith is believing when logic tells you not to. Faith was being attacked then as it is now. Yet, it is what we essentially and often desparately need to believe in God and His promises for us if we remain faithful for Him. It is not the only element we need for salvation but it is an essential one.

If faith is exclusively necessarry for salvation then does Michael the Archangel have faith? The answer is no he doesn’t, not one single shred of it. He has no need of it. He knows God, His omnipotent powers and Heaven. That is why there is no repentence or forgiveness for Satan. He too knows God and His powers yet his vanity made him rebel and turn on God.

 

[Philthy]

Im not sure how to interpret this smiley.
Are you unable to explain what you meant when you said:

Sandusky:

Christ says that those given to Him by the Father “will come to Me,” and He says nothing about their doing so against their will. Men are not robots; they act according to the desires of their heart which direct their will.

Or do you simply not wish to do so? Im honestly baffled.
It would seem that you are saying that the “desires of their heart” is what allows the exercise of free will which separates men from robots. However, if God controls the desires of the heart then men are no different from robots really. At least it seems that way to me - but I am not as smart or educated as you are and perhaps Im missing something. So I asked the simple question…

Philthy:

Does God direct the desires of men’s hearts which direct their wills? Yes or No, please.

And you apparently refuse to answer…except for

, which, though pleasant, leaves the question unanswered and your concept of free will flapping in the breeze. Whatever…

 

[guanophore]

“…through faith.” Not all believe. From where do you get the idea that “grace” is “applied” to a person? Grace is the means by which God saves a person, "through faith; that being unmerited, undeserved, and unrecompensed. "Grace isn’t “applied,” salvation is gifted upon belief.How is it you ask me this question when in my statement I clearly stated that He (Jesus Christ), not me, met all the conditions for my salvation?

I ask you this question because your soteriology does not make sense to me. God has given to all men the grace to be saved.

Acts 17:30
30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

God never commands us to do anything that He does not also provide the grace to obey. Therefore, grace is given to all. However, we know that not all are saved. You are telling me that you are saved because of your faith. So, do you mean to say that the reason you are saved, and others are not, is because you placed your faith in Christ, and they placed theirs in themselves, their own works, or their idols (sex, drugs or rock and roll)?

Do you believe that people can be given God’s grace, then reject it?

One dies in his sins because of unbelief (Jn. 8:24).

No arguement there!

(**1**) What is the prepositional phrase just after the word "*work*" in the above verse? (**2**) As I said in my previous post, Paul says that we are saved, "*by grace, through faith...not as a result of works*." Faith, then, is not a work according to Pauline theology.

I am sure it seems that way to you, though I am not sure how. Jesus affirms that it is work. It is not a work that we can do on our own, since it is a “work of God” (righteous work), but it does require that man do something. Man must respond to the command of God to repent, and man must willfully choose to place his faith in Christ. This is not something God does FOR us.

Now, you keep harping that it is, but according to Paul, whose writing is “God-breathed,” it is not

I agree that the scripture is Theopneustos. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the God-breathed scriptures, because it is not consistent with what Jesus taught the God Breathed Church. Paul teaches that faith is obedient, and that saving faith perseveres to the end. He teaches that this life of faith is hard work, and causes suffering, which should be embraced by the believer.

.

One can for years culturally embrace Christianity, yet never enter into personal belief. And then in unbelief turn away completely to embrace and defend a false gospel.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you claiming this is your definition of apostasy?

This "Protestant" has wittingly believed the message of the Bible concerning belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and has entered into salvation, waiting his future glorification with Christ.Those are your words, not mine.

I guess I don’t understand. Do you think it is impossible for such a person to fall from grace? Do you think the spiritual state of such a person is the same as the one you described above as “cultural”?

I simply said apostasy begets apostates (by the millions). It can do nothing else; like leavened dough can only produce leavened bread.

I know you said that, but I think I disagree. I can’t be sure until you show your definition of apostasy. I think this is an impossible scenario. Apostasy means to fall away from the faith. Persons who have done that beget unbelievers, not “apostates”.

 

[guanophore]

 apostasy is borne out of unbelief, never out of belief (an oxymoron).  Hence, apostasy begets apostates.It multiplies after its own kind.

Although I have yet to read your definition of apostasy, it is clear here that you identify apostasy with unbelief. If this is the case, then you have some other definition of the word

I do not think that it is possible for apostasy to multiply itself, since it cannot reproduce. It is sterile.

**This side of the cross apostasy is **a renunciation of the gospel of Christ. The divine gospel of God’s grace renounced, repudiated and replaced by men with “a gospel” of human works. This is what it means to “fall from grace.”

quote=quanophore] Please explain how apostasy “this side of the cross” is different than apostasy on the other side.

I didn’t say that.

“In grace?” According to Scripture it is said of a true believer that he is not “under law” (the principle of), but “under grace.” “In grace” is a Catholic term. Like, “in a state of grace.” Your goal and hope is to remain and die in a “state of grace.” But Scripture says a believer is “under grace.” It’s his rule of life in his relationship with God.

Not only Catholic, but Apostolic. All the Churches founded by the Apostles have this Teaching. Orthodox, Oriental, etc.

No, those who have given themselves over (sold out) to apostate teachings are not just your run of the mill unbelievers. They help to perpetuate the apostasy

Apostates don’t have “teachings” because they have fallen away from the faith. If they once held to the true faith, they abandoned it. If they are teaching wrongly or believe wrongly, they may be heretics, but it is wrong to charge the descendants of heretics with heresy, since they never knew or were taught the true faith, they cannot then be accused of the sin of departing from it.

I agree that it is possible to support apostasy, but that would be a case of trying to pull true believers into falling away from their faith. We can see examples of this in the Holy Scriptures. However, such persons would have to be orthodox believers who also fell into apostasy.

.I don’t know what the “gospel of grace” is.

I find this shocking. You just spelled it out in about 12 of you posts. Look up a few paragraphs, where you are talking about believers being under grace. Are you reading what you are typing?

Those who believe are then partakers of divine grace (His unmerited favor toward them):

I am glad we can agree on this point, because it is critical to the discussion of apostasy. If one is a believer, it is because one is a partaker of divine grace. One cannot be a believer unless one partakes. Equally, one cannot partake unless one is a believer.

Now the “gospel of the grace of God” certainly can be replaced by a gospel of grace" by which it is said men are ritually “infused” with “grace” (whatever that is) and work to retain it until death for salvation. But that’s not the “gospel of the grace of God” by which He Himself saves men "by grace, through faith (in Christ alone), not as a result of works. And these are now “under grace.”

No, they are one and the same. Men are infused with grace. Infusion is the word used to describe what in scripture is called “pouring” of God’s love and grace into us. We believe that we are not only washed, but cleansed within an without - not just “declared” righteous, but actually MADE righteous. Perhaps that is a topic for another thread?

Do you think that it is not work to walk the life of faith? Do you believe there is no striving or suffering involved? The walk of faith can only occur by the grace of God. It is He that is able to keep us until that day. You somehow seem to imagine that the grace that justifies us then disappears, leaving us on our own to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. This is not the case. The same grace that justifies us is that which is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, and to produce in us the works of righteousness that He has ordained.

 

[guanophore]

Why do you add the word “initial” to justification? One cannot contextually justify it:Rom 3:24 "…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,In the first verse our justification is gifted by His grace (unmerited) and based on nothing other than the redemptive work of Jesus Christ (the cross). In the second, it states that we “have been justified” (a done deal) by faith, which is the grounds for our now having peace with God.

Because the context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. Catholic Teaching is that we were justified by grace, through faith, that we continue to be justified by our deeds done in grace, and that we will be finally justified when this age is completed.

None of the writers ever imply that the justification the believer receives from God by faith, according to His grace, and based on Christ’s redemptive work, is only initial in nature. Nor can that conclusion be warranted by the wording or the context.

No, and it is not “only initial”. But it is clear that it begins at a certain point, persists, an comes to the conclusion of eternal life. This conclusion is warranted from a great many passages.

Now a verse like, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; the gift of God; not as a result of works,” explicitly restricts salvation to being “by grace” (alone) and “through faith” (alone). And to expel all doubts Paul adds, “not as a result of works.”

I see your point. However, one cannot devise doctrine correctly by cherry picking verses out of the whole. We know by the reading of all Paul’s writings, and putting them together with the rest of the NT writings, that Paul is speaking here of a certain kind of faith. It is a faith that works. A faith that obeys. Such faith can only occur when man cooperates with the grace of God. One must allow God to will and to work in himself God’s ways.

Scriptural evidence itself argues for the word “alone.” Exegetically it’s demanded by the context. And the only reason why it’s disputed at all is because there are those who refuse to, as you say, “allow it to stand on its own.” They simply won’t believe it. Such grace is repugnant to them.

I can see why you would say that scriptural evidence “demands and argues for it”. This is the mindset of Protestantism. Rather than submit to the Apostolic Teachings, some persons felt it necessary to demand and argue for a different gospel. Such demanding and arguing does not represent the humility of one whose heart is ready to be taught. It represents the heart of one ready to protest.

It is disputed because we are to reject “another gospel” than the one which was handed down to us. The Apostles taught us that it is grace through faith (working together) instead of alone, and that the faith needed is faith that works, and faith that obeys, a faith that persists until the end.

 

[guanophore]

Sandusky:

Christ says that those given to Him by the Father “will come to Me,” and He says nothing about their doing so against their will. Men are not robots; they act according to the desires of their heart which direct their will.

I agree. But how is it that men can thwart the will of God? Is He not omnipotent?

" the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves." Luke 7:30