Heaven; what is NECESSARY to get there?

[PJM]

=cooterhein;7609516]Pretty much, yeah.

I would say instead that the number of people who’d prefer eternal bliss to eternal torment is significantly greater than the number of people who are actually Christians.

So friend is “being a Christian” 'knowing Christ"? Or is there more to it than that?

What’s essential is that God takes necessary action in such a way that He causes a person to become a Christian. And here, I’m using the word “Christian” to cover all the narrow gate people and only the narrow gate people. It’s a transformation thing that God does.

S the FACTthat God Created humanity; and humanity ALONE; as no-other living thing can do what God enables humanity to do; is voided; nullified; and it’s “all up to God?” I’m not trying to put words in your mouth; simply trying to apply logic to your stated position.

The fact that in ALL of Creation; ONLY humanity is “the image” of God [Gen. 1: 26-27]; ONLY humanity with the Spiritual Gifts of a "mind; Intelect: and FREEWILL; CONNECTED to our souls can FREELY choe to Know, Love, Obey and Serve God; But if I understand your position; none of this has revelane to Ones salvation; or at best; VERY limited revelance; just acknowledging Christ “as Ones Lord and Savior.”

Here is why I ask:

Isaiah 43: verses 7 and 21: [7] every one who is called by my name,** whom I created for my glory,**whom I formed and made." [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

When I look at statements like this and this one, like others about the need for our sacrifices; the ned to “take up our cross DAILY and follow Me,” I suspect that there MUST be more than you seem to think there is? Matt.19: 17 “And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. **If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” **

Do I understand your position is "Once saved; Always Saved?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cooterhein]

So friend is “being a Christian” 'knowing Christ"? Or is there more to it than that?

Being a Christian is being a child of God. Like the adopted kind of child. There’s other things to say about the inciting incident, ongoing process, how it all happens, and what can be said of Christians that can’t be said of non-Christians, but “adopted child” and “not an adopted child” is probably the best way of dividing it up in state-of-being kinds of terms. There’s also the thing with being transformed into a child of God and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That’s fairly important.

Is the FACT that God Created humanity; and humanity ALONE; as no-other living thing can do what God enables humanity to do; is voided; nullified; and it’s “all up to God?” I’m not trying to put words in your mouth; simply trying to apply logic to your stated position.

I believe God is both sovereign and non-coercive. Does that help?

The fact that in ALL of Creation; ONLY humanity is “the image” of God [Gen. 1: 26-27]; ONLY humanity with the Spiritual Gifts of a "mind; Intelect: and FREEWILL; CONNECTED to our souls can FREELY choe to Know, Love, Obey and Serve God; But if I understand your position; none of this has revelane to Ones salvation; or at best; VERY limited revelance; just acknowledging Christ “as Ones Lord and Savior.”

I guess my perspective is heavy on the “who” of salvation. Jesus saves. God saves. Salvation happens if and when God does the saving. You can “acknowledge” God or “ask God” or get baptized or do any of the other sacraments, but the bottom line is that God saves people when God does it. So that means there’s a decent chance that someone could acknowledge or ask or get baptized or any other kind of thing and still wind up waiting on God for an indefinite period of time until God actually does what God does.

If you want to know how you can make God perform a miracle at a place and time chosen by you, I don’t think I can help you with that. Nor do I think it’s possible for you to schedule such a thing and guarantee that God will do it at a certain place and time. Even (and perhaps especially) if you’re scheduling a baptism. We definitely don’t believe the same things about baptismal regeneration.

It’s like raising someone from the dead. It can happen- when God does something miraculous. Dead people don’t just get up and live on their own, though. That’s not something they can do. There’s nothing wrong with their free will- it’s just a matter of inability. It’s something they can’t do. It’s the same with spiritual death- everyone’s born into spiritual death and they can’t raise themselves to spiritual life. There’s nothing wrong with their free will, it’s just something they can’t do. It’s normal for dead people. But if God does something miraculous, then yeah, He can and does raise people to spiritual life. And He does it exactly when He does it.

It’s a miracle. I think that’s a major piece of the puzzle that makes our perspectives so different- I’m talking about salvation as a miracle, and you’re talking about salvation as a set of relatively easy religious rituals that anyone can go ahead and do if they so choose.

Here is why I ask:

Isaiah 43: verses 7 and 21: [7] every one who is called by my name,** whom I created for my glory,**whom I formed and made." [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

Those would be the elect. God knows who they are even if He hasn’t yet raised them to spiritual life. But when He does, they declare His praise. This appears to have something to do with God’s reasons for creating and forming and making in this way.

Are we reading “that they might declare my praise” in different ways? I read it as a progression from God creating for His glory and God forming for Himself to the called-persons declaring His praise. Almost as if this process was, to a certain extent, a means to that end.

When I look at statements like this and this one, like others about the need for our sacrifices; the ned to “take up our cross DAILY and follow Me,” I suspect that there MUST be more than you seem to think there is? Matt.19: 17 “And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

Oh, that’s just the preliminaries of Jesus’ discussion with the rich young man who wanted to know what he had to do in order to get eternal life. Look a little further to verses 25 and 26. Remember what I was saying about the spiritually dead and how there’s things that are impossible for them while miracles are still possible for God?

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Do I understand your position is "Once saved; Always Saved?

I’m not really in love with the OSAS moniker, especially since it typically doesn’t communicate what I want to communicate about what it means to be saved. In that it tends to make people think “One emotional experience at a revival is all you need.” But I do happen to believe mortal sin isn’t an actual thing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you sure? Or did I misread your understanding of mortal sin? If sin is not an “actual thing”? Then why does scripture teach two types of sin mortal = deadly and not deadly = venial?

1 John 5: 16 If anyone sees his brother sinning,** if the sin is not deadly**, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Peace be with you

cooterhein;7611002]But I do happen to believe mortal sin isn’t an actual thing.

 

[cooterhein]

Are you sure? Or did I misread your understanding of mortal sin? If sin is not an “actual thing”? Then why does scripture teach two types of sin mortal = deadly and not deadly = venial?

1 John 5: 16 If anyone sees his brother sinning,** if the sin is not deadly**, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Peace be with you

The whole thing with infusing people with sacramental grace is something that’s pretty foreign to me to start with, and then the breaking of the “state of grace” (again, a term that I have no use for to begin with) is also something that doesn’t happen.

The passage you quoted does include the words “mortal sin” in a couple of translations, but that’s not a good translation. The words are hamartia pron theou- first word “sin,” second word “leading to,” last word “death.” Genitive case. I favor translations that actually say “sin leading to death,” which is most of them.

One of the popular Protestant interpretations involves viewing the “leading to death” phrase as slightly parenthetical wherein it is a brother that may commit a sin that is not leading to death (pray for him), and by the way, there’s also a sin that does lead to death…and yes it’s spiritual death but it’s not the kind of sin a brother would commit…and you don’t have to pray for that.

Further support- look a couple of verses later. The main point of conflict is on whether or not a born-again saved person ever commits the sin unto death. Look a couple verses later at verse 18.

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.

Anyone born of God does not continue to sin? Well obviously not all sin; the guy just told you what to do when, not if, a brother sins when it’s not leading to death. Just a certain kind of sin; the sin that is leading to death. People who aren’t born of God commit that sin and wind up spiritually and eternally dead, but those who are born of God do not continue in this kind of sin because God keeps them safe. Handy.

I suppose you think the ones who are born of God will continue to sin, and that sin not leading to death is completely synonymous with venial sin (it’s not) and that sin leading to death is exactly the same as the CC take on mortal sin (ditto). Even if we ignore that, though, what do you do with verse 18? It says anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. How can you affirm that in any way, shape, or form if you believe the one who is born of God can and regularly does continue to sin in every possible way, that which is not leading to death and that which does lead to eternal spiritual death, and that this sin destroys their “state of grace” and puts them squarely in the hands of the evil one? I say the one born of God does not commit the sin that is leading to spiritual death (not really the same as “mortal sin”) and that you don’t have a really good explanation for verse 18 that makes more sense than that. Not while you affirm that the one who is born of God commits every type of sin all the time, anyway.

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;7611002]Being a Christian is being a child of God. Like the adopted kind of child. There’s other things to say about the inciting incident, ongoing process, how it all happens, and what can be said of Christians that can’t be said of non-Christians, but “adopted child” and “not an adopted child” is probably the best way of dividing it up in state-of-being kinds of terms. I believe God is both sovereign and non-coercive. Does that help?

TRULY sorry to have to edit your responses; but need 2 because of space limits.

I’m not sure I agree IN TOTAL with this thought because it seems to me that “ALL” have become adopted children of God. Some turn our Good; othern not so good; just like a family.

I guess my perspective is heavy on the “who” of salvation. Jesus saves. God saves. Salvation happens if and when God does the saving. You can “acknowledge” God or “ask God” or get baptized or do any of the other sacraments, but the bottom line is that God saves people when God does it.

OK; BUT! IS it up to God to decide salvation; or do we have an active and necessary role in the process?

If you want to know how you can make God perform a miracle at a place and time chosen by you, I don’t think I can help you with that.

Never occurred to me. God decides who, what, when and where on miracles; and works them to aid ones Faith development.

I

It’s like raising someone from the dead. It can happen- when God does something miraculous. Dead people don’t just get up and live on their own, though. That’s not something they can do. There’s nothing wrong with their free will- it’s just a matter of inability. It’s something they can’t do. It’s the same with spiritual death- everyone’s born into spiritual death and they can’t raise themselves to spiritual life…But if God does something miraculous, then yeah, He can and does raise people to spiritual life. And He does it exactly when He does it.

If I understand you correctly??? We don’t agree. Your position seems to be that God does; because God can; whereas our position relies completely on God’s Mercy AND our cooperation with God’s offered grace. If One is of the opinion that God does not exist; that salvation either is not possible or not specifically desired; God WILLNOT; Because cannot over-ride our freewill choices. [By His Design.] God can supply super-abundant grace; even Infuse Grace; but in the end; humanity has to decide for themselves to co-operate with Gods desire for ones salvation. GOD ALONE saves; BUT insist on our participation in the process. God cannot save one unwilling to be saved.

It’s a miracle. I think that’s a major piece of the puzzle that makes our perspectives so different- I’m talking about salvation as a miracle, and you’re talking about salvation as a set of relatively easy religious rituals that anyone can go ahead and do if they so choose.

Kinda, sorta; We do not hold to the idea of salvation being on a par; or even like a miracle is the SAME sense you have articulated. Certainly it is miraculous that SINFUL-MAN, can choose heaven or hell? Nevertheless; that is God’s plan; that’s why humanity ALONE possesses the Spiritual Gifts of Mind, Intellect, Freewill and Soul.

Those would be the elect. God knows who they are even if He hasn’t yet raised them to spiritual life. But when He does, they declare His praise. This appears to have something to do with God’s reasons for creating and forming and making in this way.[/QUPOTE]

For-knowledge by God ought not be considered “mandated choices by God,” in the sense of some form of predestination. There would be in an absolute sense; NO NEED “for a marrow gate” if God ALONE, decided who could, would, and could-Not, and WOULD-NOT BE ABLE to enter; even if they so desired. Such would be a GRAVE abuse of a Perfect God’s JUSTICE.

Are we reading “that they might declare my praise” in different ways? I read it as a progression from

God creating for His glory and God forming for Himself to the called-persons declaring His praise. Almost as if this process was, to a certain extent, a means to that end.

ALL ARE CALLED; ONLY a FEW [by there choice] respond as God Desires; thus using the Spiritual Gifts, supplied for this Precise purpose.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

What this passage means and is a direct reference to: IS Cooperation with God’s Grace; without which humanity cannot see, understand, accept and apply rightly. Doing so is cooperation with God’s Plan for our salvation; and is OURS to decide; with God’s help!

But I do happen to believe mortal sin isn’t an actual thing.

Here we disagree completely: here’s WHY

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

So your position is not biblical.

Nor does it permit God’s necessary Justice and Judgment

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning,”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cooterhein]

I’m not sure I agree IN TOTAL with this thought because it seems to me that “ALL” have become adopted children of God. Some turn our Good; othern not so good; just like a family.

I think you’re right, we disagree on this. My perspective of humanity is that all are born into a situation where they are not children of God, but by God’s mercy and grace, they may become people who have the right to be called children of God.

OK; BUT! IS it up to God to decide salvation; or do we have an active and necessary role in the process?

I don’t think God coerces anyone or saves people who don’t want to be saved, but I wouldn’t go as far as saying anything that would imply that a person can make it happen. And by “it” I mean “salvation” or “regeneration” or “being born anew/again.” All of these are things that God does, and while God doesn’t do them to people who don’t want it, the people who do want it aren’t able to do anything that causes God to do it at a certain time and place. For example, a person could pray for God to do these things or get baptized and maybe God doesn’t do it right away.

That’s because God’s will is every bit as free as ours is, and He is definitely free from our coercion. He doesn’t have to go and indwell someone immediately upon being baptized, nor has He ever operated in such a way that would indicate that we should expect Him to make that choice every time. He doesn’t have to “come into your heart” just as soon as you ask Him to, either; He certainly can, but it only happens if and when God actually makes it happen. God does answer prayer, and God does a lot of things at a supernatural level that could easily be called “miracles.” Some of them, like salvation, are things that we need and should ask for. But there’s nothing we can say or do that can cause God to do something any sooner than He actually decides to do it.

Instead of saying something like “If you just prayed that prayer, God saved you” or “If you just got baptized, God saved you,” I would say something like “If God just transformed you from a non-Christian to a Christian by regenerating you and transforming you and indwelling you in order to give you assurance of His presence and activity, God saved you.”

GOD ALONE saves; BUT insist on our participation in the process. God cannot save one unwilling to be saved.

What I’m hearing is something like this: God alone initially saves a person, but keeping that salvation vs. losing it is essentially up to that person. Is that correct? I’m assuming that God can never be held responsible for causing a person to lose their salvation, nor does God (usually) do anything to prevent anyone from doing such a thing. That’s why I say “it’s essentially up to that person.”

One other quick question: I know you’re on Team Free Will, but is it Libertarian Free Will? (I usually refer to it as LFW).

Kinda, sorta; We do not hold to the idea of salvation being on a par; or even like a miracle is the SAME sense you have articulated. Certainly it is miraculous that SINFUL-MAN, can choose heaven or hell?

ANYONE would choose eternal bliss over eternal torment, provided that they believe in an afterlife of some kind. But the only way eternal bliss actually happens is if God does a few things. Things like regenerating, transforming, indwelling, and so forth.

For-knowledge by God ought not be considered “mandated choices by God,” in the sense of some form of predestination.

God does predestine things; He says so. Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 each contain a couple of references to it. But I don’t believe He does so in such a way that is coercive, and there’s about as many passages that either explicitly or implicitly speak to the reality of free will. I’m probably more of a compatibilist in that regard than you are, and as such, you probably believe my position is inconsistent in some way. But I’ve looked into it pretty carefully by exploring various perspectives from both within and outside of Christianity, and that’s where I’m at.

What this passage means and is a direct reference to: IS Cooperation with God’s Grace; without which humanity cannot see, understand, accept and apply rightly. Doing so is cooperation with God’s Plan for our salvation; and is OURS to decide; with God’s help!

I didn’t see very much about cooperation in that passage. Not that cooperation is irrelevant on the whole; I just didn’t see it in this passage. What I saw was this: Entrance into heaven is impossible with man, but with God, all things are possible. I conclude that man should depend on God if man wants to see it happen.

And that’s also what I get out of the larger exchange between Jesus and the rich young ruler.

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin,

You found one of the two (I think it’s two? maybe three) translations that say something about “mortal sin.” But the Bible doesn’t actually say “mortal” in this passage. The Greek word for “mortal” does appear on three or four occasions within the New Testament, but it does not appear in this passage and it never has close proximity to the word “sin” anywhere. The Greek words of greatest interest (which I got wrong in an earlier post) are pronounced “hamartia pron thanatou.” These words are not appropriately translated as “mortal sin.” What they mean is “sin that leads to death.” There are interpretive arguments to be made for a physical death vs. a spiritual death and, most importantly, who commits the sin that leads to death (does it include those who have been born of God, for example?) but the presence of the word “mortal” in this passage is not up for debate. It’s not there. Linguists of any and all religious backgrounds can agree that if you know Greek and look at the words that are in the Bible, this passage does not contain the word “mortal.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is the text again; 1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
18
**We know that no one begotten by God sins; but the one begotten by God he protects, and the evil one cannot touch him. **
19
We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one.
20
We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Is it your belief that a protestant (born a again) member is begotten of God? and therefore cannot commit a mortal sin?

There is only one who is begotten of God and that is Jesus. I don’t think this verse is referencing your born again theology who cannot commit a mortal sin?

The Christian is not begotten of God, we belong to God, and we are in the one who is True.

Your “translation” never dictates what the New Testament covenant believes. Would you agree that a translation only applies to the text and never the faith of the individual being expressed and practiced? something to grasped.

We know that the evil one cannot touch the Only begotten one of God, yet the whole of Paul’s epistles is to teach the Christians not to fall into temptation from the evil one.

The reality of our humanity is; Romans 3:23
all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.

There is a difference between the One who is begotten of God and those who are “born anothen” from above (which is the word Jesus uses never “born again”). The “born again” definition is the one Nicodemus (people crusher) takes from his natural “law” mentality that does not meet the teaching or definition that Jesus emphasis from His sacrament of baptism, when the Spirit sacramentally with water is what regenerates (becomes born from above) one into the body of Christ.

1Peter 3:21… baptism, which saves you now.

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above.”
4
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Your born again theology is not taught by Jesus; Here read it for yourself, and check the original translation from Aramaic to Greek, and you will see were your reformers got it wrong.

John 3:7
Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’
8
The wind 4 blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
9
Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?”
10
Jesus answered and said to him, "You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?
11
Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.
12
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

Before you discount sacraments as did your founding fathers, you should look into how Jesus instituted them and how for the next 1600 years after the resurrection “all faithful christians” practiced them, till the protestant reformers rejected them.

Peace be with you

P.S the “sin that leads to death” translation, is a mortal sin period, think about it, I know of your christian faith founders of men, would you be willing to learn what my founder Jesus Christ taught?

cooterhein;7611758]Further support- look a couple of verses later. The main point of conflict is on whether or not a born-again saved person ever commits the sin unto death. Look a couple verses later at verse 18.

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.

**Anyone born of God does not continue to sin? **Well obviously not all sin; the guy just told you what to do when, not if, a brother sins when it’s not leading to death. Just a certain kind of sin; the sin that is leading to death. People who aren’t born of God commit that sin and wind up spiritually and eternally dead, but those who are born of God do not continue in this kind of sin because God keeps them safe. Handy.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Matt. 7: 13-14… "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide **and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. **2.[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, **and those who find it are few. **

It’s in the Bible and therefore it MUST BE True?

It seems reasonable that NOT everyone; not even all “Christans” are going to get to heaven.

So my friend, WHAT is necessary; what is essential to getting to heaven"

Can One know fo SURE in this life; where they will spend Eternity?

Faith And Good Works Also.

 

[cooterhein]

Is it your belief that a protestant (born a again) member is begotten of God? and therefore cannot commit a mortal sin?

No, that mortal sin is not the same thing as “sin that leads to death” and that mortal sin by Catholic definition does not exist. As for sin that leads to death, this refers to spiritual, eternal death and no, Christians don’t commit this sort of sin. Christians are the ones who wind up with eternal life. Additionally, this applies to all Christians, not just the ones who are Protestants.

There is only one who is begotten of God and that is Jesus. I don’t think this verse is referencing your born again theology who cannot commit a mortal sin?

First, look at the first part of verse 18. “We know that anyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning.” Why would it say “anyone” if it really meant “the only one”?

Second, look at the second part of verse 18. “he who was born of God” (start counting, that’s one person) protects him (that’s two people), and the evil one does not touch him" (that second person again). Take note of the antecedents to which these pronouns lead you- they reference the people who have been born of God. At least one person, at any rate. So what we’re looking at is a situation where “he who was born of God” is protecting “anyone who has been born of God.” That’s at least two people, and I’d suggest that you be prepared to count much higher than that, even if the gate is rather narrow.

Your “translation”

Don’t do that. Understand me?

There is a difference between the One who is begotten of God and those who are “born anothen” from above (which is the word Jesus uses never “born again”).

There’s quite a few differences between the One who is begotten of God and “anyone who is begotten of God.” The former actually is God, and the latter is a group of people. The former has always been the Son of God, and the latter became adopted children of God. The former protects the latter; this is what verse 18 tells you.

1Peter 3:21… baptism, which saves you now.

There are two types of baptism. This is not a reference to water baptism; it is referencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But this passage and the one from John 3 represent two of the seven passages of Scripture that have earned an ostensibly infallible interpretation from the CC, so as long as you’re Catholic, you aren’t allowed to interpret them any differently than you do.

I understand that. Do you understand that I’m not Catholic?

Your born again theology is not taught by Jesus; Here read it for yourself, and check the original translation from Aramaic to Greek, and you will see were your reformers got it wrong.

This really isn’t going over well at all.

P.S the “sin that leads to death” translation, is a mortal sin period

That is one potential interpretation (which I don’t agree with), but “mortal sin” is an unacceptable and linguistically inaccurate translation.

think about it, I know of your christian faith founders of men, would you be willing to learn what my founder Jesus Christ taught?

You really have no idea how you’re coming across, do you?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There is no perseverance of the saints, or once saved always saved.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy share many things in common in their teachings. Against Calvinist theory of predestination, the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, convened by Patriarch Dositheus in 1672, taught the following in article III:

God has from eternity predestinated to glory those who would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accepting the salvation, and has condemned those who would reject it. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as abominable, impious, and blasphemous.

This synodal decree was necessary as a prior Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucar, is said to have professed Calvinists heresies.

We too maintain that there is no salvation outside the Church, but we can never know where the Church is not – we can only say where the Church is, centered around the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church also teaches that the particular Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, having a valid Eucharist, are therefore true particular churches. Yet, the Church also teaches that full communion between these true particular churches with the Catholic Church is not yet realized.

As for what ancient Eastern Christianity held in common with the Catholic Church regarding “where the Church is” and the necessity of communion with her, here’s what the great 7th cent. theologian St. Maximus of Constantinople taught (before the tragic Photian schism between East and West):

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

“If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus [Patriarch of Constantinople] to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.” (St. Maximus, a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, cited by The Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same letter is cited as Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” (St. Maximus of Constantinople, letter from Rome, cited by The Catholic Encyclopdia, “St. Maximus of Contantinople”; the same work is found in Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90).

I agree with ancient Eastern Christianity as expressed by St. Maximus, which is why I’m Catholic. May God be the source of reconcilation for His churches, for all Christians, and for all souls.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let me recap here; You believe a “born again” christian cannot sin? yet John teaches that if you see your “brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly”, pray for him.

1John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life.

Then you interpret a deadly sin to be “spiritual, eternal death and no, Christians don’t commit this sort of sin”?

John continues here speaking of those "brother’s who sin to pray for, and not to pray for them when they are deadly, because these “deadly sins must be confessed” by the Christians.

John 5:16…This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Is it your interpretation then that a “deadly sin” deals with second death, or the first death? When John speaks of your “spiritual eternal death”, he relates this to the second death after the second coming, It would appear that, your “spiritual eternal death” interpretation conflicts and contradicts with John’s Revelation?

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over these

Revelations 20: 14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death. 12 )

And yet Jesus teaches about a sin that will never be forgiven in our time nor in the time to come; although “ALL” sins that would include deadly sins and sins that are not deadly will be forgiven except one blasphemy…

So when Jesus states “ALL” sins to mean those christians can pray for, and those sin that lead to death for which we do not pray CAN BE FORGIVEN? but confess according to other sciptures, see below.

Mark 3:28
Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them.
29
But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit 11 will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."

If a Christian cannot commit a “deadly sin” (mortal sin), why is that James tells the Christians not only to pray but confess their sins?

James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? 6 He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord,
15
and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up.** If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. 7
16
Therefore, confess your sins** to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

A mortal sin committed without repentance (baptism for the unbeliever, and confession for the believer) is the sin “that leads to death”.

Give me an example of a sin that leads to death, before the first death, and sin that leads to death in the age to come which brings eternal “spiritual death”. To tell you the truth, your interpretation is new to me, I have never encountered a Christian that does not believe or understand mortal sin to mean a sin that leads to death.

cooterhein;7615934]No, that mortal sin is not the same thing as “sin that leads to death” and that mortal sin by Catholic definition does not exist.

As for sin that leads to death, this refers to spiritual, eternal death and** no, Christians don’t commit this sort of sin.** Christians are the ones who wind up with eternal life. Additionally, this applies to all Christians, not just the ones who are Protestants.

That is one potential interpretation (which I don’t agree with), but “mortal sin” is an unacceptable and linguistically inaccurate translation.

The point I make here is that your interpretation of mortal sin or sin that leads to death is your interpretation, it comes from the mind of men, for sin that leads to death = a spiritual death? I don’t find any one Christian before the Protestant reformers in the 16th century took it upon themselves to interpret scripture, interpreting “sin that leads to death” is a “spiritual eternal death”. Can you give me a Christian before your reformation interpreting the way “you” interpret it?

My interpretation is not my own interpretation, but is revealed from the whole content of scripture,from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and Oral Traditions handed down in the confession of sins, or examine oneself before receiving the Eucharist.

What I hope to reveal to you is that the Catholic church does not interpret scripture. The scriptures are written upon her heart, she lives them out and practices the teachings written and handed down to her from Jesus and the apostles.

I agree with you, I cannot gage how I come across, if it is offensive, please forgive me.

It would be nice if you can explain what a spiritual sin is that leads to death?
Peace be with you

You really have no idea how you’re coming across, do you?

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein; I think you’re right, we disagree on this. My perspective of humanity is that all are born into a situation where they are not children of God, but by God’s mercy and grace, they may become people who have the right to be called children of God.

Again I may need to shorten your post in order to reply

If “God is the author of Life” [he is]; then logic seems to affirm that we ALL are God’s Children. Logically; every sexual union [male + female] in “unprotected sex" does not result is a pregnancy because God has built into humanity, a system that permit HIM to decide ALL life and death issues.

Wis.16: 13 " For thou hast power over life and death;"

Sir.11: 14 “Good things and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth, come from the Lord.”

I don’t think God coerces anyone or saves people who don’t want to be saved, but I wouldn’t go as far as saying anything that would imply that a person can make it happen. And by “it” I mean “salvation” or “regeneration” or “being born anew/again.”

We sorta agree. God can’t [because God limits His ability too] save anyone without that persons cooperation. Commandments; Sacraments, Charity, Humility, Obedience all have a necessary role to “play.”

That’s because God’s will is every bit as free as ours is, and He is definitely free from our coercion. He doesn’t have to go and indwell someone immediately upon being baptized, nor has He ever operated in such a way that would indicate that we should expect Him to make that choice every time. He doesn’t have to “come into your heart” just as soon as you ask Him to, either; He certainly can, but it only happens if and when God actually makes it happen. God does answer prayer, and God does a lot of things at a supernatural level that could easily be called “miracles.” Some of them, like salvation, are things that we need and should ask for. But there’s nothing we can say or do that can cause God to do something any sooner than He actually decides to do it.

Don’t I recall Moses changing Yahweh’s mind? And by PRAYER; many “bad-things” have been avoided

“Instead of saying something like “If you just prayed that prayer, God saved you” or “If you just got baptized, God saved you,” I would say something like “If God just transformed you from a non-Christian to a Christian by regenerating you and transforming you and indwelling you in order to give you assurance of His presence and activity, God saved you.”

Certainly it IS God who Saves. BUT; only if and when humanity cooperates and fulfills there side of the mission.

What I’m hearing is something like this: God alone initially saves a person, but keeping that salvation vs. losing it is essentially up to that person. Is that correct?

God DESIRES that 'ALL" chose salvation, and makes it possible ; but does NOT require us to accept His Grace. BUT ONLY through and WITH CHRIST.

I’m assuming that God can never be held responsible for causing a person to lose their salvation

Correct. God would violate both His need for Justice in doing so, and the precise reason for Creating us with a Mind, Intellect and FREEWILL.

One other quick question: I know you’re on Team Free Will, but is it Libertarian Free Will? (I usually refer to it as LFW).

This is a new term for me so I looked it up. It’s not intuition per say: rather it stems from humanities inate, God-provided sense of moral right and wrongs. [Jer. 31:33]

ANYONE would choose eternal bliss over eternal torment, provided that they believe in an afterlife of some kind. But the only way eternal bliss actually happens is if God does a few things. Things like regenerating, transforming, indwelling, and so forth.

I think not. Because of concupiece; laziness and an ever-present ; seldom starved; self-gratification desire. “Live for today; tomorrow will take care if itself.”

God does predestine things; He says so. Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 each contain a couple of references to it. But I don’t believe He does so in such a way that is coercive, and there’s about as many passages that either explicitly or implicitly speak

It’s interesting that the “P” term does not seem to appear in the KJB [Strong’s Concordance]. “Preknowledge ought not to be understood and “causing.” The Term is contradictory to the way God made us, in “His Image.”

Grace is always a FREE-GIFT from God. Grace is essential to salvation. But Grace can be “merited” by Catholics, through the RIGHT administration and reception of the sacraments; instituted by Christ, for this very purpose.

you found one of the two (I think it’s two? maybe three) translations

that say something about “mortal sin.” But the Bible doesn’t actually say “mortal” in this passage. The Greek word for “mortal” does appear on three or four occasions within the New Testament, but it does not appear in this passage and it never has close proximity to the word “sin” anywhere"

Strong’s GREEK translation: “2349. thnetos thnay-tos’ from 2348; liable to die:–mortal(-ity). “

The Latin Vulgate (VUL) Douay-Rheims (RHE) 16 qui scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum non ad mortem petet et dabit ei vitam peccantibus non ad mortem est peccatum ad mortem non pro illo dico ut roget 16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. 17 omnis iniquitas peccatum est et est peccatum non ad mortem.

This is pretty solid evidence of my stated position.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cooterhein]

Let me recap here; You believe a “born again” christian cannot sin?

I covered this in post 24.

yet John teaches that if you see your “brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly”, pray for him.

They will, of course, continue in sin that is not leading to death. But they will not continue in sin that leads to death. This delineation of sin is not identical to the mortal/venial division. If you wish to understand this sort of interpretation (which I’m not entirely counting on at this point), you should not assume that I see these things as identical.

John continues here speaking of those "brother’s who sin to pray for, and not to pray for them when they are deadly, because these “deadly sins must be confessed” by the Christians.

He does not say that Christians commit sins that lead to death or that Christians should confess such sins. He does talk about what to do when a brother commits a sin that is not leading to death and that you should pray for him (he says nothing of confession in this passage), and then he mentions that there is a sin that leads to death. He says it exists, but at this point, he says nothing that would indicate whether Christians commit this sin. Two verses later, however, we come to verse 18 and this seems to indicate that Christians do not continue in sin that leads to death.

Is it your interpretation then that a “deadly sin” deals with second death, or the first death?

Eternal separation from God. Which is something that non-Christians experience and Christians escape.

When John speaks of your “spiritual eternal death”, he relates this to the second death after the second coming, It would appear that, your “spiritual eternal death” interpretation conflicts and contradicts with John’s Revelation?

I only intended to indicate that I was talking about eternal separation from God rather than the physical death that everyone experiences. Are you trying to introduce a third kind of death that should be taken into consideration?

And yet Jesus teaches about a sin that will never be forgiven in our time nor in the time to come; although “ALL” sins that would include deadly sins and sins that are not deadly will be forgiven except one blasphemy…

I don’t mind at all that you mention the unforgivable sin, but I don’t know that an in-depth exploration of that issue continues to stay on the topic of what’s necessary to get to heaven. That seems to be working more in the opposite direction.

If a Christian cannot commit a “deadly sin” (mortal sin), why is that James tells the Christians not only to pray but confess their sins?

I don’t believe it’s right for you to equate deadly sin with mortal sin. I think James tells Christians to confess their sins because that’s something they should do, but no one can confess mortal sin because it’s not something that exists. As for sin that leads to death, it’s something that exists but is not done by Christians.

A mortal sin committed without repentance (baptism for the unbeliever, and confession for the believer) is the sin “that leads to death”.

I disagree. I understand what you are saying, and I disagree. What I don’t understand is how you can claim that Christians commit all kinds of sin (both mortal and venial, which you have incorrectly equated with “unto death” and “not unto death”) and harmonize this with verse 18 of 1 John 5 in any reasonable way.

The point I make here is that your interpretation of mortal sin or sin that leads to death is your interpretation, it comes from the mind of men,

All interpretations come from the minds of men. Men make interpretations; that’s what men do, and that’s where interpretations come from.

Can you give me a Christian before your reformation interpreting the way “you” interpret it?

I haven’t really looked into it. Have you?

My interpretation is not my own interpretation,

Yes it is. This passage is not found among the seven passages of Scripture for which the Catholic Church has given you an interpretation that is supposedly infallible. That means your interpretation is your own. You can’t possibly have an official Catholic interpretation for this passage because the CC hasn’t created one.

I agree with you, I cannot gage how I come across, if it is offensive, please forgive me.

Kind of seems like you want a one-sided conversation. It’s like you’re saying “I plan on ignoring what you say because you’re not Catholic, but will you please carefully consider what I have to say?” While I appreciate the honesty, it doesn’t make me want to invest in a conversation with you long term.

It would be nice if you can explain what a spiritual sin is that leads to death?

Throughout the entirety of 1 John, John deals exclusively with a group of people that gather together in Christian worship. Within this group, he delineates between people who have been born of God and those who have not, between children of God and children of the Devil, etc… As such, he’s not dealing with unbelievers who are entirely outside of all fellowship with Christians. So when John says “I do not ask you to pray for that,” I don’t take this as a reference to unbelievers outside the Church. I take it as a reference to people who meet with Christians and claim to be Christians but are not, in fact, Christians. It’s these kinds of people- unbelievers within the Church- that John is talking about. I think it would be different if John were talking about those who are entirely outside the Church.

The sin leading to death is the willful rejection of God’s miraculous life-changing presence in spite of knowing the Truth and belonging to a church. This is not the same as sinning in such a way that you remove yourself from a state of grace.

 

[cooterhein]

Part 1

If “God is the author of Life” [he is]; then logic seems to affirm that we ALL are God’s Children.

There are a number of places in 1 John where John indicates that some people are God’s children and others are not. He also gives you ways of knowing one from the other.

From chapter 2- "And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink from Him in shame at his coming. If you know that He is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him."

From chapter 3- "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother."

From chapter 4- "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

From chapter 5- "everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world…We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."

Logically; every sexual union [male + female] in “unprotected sex" does not result is a pregnancy because God has built into humanity, a system that permit HIM to decide ALL life and death issues.

Logically, if what you say is true, then all of these things are also true.

From chapter 2- everyone has been born of God; therefore, everyone practices righteousness.
From chapter 3- everyone has been born of God, so His seed abides in everyone and nobody makes a practice of sinning. Additionally, while everyone has been born of God, some of those people are children of God and some (though born of God) are children of the Devil.
From chapter 4- everyone has been born of God, but those who do not love do not know Him, though they were born of Him.
From chapter 5- everyone has been born of God; therefore, everyone overcomes the world (by their faith). Everyone has been born of God; therefore, nobody keeps on sinning because God protects everyone from that. The evil one can touch no one.

 

[cooterhein]

Part 2

We sorta agree. God can’t [because God limits His ability too] save anyone without that persons cooperation. Commandments; Sacraments, Charity, Humility, Obedience all have a necessary role to “play.”

Would you agree to the reality of a miraculous transformation that God brings about when a person initially becomes a Christian, or do you deny that He does anything of the sort? If you deny it, what happens instead?

Don’t I recall Moses changing Yahweh’s mind? And by PRAYER; many “bad-things” have been avoided

God does respond to prayer. But not always, not always right away, and not always in the same kind of way. I know plenty of people who experienced the miraculous salvific transformation that is typical of Christians right when they asked God for it. I know others (including me) who had to wait for God to do it- anywhere from weeks to years. I also know a few people who had a Saul-ish conversion experience where God gave them a pretty hard shove in a certain direction before they were entirely ready to go there themselves.

Certainly it IS God who Saves. BUT; only if and when humanity cooperates and fulfills there side of the mission.

What do you mean by “saves” in this instance? It would help me a lot if I knew whether or not I could preclude a miraculous salvific transformation from the list of things that you believe exist.

God DESIRES that 'ALL" chose salvation, and makes it possible; but does NOT require us to accept His Grace. BUT ONLY through and WITH CHRIST.

If I’d asked the question “Does God require us to accept His grace?” I would have my answer. But what I asked was “keeping your salvation vs. losing it is essentially up to you; is that correct?” Can you comment on that, please?

This is a new term for me so I looked it up. It’s not intuition per say: rather it stems from humanities inate, God-provided sense of moral right and wrongs. [Jer. 31:33]

It might help me a little more if I introduce another term that might be new- are you an incompatibilist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism

I think not. Because of concupiece; laziness and an ever-present ; seldom starved; self-gratification desire. “Live for today; tomorrow will take care if itself.”

Concupiscence is something I may not be as familiar with as you are; this is the extent of what I know.

According to CCC 1364, it’s not sin in and of itself, but rather the “tinder for sin” which “cannot harm those who do not consent.” And according to CCC 374, humanity’s original nature was good, the Fall caused humanity to lose the divine gift of original righteousness, but despite this human nature isn’t rightly called “evil” and human nature is not rightly called the cause of sin. Although you can expect it to produce more sin once it comes in contact with sin (like a flammable substance). Is there anything I’m missing that has to do with how you’re using the term?

I can certainly agree that there is a strong tendency toward self-gratification and living for the moment; however, I also observe that just about anyone will choose eternal bliss over eternal torment if they believe these are two real options. I don’t think that’s at odds with a tendency toward self-gratification; if anything, it’s consistent with it.

What are you disagreeing with, exactly? Are you saying most people will actually indicate a preference for eternal torment?

It’s interesting that the “P” term does not seem to appear in the KJB [Strong’s Concordance]. “Preknowledge ought not to be understood and “causing.” The Term is contradictory to the way God made us, in “His Image.”

In Romans 8:29, it says that “those He foreknew He also predestined.” The Greek looks like this:

Where you see “foreknew,” that’s the Greek word προγινώσκω (prog-ig-know-skow). This refers to a kind of pre-knowledge that does not necessarily imply pre-determination. But then there’s that second word.

προορίζω (pro-hoar-idz-oh), Stong’s number 4309, from 4253 “pro” (before) and 3724 “horidzo” (establish boundaries). This refers to pre-determined limits or boundaries and it does deal with predestination. It occurs 6 times in the NT, and on four occasions, the KJV translates it “predestinate” (which still qualifies as “the P word”) and on the other two occasions, it reads “determine before” and “ordain.”

Not that I really care what the KJV says. The ESV is usually my go-to translation (although it’s not perfect, either). What I really care about are the Greek lexicons. And the Greek lexicons say προορίζω has the same meaning as predestine or predestinate or fore-ordain or “determine/decide beforehand” or “decree from eternity.” Take your pick.

Strong’s GREEK translation: “2349. thnetos thnay-tos’ from 2348; liable to die:–mortal(-ity).

This Greek word appears twice in Romans, twice in 1 Corinthians, and twice in 2 Corinthians.

It does not appear in 1 John. I repeat, it does not appear in 1 John.

On the six occasions that it does appear, “hamartia” is not in the neighborhood. (That’s “sin.”)

The Latin Vulgate

The Vulgate is a Latin translation. Do you know any Latin? I don’t. I know English, though, and I know some Greek. So when I use translations, I use good ones that go from Greek to English. Then I use various lexical tools to get more information about different words and where they show up in the original language. (Which is not Latin).

This is pretty solid evidence of my stated position.

And what is your stated position? You found the word for “mortal” in Strong’s, so you obviously know it doesn’t appear in 1 John. Do you have a position on any of the passages where it does appear?

 

[John7]

Matt. 7: 13-14… "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide **and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. **2.[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, **and those who find it are few. **

also have this verse, quoting Prov 11:31 LXX

1 Peter 4:18 (DRB)
And if the just man shall scarcely be saved,
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

1 Peter 4:18 (ESV)
And “If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

scarcely = Grk-‘molis’,
can also mean ‘with difficulty’ (with nautical verses in Acts)

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;7621039]Part 1

There are a number of places in 1 John where John indicates that some people are God’s children and others are not. He also gives you ways of knowing one from the other

From chapter 2- "And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink from Him in shame at his coming. If you know that He is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him."

1 John 1: 13-14, as well as all of 1 John. 1, speaks in very broad terms of what is necessary to walk with God.

“Little children” references neophytes, and those who are just now being introduced to ‘The Way.”

From chapter 3- "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother."

From chapter 4- “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and ** whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”**

1 John establishes that we all are sinners. 1 John 2: 3,6 points out that we are “walking with God” IF, IF, we walk as God did; without sin. ALL Christians would naturally fit both descriptions, depending on “when” not “If” they have sinned. 1 Jn. 1: 8 “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

From chapter 5- "everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world…We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."

This cannot be a literal statement. To claim that EVERYONE who has come to “know God” no longer sins, is a moral impossibility. What is being discussed here is the issue of God’s Grace; always a free gift. Grace, certainly can, and should aid one in not sinning; but to claim that it is 100% effective’ 100% of the time; simply cannot be true.

**DOES NOT is to be understood as SHOULD NOT! [if grace is accepted and correctly applied.[ ** Were your quote true; there would [as God intends] in high probability, be only One Church; One Faith; built on the One New Covenant

**John 10:16 **And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. Eph. 4: 4 -8“There is one body [Only One Church] and one Spirit, [Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [Only One God] ONLY one faith, [Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

Logically, if what you say is true, then all of these things are also true.

From chapter 2- everyone has been born of God; therefore, everyone practices righteousness.
From chapter 3- everyone has been born of God, so His seed abides in everyone and nobody makes a practice of sinning. Additionally, while everyone has been born of God, some of those people are children of God and some (though born of God) are children of the Devil.
From chapter 4- everyone has been born of God, but those who do not love do not know Him, though they were born of Him.From chapter 5- everyone has been born of God; therefore, everyone overcomes the world (by their faith). Everyone has been born of God; therefore, nobody keeps on sinning because God protects everyone from that. The evil one can touch no one.

You’ve lost me here.

Everyone SHOULD BE OF GOD
Everyone SHOULD NOT SIN
EVERYONE DOES SIN [even though they should not]. CONCUPISCENCE. The more one grows in holiness, and piety; the more one becomes aware of ones own sinful nature.
Everyone when they do sin; is for “a time”; a “child of Satan., which often is but a temporary state on ones soul.

Everyone is OFFERED sufficient grace to know God… BUT
NOT Everyone accepts the OFFER.

God Bless,
Pat**

 

[PJM]

=cooterhei Part 2

Again it may be necessary to shorten your post to permit a response.

Let me began with a personal Confession. I’m ONLY a HS graduate with no formal higher education. However, I have invested thousands of hours in 1. Learning my Faith, and 2. How and why we can believe what we do.

Would you agree to the reality of a miraculous transformation that God brings about when a person initially becomes a Christian, or do you deny that He does anything of the sort? If you deny it, what happens instead?

GREAT question the way it is worded. I’m not comfortable with the word “miraculous” which implies, “unable to be comprehended.” Amazing or Remarkable seems the better definition. The transformation is 1. A result of Grace offered. 2. Grace accepted and rightly applied. #1 is God’s initiative; #2 is humanities Freewill response.

God does respond to prayer. But not always, not always right away, and not always in the same kind of way.

We agree. God does answer in an affirmative manner all request relative to our spiritual growth; when and how it best will benefit our souls. Other kinds of request ought not be surprised if God say’s “NO!” which too is an answer. Certainly; it is always God who decides “If” and “when” and “how.”

What do you mean by “saves” in this instance? It would help me a lot if I knew whether or not I could preclude a miraculous salvific transformation from the list of things that you believe exist.

1. All Salvation FLOWS through Christ. 2. Salvation is not a possibility of any human effort ALONE. 3. God offers; and we get to choose to accept or reject God’s offer. 4. Unless [until] we die; we can change our choice.

If I’d asked the question “Does God require us to accept His grace?” I would have my answer. But what I asked was “keeping your salvation vs. losing it is essentially up to you; is that correct?” Can you comment on that, please?

In all of the Universe ONLY One Planet has the ability to sustain life. Odds of it being an accident are BILLIONS to One. On planet earth; there are hundreds of thousands of “living things.” BUT only One; humanity can Know God, only One can Love; and this then is the precise and right use of the Spiritual Gifts that Only Humanity possess: A Mind; a Intellect; a Freewill and a Soul.

It might help me a little more if I introduce another term that might be new- are you an incompatibilist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism

I am continually amazed that intelligent people actually believe some of the things they claim too. The Universe consist of many Billions of planets, stars and galaxies, that have existed for eons. Perhaps too sublime to be readily understood? But the sun and moon rise and set at regular intervals. We have Oxygen, that “comes [automatically] from organic sources? Humanity is part physical AND part Spiritual; [provable by our dialog], and the inability to quantify ; lets say; our “freewill’s.” And there are folks who still refuse to accept that there MUST BE a source; a power; that many choose to call our God, behind it all. Pride is nearly as powerful as is one’s “freewill.”

Concupiscence is something I may not be as familiar with as you are; this is the extent of what I know.

In God’s original plan for humanity [Created by God who desires to be loved and thanked] Isaiah 43: 7-21, it was a Utopia; a Shangri-La. No death, illness, fighting, or unmet want. Then Adam and Eve’s FREEWILL took over. They did the ONE thing God prohibited them to do. [PRIDE]. This resulted in what today is termed “Original Sin.”

The consequences were [are] enormous. Death, illness, a propensity to sin [PRIDE], and all the other conditions of a very imperfect world. WHY?

Because humanity is Created in the image and likeness of God Himself; who is “Spirit and Truth.” [Gen.1: 26-27] Humanities primary function has not changed: we are “To Know, To Love, To Obey and To Serve God in this life in- order to “merit” [still a gift from God], Eternal Life in His Presence. “

A Mind, intellect, freewill would have far less [if any] real value; were they not intended for this precise application. BUT, love can only be of GREAT value; when freely given; not absolutely required.

PLEASE SEE PART 2 of our discussion

 

[PJM]

PART 2 of PART II

Part II for Part 2

I also observe that just about anyone will choose eternal bliss over eternal torment if they believe these are two real options.

Why then does anyone deny such a thing? I believe it’s a lack of the Theological virtues of Faith; Hope; and Love [excluding “self-love.]. Grace has been offered and willfully rejected.

What are you disagreeing with, exactly? Are you saying most people will actually indicate a preference for eternal torment?

Only in the sense of “actions speak louder than there words.”] Ask someone if they “want” a Million dollars; most will say; “SURE!” Then explain to them what they have to do to earn it; and watch the number of “sure’s” all but disappear.

SINCERE THANKS for the Greek lesson!

Predestination is the way you apply it denies and prohibits God from “being a ‘perfect’ God”. And it also denies humanities God-Given-RIGHT to choose for themselves; where they will spend eternity.

Either God is perfect [he is]; or there is no God. An “imperfect god” would be incapable of all that a Perfect God is, does and Wills. So language aside: your understanding attempts to limit a God who has no limits. Finite and Perfect in all “good-things.”

The Vulgate is a Latin translation. Do you know any Latin?

Just a bit as an Old time Latin Mass Catholic and Mass Server. But the History of the Catholic bible [we are the ones who “gave it to the world… Collected the OT books and authored the entire NT; and Codified it.] is quite interest ring. And It was St. Jerome doing as directed by the Pope; transcribed the Hebrew; Greek and Aramaic books into the “common language” of Latin. His Translation was approved by four Church Councils; who are made up of a GREAT many of the World’s Bishops; and signed off on by the Pope. That’s heady censorship; worthy of my belief.

And what is your stated position? You found the word for “mortal” in Strong’s, so you obviously know it doesn’t appear in 1 John. Do you have a position on any of the passages where it does appear?

**A God who is Perfect, MUST also be ‘Just.” **A murder is more serious than say a cuss-word. Both are sins. Can or will a JUST God, render the same punishment for both of these actions?

**Heb.6: 10 **“For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

Rom.2: 13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=John7;7622914]also have this verse, quoting Prov 11:31 LXX

1 Peter 4:18 (DRB)
And if the just man shall scarcely be saved,
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

1 Peter 4:18 (ESV)
And “If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

scarcely = Grk-‘molis’,
can also mean ‘with difficulty’ (with nautical verses in Acts)

These words and Teaching my friend deal with the usually GRAVE / Mortal sin of Presumption. Presuming for example that ; Faith Alone will actually get one to heaven, or he other common error; OSAS…

Neither are Biblically founded; Both are from Human origin; Neiter are From or OF God; and BOTH do not point the way to salvation as explained in the [Using the Entire] Bible.

“Only a fool thinks that they can Follow Christ in Glory; WITHOUT ALSO and First; folowing Him in suffering.” [Bishop Sheen]

**Phil.1: 29 **“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

Rom.8: 17 “and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

God Bless, Great POST!

Pat