Faith/Grace...Grace/Faith

[Philthy]

people who commit sins are sinners.
Have you considered the point that at least one of the believers acted unjustly to the other to warrant a lawsuit to begin with? Doesn’t this prove that believers an be unrighteous?

MD believes that the unrighteous are those who have not accepted Christ as lord and saviour.
He further believes that behaviors do not distinguish the “identity” of the unrighteous and the righteous. It is their “belief” status that separates them. So in his theology, the righteous are righteous by faith alone; and the unrighteous are unrighteous by disbelief alone.
This is why I asked him why Paul chose to identify the unrighteous according to behaviors rather than according to their belief status. He has not yet responded to this question.

 

[paul_c]

MD believes that the unrighteous are those who have not accepted Christ as lord and saviour.
He further believes that behaviors do not distinguish the “identity” of the unrighteous and the righteous. It is their “belief” status that separates them. So in his theology, the righteous are righteous by faith alone; and the unrighteous are unrighteous by disbelief alone.
This is why I asked him why Paul chose to identify the unrighteous according to behaviors rather than according to their belief status. He has not yet responded to this question.

I think you are right in that his definition of righteous is different than most others and certainly different than the dictionary term. I think that is sometimes the root of his confusion.

From the freedictionary:thefreedictionary.com/righteous
right·eous (rchs)
adj.

1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral

righteous synonyms:
adjective

1. virtuous, good, just, fair, moral, pure, ethical, upright, honourable, honest, equitable, law-abiding, squeaky-clean, blameless He concluded that it was impossible to find one righteous man.
   virtuous bad, guilty, evil, false, unfair, corrupt, indecent, improper, immoral, unjust, dishonest, unscrupulous, wicked, sinful, unethical, unseemly, insincere, unprincipled, dishonourable, unrighteous
2. justified, just, valid, legitimate, understandable, rightful, well founded, defensible, supportable He was full of righteous indignation.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Comp

 

[Philthy]

Debate points awarded to Philthy

Thank you - Im glad someone is paying attention!
The question of why Paul would identify the unrighteous by their behaviors instead of their “unbelief” remains unanswered because it is… unanswerable. We might get more attempts to circle us back to “salvation” verses (already tried once) and through them a further attempt to impose what they claim regarding being “saved” into the discussion of “inheriting the KOG”, but little else. The difference in language is clear: salvation talks are all about faith alone, while inheriting the KOG talks focus on love and avoiding sin.
I owe MD a lot in the “iron sharpens iron” sort of way that our interactions have crystallized these issues into a discussion that clearly exposes (IMHO) some of the irreconcilable areas of certain theologies. I strongly relate to what he is attempting to convey regarding salvation being in Christ alone, but we obviously disagree on the mystery of why God has placed us in time and space and given us the ability to choose right and wrong, and what the significance of those choices are. I dont sense he is comfortable with mystery.

Moondweller is starting to mix his Faith and Works together ! He can’t keep them apart any longer. For, the minute he goes OUTSIDE the ‘supersacred realm’ of those 8-10 verses he always uses … he gets himself in big trouble …

You mean the 8-9 verses, right?! (as in Eph 2:8-9).

 

[Philthy]

I think you are right in that his definition of righteous is different than most others and certainly different than the dictionary term. I think that is sometimes the root of his confusion.

Wishful thinking, Im afraid. There are many deeper issues that produces these differences. One of them is revealed in his statement in response to this

Philthy:

Being Heaven “bound” and actually inheriting the kingdom of Heaven are different.

He responded with this
MD:

Totally false. Else salvation/saved is meaningless.

He never offered an explanation as to how he arrives at his conclusion that if being “saved” and “inheriting the KOG” are different that it therefore renders “salvation/saved…meaningless”. I called him on it: the fact that because SOME of those who are “saved” don’t ultimately inherit the KOG does not at all render being “saved” meaningless - it is still a necessary means for accomplishing the inheritance of the KOG for EVERYONE who inherits it. So it is not at all meaningless.
He apparently does not have answers to this rebuttal, just as there is no real answer (he instead simply accuses me of not listening) to the issue of why Paul would identify the unrighteous by their behaviors if it is their “unbelief” which identifies them as unrighteous.
But to bring the discussion back to justification (and why I disagree slightly with your assessment of the issue) he develops his understanding and definition of justification from the idea that salvation is complete, permanent and irrevocable at the moment one comes to faith in Christ. And all of Scripture is interpreted through that idea, as we have seen (IMHO) during this discussion of what St Paul is saying in 1Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5. So the roots of that idea are deeper than the justification issue and there are issues deeper than that still. Ultimately, IMHO, it comes down to a rejection of the existence of a visible, identifiable mechanism within the Church to authoritatively declare what the Apostles taught and thereby set limits upon one’s interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
There may even be issues deeper than that which precipitate the rejection of that authority. The Church’s teaching re: contraception would be an example of a teaching that some would find so hard that they would - consciously or unconsciously - reject the teaching by rejecting the source of the teaching. Once that authority is gone to set those limits and Sola Scriptura is added to the mix it is very difficult to use ***merely ***academic means (ie, debate, apologetics, reason, history) to reach agreement. It truly becomes first and foremost a work of the Holy Spirit to open hearts and minds, and only then can discussions help. I know that is how I approach any faith obstacles I have - I first pray for God to open my heart that my eyes, ears, mind and body will follow regardless of the cost so that I can know His will. And that is why I love the prayer…

Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us that in difficult moments we might not despair nor grow despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your Holy Will which is love and mercy itself…

Blessings!

 

[paul_c]

Wishful thinking, Im afraid. There are many deeper issues that produces these differences. One of them is revealed in his statement in response to this

He responded with this

He never offered an explanation as to how he arrives at his conclusion that if being “saved” and “inheriting the KOG” are different that it therefore renders “salvation/saved…meaningless”. I called him on it: the fact that because SOME of those who are “saved” don’t ultimately inherit the KOG does not at all render being “saved” meaningless - it is still a necessary means for accomplishing the inheritance of the KOG for EVERYONE who inherits it. So it is not at all meaningless.
He apparently does not have answers to this rebuttal, just as there is no real answer (he instead simply accuses me of not listening) to the issue of why Paul would identify the unrighteous by their behaviors if it is their “unbelief” which identifies them as unrighteous.
But to bring the discussion back to justification (and why I disagree slightly with your assessment of the issue) he develops his understanding and definition of justification from the idea that salvation is complete, permanent and irrevocable at the moment one comes to faith in Christ. And all of Scripture is interpreted through that idea, as we have seen (IMHO) during this discussion of what St Paul is saying in 1Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5. So the roots of that idea are deeper than the justification issue and there are issues deeper than that still. Ultimately, IMHO, it comes down to a rejection of the existence of a visible, identifiable mechanism within the Church to authoritatively declare what the Apostles taught and thereby set limits upon one’s interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
There may even be issues deeper than that which precipitate the rejection of that authority. The Church’s teaching re: contraception would be an example of a teaching that some would find so hard that they would - consciously or unconsciously - reject the teaching by rejecting the source of the teaching. Once that authority is gone to set those limits and Sola Scriptura is added to the mix it is very difficult to use ***merely ***academic means (ie, debate, apologetics, reason, history) to reach agreement. It truly becomes first and foremost a work of the Holy Spirit to open hearts and minds, and only then can discussions help. I know that is how I approach any faith obstacles I have - I first pray for God to open my heart that my eyes, ears, mind and body will follow regardless of the cost so that I can know His will. And that is why I love the prayer…

Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us that in difficult moments we might not despair nor grow despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to Your Holy Will which is love and mercy itself…

Blessings!

I’m not going to try to psychoanalyze Moondweller, but I would agree with you that he reads the bible within the context " that salvation is complete, permanent and irrevocable at the moment one comes to faith in Christ." He is an extremist from that point of view, ignoring or explaining away any scripture that does not support this tradition. He is not currently open to anything beyond that but perhaps with time… He has outlasted most other Protestant apologists on this site most would have been converted or moved on by now. The longer he stays, the more opportunity for conversion of heart, as I see it…

 

[brb3]

One enters a personal relationship with God through faith in Christ. Through personal faith that one is “born again.”

… now in Christ (the “Last Adam”), redeemed (purchased by blood), sanctified, washed (purified) in the name of Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of his God (1 Cor. 6:11). It’s a complete package.

Personal relationship … meaning a Theoretical or Experiential one ? does water Baptism, Annointing of Hands/Oil, & Eucharist play any role ?

Set forth the ‘complete’ package taught you, … from the ‘traditions’ of your new-age brethren / church.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, do you understand the Catholic concept of love? It means doing something for someone without expecting anything in return. Love is a pure gift.

Love isn’t a “gift,” it’s a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). And it’s far more than just doing something for somebody expecting no reward in return (see 1 Cor. 13).

So there is the paradox: You can’t get to heaven without love but you can’t love to get to heaven.

There’s no paradox. Can you show me in Scripture where it states that “you can’t get to heaven without love?”

You must love simply because its the right thing to do, not as a way to earn a reward.

Then, technically, it’s not a “requirement” for heaven’s entrance. That’s why you won’t find it specified so in Scripture.

I forgot that you disregard John 3.

On the contrary, I myself am “born again.” Hence, I don’t at all disregard Jn. 3. Only the idea that one is born again via water baptism.

people who commit sins are sinners.

Unless they’ve become a “saint” (“by calling,” see 1 Cor. 1:2) through personal faith in Jesus Christ. “Saints” are never identified as “sinners.”

Have you considered the point that at least one of the believers acted unjustly to the other to warrant a lawsuit to begin with? Doesnt’t this prove that believers can be unrighteous?

A true believer can at times act unrighteously, but the righteousness by which he (the true believer) now stands before God is not his own righteousness but is, in fact, "…{the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; (Rom. 3:22). It’s a righteousness which God Himself credits (through faith) apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6).

Again. Paul, in 1 Cor. 6, was chastising their behavior toward one another, not threatening their salvation. You read your own religious, soteriological construct into the text. That’s not how one is to interpret Scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

moondweller:

Again. Paul, in 1 Cor. 6, was chastising their behavior toward one another, not threatening their salvation. You read your own religious, soteriological construct into the text. That’s not how one is to interpret Scripture.

According to…

Your dogmatizing how Scripture is to be interpreted (since you have no authority) is amusing.

 

[moondweller]

Im not looking at being “saved” MD, are you really that clueless that you’ve forgotten the actual topic at hand? **The topic at hand is not “being saved”, it is inheriting the Kingdom of God. Can you deal with that topic or is it simply too much for you? :banghead:**They are one and the same, my friend. ALL who enter the Kingdom of God are saved. ALL the saved enter the Kingdom of God.

I never claimed he was accusing them of engaging in “all” of those acts. What I pointed out was that he specifically addressed an issue he KNEW they were engaged in: injustice. And he IMMEDIATELY tells them that the unjust will not inherit the KOG.

 

[moondweller]

According to…

Your dogmatizing how Scripture is to be interpreted (since you have no authority) is amusing.

Amusing to you, yes, but accurate in my interpretation based on the context.

 

[moondweller]

Personal relationship … meaning a Theoretical or Experiential one ?

Meaning a real, honest to goodness, personal one. It’s experiential, not theoretical.

does water Baptism, Annointing of Hands/Oil, & Eucharist play any role ?

“Play a role?”

Set forth the ‘complete’ package taught you, … from the ‘traditions’ of your new-age brethren / church.

“New-age?”

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Moondweller, do you understand the Catholic concept of love? It means doing something for someone without expecting anything in return. Love is a pure gift.

I am so glad you found 1Cor 13. Now see what it says about Love. first of all its a theological virtue along with Hope and Faith. Secondly, its the most important of the three.

Quote:
So there is the paradox: You can’t get to heaven without love but you can’t love to get to heaven.

Too easy…Luke 10:
25 There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
27 He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
28 He replied to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

Quote:
You must love simply because its the right thing to do, not as a way to earn a reward.

Ah, but it is . Are you really so far gone that you don’t understand that God is love?

Quote:
I forgot that you disregard John 3.

I stand corrected, you only ignore the parts of John 3 you don’t agree with.

Quote:
people who commit sins are sinners.

Again, you read into scripture whatever you wish. Satan couldn’t wish for anything more than for self professed Christians to claim that personal faith in Jesus allows them to sin without regret or implications on their soul.

Quote:
Have you considered the point that at least one of the believers acted unjustly to the other to warrant a lawsuit to begin with? Doesnt’t this prove that believers can be unrighteous?

Moondweller, What do you think Satan’s goals are? Seriously, have you considered how he harvests souls for hell? He makes some believe that heaven doesnt’ exist. He makes some beleive that hell doesn’t exist. For those that he can’t convince of either, he makes them beleive that their actions don’t matter and that they can do as they please.

Again. Paul, in 1 Cor. 6, was chastising their behavior toward one another, not threatening their salvation. You read your own religious, soteriological construct into the text. That’s not how one is to interpret Scripture.

We follow the Catholic interpretation of scripture. You follow your own. Tell me again, why we should believe your interpretation. What do you have to demonstrate your credibility? I have caught you multiple times, splicing together unrelated scriptural phrases to make nonscriptural statements to try to justify your theology . Above you make a personal statement and then put after it (Rom4:4-6) as if that’s what the passage says. We both know it does not say this. As far as I am concerned, you have no credbility left whatsoever. Repent of this…

 

[Pax]

They are one and the same, my friend. ALL who enter the Kingdom of God are saved. ALL the saved enter the Kingdom of God.Yes, and IOW, he was essentially telling them not to act like those (unrighteous) who do not inherit the KOG. It’s that simple, my friend.And you say the consequence of their behavior is not inheriting the KOG. But that’s not at all what Paul is even suggesting.He states nothing about they jeopardizing their inheritance. He simply states that the unrighteous will not inherit the KOG. And then he names some of the unrighteous (nouns). But states:“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” They were “justified” in Christ. IOW, “made righteous” in Him, through faith (see Gal. 3:24; cf. Rom. 5:19).

And based on this truth Paul then gives them the life principle the “made righteous” in Christ are to live by:1 Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful for me (even taking a brother to court before unbelievers), but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

1 Cor 10:23-24 'All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own {good,} but that of his neighbor."It’s how the “justified” are to live. But he doesn’t say that if they fail they lose the justification which was gifted to them (Rom. 3:24). That’s your religious theory, not Paul’s. You won’t find that in any of his Epistles.

MD in Christ,

Just remember these words:

– Living Bible

Ephesians 5:6 Don’t be fooled by those who try to excuse these sins, for the terrible wrath of God is upon** all those **who do them.

–1 John 3:7-8

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning.

–Rev 21:27

But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

These are all warnings issued this side of the cross to Christians. Such warnings, and there are many, are not issued for nothing, and you need to take all of the warnings from the NT and place them along side all of your chosen verses and then objectively reconcile what they contain into a harmonious whole. IMHO, there is no compatibility with your stated position. Proper reconciling will IMHO only be found in the Catholic position.

God bless.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Amusing to you, yes, but accurate in my interpretation based on the context.

Yes, and that cuts both ways. So you can NEVER criticize anyone else’s interpretation based on the context they see!

 

[Pax]

…
…
Can you show me in Scripture where it states that "you can’t get to heaven without love?"Then, technically, it’s not a “requirement” for heaven’s entrance. That’s why you won’t find it specified so in Scripture.
…
…

Moon in Christ,

I think we can…try reflecting prayerfully on the following:

It is important to note that Jesus never tells us that “once we are saved we are always saved.” Instead the Lord tells us in Matthew 24:12-14 that:

“…because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world, as a testimony to all nations;”

Clearly, Jesus is showing us the relationship of enduring in love for God and salvation, and he is further stating that this message is part of the gospel of the Kingdom to be preached throughout the world, which will, of course, be this side of the Cross.

Paul also says this:

“So faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love”(1 Corinthians 13:13),

or that

“…if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing”(1 Corinthians 13:2).

“No love” means that your faith is rendered meaningless by way of the context. “I am nothing” would certainly include “not being one of the saved.”

When Paul speaks of salvation in terms of faith versus works, he is always speaking in terms of the Judaizers and their false teaching on the observance of the OT law vs. salvation by grace through faith. We understand Paul more fully when we notice how he always uses the example of circumcision when making his strongest arguments.

All of Paul’s references to circumcision are important when it comes to what he means by grace, faith, works and salvation. In terms of love and faith Paul makes a noteworthy and powerful statement about salvation that is in direct conflict to your opinion on the non-necessity of love.

In Galatians 5:6 he says:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love."

Paul is not saying faith alone. Paul is saying that faith “working through love” is what saves rather than anything to do with circumcision. This is a great summary of how he explains the errors of the Judaizers and teaches us the truth of the good news. This is made clear by the context which reads in full as follows:

Galatians 5:1-7

FOR FREEDOM Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Please notice how the context is about circumcision and justification. Circumcision is of no avail, and that our salvation is by faith working through love. He could have said, “faith alone” but he clearly did not.

And here are just a few more verses to consider:

Deu 7:9-10

Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who maintains covenant loyalty with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and who repays in their own person those who reject him.

1 Cor 8:3

…but anyone who loves God is known by him.

That, as opposed to:

“I never **knew **you; depart from me, you evildoers.”[Matt 7:23]

1 Cor 16:22

Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. Our Lord, come!

The saved a never accursed!

Jam 1:12-15

Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. See also James 2:5 where he uses the same terminology “those who love him.”

Although there are many more passages that could be cited in refutation of your position on love I will leave you with this last one:

1Cor 2:9

But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him”

Now ask yourself…What is it that God is preparing for those that do not love him, but prefer themselves or something else? Remember, “even the demons believe”[per James 2:19], but they have no love for God. They are at enmity with God and so is anyone else that has no love for God. They will indeed be accursed.

God bless.

 

[Philthy]

They are one and the same, my friend. ALL who enter the Kingdom of God are saved. ALL the saved enter the Kingdom of God.

You keep repeating this claim - that they are the same thing - without substantiating it. Where can I find the statement that being saved and inheriting the KOG are one and the same thing? I agree that all who enter the KOG are saved, but where can I find the claim that all the saved inherit the KOG?

Yes, and IOW, he was essentially telling them not to act like those (unrighteous) who do not inherit the KOG.

Of course, but as I have already pointed out, he says more than that…he says that they are acting unjustly and that those who act unjustly do not inherit the KOG. You have attempted to argue that he is not speaking of the Corinthians - that they do not belong in the same noun category as the unrighteous, and that Paul in no way meant to say that those behaviors would prevent them from inheriting the KOG. I have pointed out several problems with your argument

And you say the consequence of their behavior is not inheriting the KOG.

To be accurate, I said it jeopardizes their inheritance of the KOG

But that’s not at all what Paul is even suggesting.He states nothing about they jeopardizing their inheritance. He simply states that the unrighteous will not inherit the KOG. And then he names some of the unrighteous (nouns).

It is the behavior which defines the noun state, MD. Paul is indeed condemning the behaviors, not merely condemning the unrighteous. He is even clearer on this point in his letter to the Galatians" …Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness…and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
There you have it: it is those who do such things who do not inherit the KOG. Your attempted spin is easily refuted by this verse which directly parellels the conversation he had with the Corinthians on inheriting the KOG. It could not be any plainer.

It’s how the “justified” are to live. But he doesn’t say that if they fail they lose the justification which was gifted to them (Rom. 3:24). That’s your religious theory, not Paul’s. You won’t find that in any of his Epistles.

Actually I find it all over them - it is you who won’t find it even when it is expressly stated:
those who DO SUCH THINGS will not inherit the KOG. It’s very clear.
From my viewpoint your argument is so weak that it’s pointless to argue. Your insistence on representing it indicates that you are not amenable to the facts and reason.

And, for the record, you never addressed my specific rebuttals to each of these issues from prior posts.

• You havn’t even touched the rebuttal of your claim that “being saved and inheriting the KOG are the same else salvation/being saved is meaningless”. I reiterate that being saved is still meaningful even if some of those who are saved don’t ultimately inherit the KOG - it is still a necessary step for those who do inherit it.
• You havent answered why Paul identifies the unrighteous by their behavior when - if your sola fide theology were true - it is their unbelief which condemns them. His doing so undermines your claim that his message is that salvation is by faith alone - for if you were correct he should identify the unrighteous by their UNBELIEF, not by their behavior. But he does identify the unrighteous by their behavior.
• You havent addressed my comments that simply because Paul points out that SOME of the Corinthians USED to be those things, that that does not mean that some of them have not BECOME THEM AGAIN. I submit that that is precisely what he was addressing and warning them about. Some had used their newborn freedom in Christ as an opportunity for the flesh and Paul warns them that doing so jeopardizes their inheritance in the KOG.

Blessings!

 

[brb3]

Meaning a real, honest to goodness, personal one. It’s experiential, not theoretical.

Ok … how did this happen for you and your mentors ? What do you teach is needed to come to a Personal Experience with God, and be Reborn in Holy Spirit ?

Set forth the COMPLETE PACKAGE for me, Pax, Philthy, Paul c, Ambrose, etc … that you earlier described as essential to Salvation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Philthy:

And, for the record, [moondweller] you never addressed my specific rebuttals to each of these issues from prior posts.

He didn’t do me either! I want to know how someone goes to heaven (is saved) but loses his reward (based on his works at the judgment seat) in moondweller’s bizarre doctrine.

His exact words:

moondweller:

According to the Scriptures I will go before the judgment (bema) seat of Christ and my WORKS will be appraised and I will either receive reward or not. But I myself will not be “judged” nor my salvation

 

[Philthy]

He didn’t do me either! I want to know how someone goes to heaven (is saved) but loses his reward (based on his works at the judgment seat) in moondweller’s bizarre doctrine.

His exact words:

I have been down this road with him several times. The “you don’t lose your salvation, but you lose your reward” is his attempted means of reconciling what is IMHO irreconcilable. It creates more theological inconsistencies than it resolves, not the least of which is how, exactly, a salvation devoid of reward is experienced. Are we still perfectly happy in such a state? If not, then does that mean that Christ’s attonement was insufficient to cover those sins of omission? And why, then, does he (MD) minimize the role of works? And if so(we’re still perfectly happy), why do Paul and others spend so much time on the issue?
It remains a less clear topic for apologetic debate, however. The clear line drawn is Scripture between being “saved” and “inheriting the KOG” is bold and unambiguous. It requires putting forth Scripturally unsupportable notions such as “being saved and inheriting the KOG are the same thing” and ignoring what is actually said, and said in a perfectly context, within the letters we have been discussing.

Blessings!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have been down this road with him several times. The “you don’t lose your salvation, but you lose your reward” is his attempted means of reconciling what is IMHO irreconcilable. It creates more theological inconsistencies than it resolves, not the least of which is how, exactly, a salvation devoid of reward is experienced. Are we still perfectly happy in such a state? If not, then does that mean that Christ’s attonement was insufficient to cover those sins of omission? And why, then, does he (MD) minimize the role of works? And if so(we’re still perfectly happy), why do Paul and others spend so much time on the issue?
It remains a less clear topic for apologetic debate, however. The clear line drawn is Scripture between being “saved” and “inheriting the KOG” is bold and unambiguous. It requires putting forth Scripturally unsupportable notions such as “being saved and inheriting the KOG are the same thing” and ignoring what is actually said, and said in a perfectly context, within the letters we have been discussing.

Blessings!

Yes, and along the same lines, assured Salvation depends on Faith. Yet how can Faith be assured? In his line of argument, if one loses one’s faith, it is because one never had faith. Yet how can anyone lose something they never had? How can ANYONE be assured he has Faith, because if he ever loses his faith, then he never had faith? So what they are REALLY saying is that Faith can never be lost. But if faith can never be lost, then why does Paul condemn the Judaizers who are counting on the Law to justify them. Have they lost their faith? What if a fundamentalist becomes Catholic? Does that mean they lost their faith because they never had it? Can a Catholic even have faith in their world? Or, if Faith can’t be lost, then it doesn’t matter what they believe, or what religion they adhere to because they once had faith, so they always have faith.

Yet, if they admit that faith can be lost, then they also admit that salvation can be lost as well! O dear! What a dilemma for them. They must have to be very illogical to be persuaded by such illogical arguments.