I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Ozzie]

Pax:

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

This is not about losing one’s salvation. John is waring about the false Gnostic teachers who taught that Jesus and the Christ were separate. In vs. 23 John writes: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father.” This is in reference to Jesus saying that He and the Father are one. They were to abide in that which they were told from the beginning and shun the strange teachings of the Gnostics who denied the deity of the Man, Jesus Christ. Only in the Jesus they presented to them was there eternal life. Just as today, there is no life in the Jesus of Mormonism. Christ was not in the Gnostic teachings and their teachings could only lead to full apostasy.

2 John 9-11

] Again, a warning against following the teachings of the Gnostics. He says right at the start that the one who does not abide in the teaching of Christ (i.e., that which He taught concerning Himself - even His divinity) DOES NOT HAVE GOD. This isn’t about true believers losing salvation, but watching out for, and rejecting, false teachers. They were to abide in these truths, steer clear of the Gnostic teachers, or eventually apostasy would set in. John warns, *“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” *(vs. 10).

1 John 2: 3-6; 1 John 2:28-29

These are of the same genre as those above. Nowhere is John warning about true believers losing their salvation. His warnings are general and against embracing Gnostic teachers. They were to abide in the truth concerning Christ which they heard from them and which the Gnostics perverted.

John 15: 1-6

It’s an allegory, Pax. Don’t read into it more than is there. Remember the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. It’s not a doctrinal treatise on salvation. It’s about abiding in Christ for bearing fruit and pruning (discipline) to bear even more. The dead branches proved to have no life from the vine at all and can be compared to someone like Judas Iscariot. Though one of the twelve he never actually belonged to Christ.

It is obvious from these verses that it is necessary to “abide” in Jesus Christ and His teachings. So we must “remain” or “continue” or we will lose our salvation.

“Or we will lose our salvation” is what you read into these passages, Pax. They are exhortations to abide in Christ and the truth they heard concerning Him. But in each instance they do not conclude, “or you will lose your salvation.” That’s a forced interpretation based on your own legalistic mind-set. Yes, all true believers are to abide in Christ and not stray from the teachings received regarding Him in Scripture. And I will add this, Pax, you might want to examine your own teachings and test them as to how far they may have strayed from abiding in Christ and trusting in self-works and self-righteousness.

 

[Gunner]

Christ told us the road to heaven was narrow and few took it. I came across this sermon recently which is quite sobering. It is something to be printed off and meditated on. The full sermon is at olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml . This is important for every Christian to get a grip of. We have a hope of salvation and no more. Dying with even one unrepented mortal sin leads to eternal damnation.

The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved

by St. Leonard of Port Maurice

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Sorry for butting in here, but one does not believe in Christ to “get his sins forgiven.” Sins were forgiven at the time of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice 2000 years ago:

Are you sure about this Ozzie? We don’t need to confess our sins?
You might want to consider explaining this more fully. I thought that the whole reason we didn’t have eternal life was because of our sin. Remember the whole Garden of Eden thing? Wasn’t that “paradise” where Adam and Eve would have enjoyed eternal fellowship with God only they blew it by sinning? If all our sins are forgiven why would God not restore our relationship with Him completely?

Phil

 

[exrc]

Phil,

I find your writings very confusing.

I feel led to believe that you are not a RC. However, you have an Arminian view on salvation, meaning you can lose it. Saying that, I will go on to clarify to you my beliefs. Heavenly rewards are based on the foundation built with precious metals in 1Cor. 3:12 . Obviously, we, determine how much of a reward we get by our works. Are there eternal consequences in this? Sure, we will have to live with the fact that we could have had more rewards. This is something we can never go back and change.

How does confession fit into this?

When we fail to confess our sins to one another, and forgive each other, we are willingly not in Gods will. We damage our communication (communion) with each other. Therefore, good works cannot be produced. Why? Its logical progression to believe that If you harbor unforgiveness in your heart, your works there after will be wood, hay, and stubble. How can a bad tree produce good fruit? These are eternal consequences. Less good works produces less eternal rewards.Do you understand?

Why do we confess our sins and ask forgiveness from God?

For the same reason.

We damage are communication (communion) with God, when we don’t ask for forgiveness. Our good works cease, and we become a useless steward of him. He no longer can use us to reach those in need. These have eternal consequences, but have no salvational consequences for us. If it did have salvational consequences, then I would be the first one lining up to join the RCC. After all, they would have the best remedy, Since a blood sacrifice is the only way to remit sin (Heb 9:22). Too bad you can’t resacrifice Christ. SHHHHHH… They might have been on to something! Protestants who believe they can lose their salvation make me chuckle, because they have no half way reasonable remedy.

Your Friend Dan!

 

[Coder]

The title of this thread is “I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer”. From most of the posts I would advise Catholics to consider if this thread is really living up to its title. Catholics should use wisdom regarding wasting their words and time.

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

Are you sure about this Ozzie? We don’t need to confess our sins?
You might want to consider explaining this more fully. I thought that the whole reason we didn’t have eternal life was because of our sin. Remember the whole Garden of Eden thing? Wasn’t that “paradise” where Adam and Eve would have enjoyed eternal fellowship with God only they blew it by sinning? If all our sins are forgiven why would God not restore our relationship with Him completely?

Phil

Phil,

I think what ozzie means here is that your belief in Christ doesn’t make propitiation for your sin. Christ did that 2000 yrs ago on the cross. Believing merely activates that sacrifice to work for you. Essentially making you righteous before God or “forgiven” if you will.

Dan

 

[Catherine_S]

Pax, you might want to examine your own teachings they may have strayed from abiding in Christ and trusting in self-works and self-righteousness.

**Pax **

---

**Ozzie
**Christ ****tells the apostles at the Last Supper to remain in his love. He adds if we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. But he who does not remain in his love is “cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Now, if salvation were a done deal, why would Jesus feel the need to tell anyone to remain in his love?

Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ & in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

---

In 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, Paul says, "Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved,** if you hold it fast**—unless you believed in vain.
" So, you could believe, but fail to hold fast to the gospel, and not be saved (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20).

---

This is why Paul spoke in the book of Romans about the “*obedience *of faith” (Rom. 1:5, 16:26). It is not enough that one call Jesus Lord, for, as he said, “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21; cf. Matt. 10:33, 18:35.

The first person to espouse the idea of “once saved, always saved” was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

**Shalom
**

**

 

[Des]

And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way,
having nailed it to the cross" (Col. 2:13-14).

Through the Sacrement of Confession, in which these Christians were taught and practiced through the oral word, it is easy to see this verse as it is, as Christ "made us alive together with Him, having “forgiven” us all our transgressions, having “cancelled” out the certificate of dept consisting of decrees against us, and taken it out of the way, having “nailed” it to the cross. Each time we repent, these very things happen again and again.

Nowhere does it say in this verse it was a one time thing. However, without the Sacred Tradition (oral word), I can see how easy it is to wrongfully interpretate it.

 

[Catherine_S]

exrc:

If it did have salvational consequences, then I would be the first one lining up to join the RCC. After all, they would have the best remedy, Since a blood sacrifice is the only way to remit sin (Heb 9:22). Too bad you can’t resacrifice Christ. SHHHHHH… They might have been on to something!Quote]

Once we become members of Christ’s family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.
**
This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real “Lamb of God,” who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death**.** God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist.** **Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you” (John 6:53).
**
At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, “Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you” (Mark 14:22–24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, **the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.
**
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred “once for all”; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not “die again” during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not “another” sacrifice, **but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
**
Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: **“Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27–29).
**
After the **consecration **of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. **Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains. **

---

Shalom

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

This is not about losing one’s salvation. John is waring about the false Gnostic teachers who taught that Jesus and the Christ were separate. In vs. 23 John writes: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father." This is in reference to Jesus saying that He and the Father are one. They were to abide in that which they were told from the beginning and shun the strange teachings of the Gnostics who denied the deity of the Man, Jesus Christ. Only in the Jesus they presented to them was there eternal life.
…
But in each instance they do not conclude, “or you will lose your salvation.” That’s a forced interpretation based on your own legalistic mind-set. Yes, all true believers are to abide in Christ and not stray from the teachings received regarding Him in Scripture. And I will add this, Pax, you might want to examine your own teachings and test them as to how far they may have strayed from abiding in Christ and trusting in self-works and self-righteousness.

Ozzie,

I’ll say this as charitably as I can. You don’t know what you’re talking about. There is absolutely no purpose in warning any Christian about anything if there is no danger of losing salvation. I have the meaning right, the context right, and the conclusion right. You simply refuse to believe all of the overwhelming evidence that has been presented to you. You continue to complain about the context and someone else’s exegesis when you are simply clueless about both.

I keep repeating to you over and over that** everything is by the grace of God**, yet you have once again made an absurd remark to the contrary in your closing statement. I caught you earlier in what I now believe to be a deliberate mistatement concerning the word “preached” in 1 Peter 3:19. This and your complaints and non-exegetical meanderings have greatly reduced your credibility.

Go back and read my post over again and read all of the scriptures that were quoted. The truth in this matter is beyond dispute. The word “abide” means to “remain or continue” and the consequences of not doing so are clearly spelled out. I suppose all the other quotes in my post are equally meaningless. Your position is untenable but I realize that traditions run deep and are hard to overcome. The part I don’t get is how you can misread and misinterpret scripture so badly and then contend that everyone else, especially the Church founded by Jesus, is “always” wrong.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

It’s an allegory, Pax. Don’t read into it more than is there. Remember the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. It’s not a doctrinal treatise on salvation. It’s about abiding in Christ for bearing fruit and pruning (discipline) to bear even more. The dead branches proved to have no life from the vine at all and can be compared to someone like Judas Iscariot. Though one of the twelve he never actually belonged to Christ.“Or we will lose our salvation” is what you read into these passages, Pax. They are exhortations to abide in Christ and the truth they heard concerning Him. But in each instance they do not conclude, “or you will lose your salvation.” That’s a forced interpretation based on your own legalistic mind-set.

The allegory of the vine and the branches certainly does include the element of losing one’s salvation. Those branches that are thrown into the fire and burned are those that were cut off and have lost their salvation. To think otherwise is utter nonsense.

By your own standard of teaching you are completely wrong about Judas Iscariot. Judas was picked by Jesus and believed. We know that he believed in Jesus because scripture tells us so. Right after the narrative on the marriage feast of Cana we are told in John 2:11 that, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.”

According to faith alone and once saved always saved, Judas is saved. It is pretty clear from scripture, however, that this is not the case. If your teaching was correct this contradiction could not occur in scripture. This is simply one more instance showing the disparity between what you believe and what scripture really says. Judas turned from Jesus just as anyone else can. It is by turning away from the Lord that we can be cut off.

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

Phil,

I find your writings very confusing.

I feel led to believe that you are not a RC.

Sorry if I misled you - I am RC. I also attend an EFree church/on worshipteam/bible study etc…

However, you have an Arminian view on salvation, meaning you can lose it.

Catholics had it first!

Saying that, I will go on to clarify to you my beliefs. Heavenly rewards are based on the foundation built with precious metals in 1Cor. 3:12 . Obviously, we, determine how much of a reward we get by our works.

“Obvious” ? Really? - care to give me a verse/chapter to consider?

Are there eternal consequences in this? Sure, we will have to live with the fact that we could have had more rewards. This is something we can never go back and change.

Darn! Just when I thought reformed theology was truly a free ride!

How does confession fit into this?

When we fail to confess our sins to one another, and forgive each other, we are willingly not in Gods will. We damage our communication (communion) with each other. Therefore, good works cannot be produced. Why? Its logical progression to believe that If you harbor unforgiveness in your heart, your works there after will be wood, hay, and stubble. How can a bad tree produce good fruit?

It cannot. Do you think an “apple” tree that doesn’t produce apples still thinks of itself as an apple tree?

These are eternal consequences. Less good works produces less eternal rewards.Do you understand?

Yea, but trees that don’t produce good fruit get cut and burned. This much I know.

Why do we confess our sins and ask forgiveness from God?

Because we want to be forgiven, again and again, and again on the merits of Our Lord. We have Christs eternal sacrifice applied to our temporal needs over and over again. Don’t overcomplicate this simple fact. “If we acknowledge our sins He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins…” 1John 1:9 Very, very basic. And it is all part of the eternal sacrifice of Christ which is made efficacious for all time.

For the same reason.

We damage our communication (communion) with God, when we don’t ask for forgiveness. Our good works cease, and we become a useless steward of him. He no longer can use us to reach those in need. These have eternal consequences, but have no salvational consequences for us.

Well, this is the big question. Sounds like someone who has not persevered, has not finished the race, has not “worked out” his salvation seriously. Paul doesn’t have much confidence in their salvation.

If it did have salvational consequences, then I would be the first one lining up to join the RCC.

Well that’s encouraging, because we really need you!

After all, they would have the best remedy, Since a blood sacrifice is the only way to remit sin (Heb 9:22). Too bad you can’t resacrifice Christ. SHHHHHH…

Behave. You know full well that’s not what the Mass is. If you don’t go to the Library on the homepage.

They might have been on to something! Protestants who believe they can lose their salvation make me chuckle, because they have no half way reasonable remedy.

Yes, but they may not feel the need for one. According to you (and Ozzie) they’re still saved anyway since they have faith in Jesus Christ - correct? And this should be true of all Christians who “confess that Jesus is Lord…and believe that God raised him from the dead.” - including Catholics. True? I don’t get all the quarreling.

Your Friend Dan!

I still think we’re mostly on the same team…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

Phil,

I think what ozzie means here is that your belief in Christ doesn’t make propitiation for your sin. Christ did that 2000 yrs ago on the cross. Believing merely activates that sacrifice to work for you. Essentially making you righteous before God or “forgiven” if you will.

Dan

Nope. He’s sticking with the eternal sacrifice being instantaneously, completely and permanently efficaceous at the moment in time it occured. NO need to confess sins - they’ve all been taken care of for believers and unbelievers - the only issue for Ozzie is spiritual life or death. Reread his post - you two are not one.

PHil

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

Nope. He’s sticking with the eternal sacrifice being instantaneously, completely and permanently efficaceous at the moment in time it occured.

So do I

NO need to confess sins - they’ve all been taken care of for believers and unbelievers - the only issue for Ozzie is spiritual life or death. Reread his post - you two are not one.

PHil
There is no need to confess sins for the purpose of being rejustified. This is true. Which is what I think he is trying to tell you .

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

I still think we’re mostly on the same team…

Phil

I don’t think so Phil, not even close my friend.You believe in a different Gospel and a different Jesus.

Your friend Dan!

 

[exrc]

Saying that, I will go on to clarify to you my beliefs. Heavenly rewards are based on the foundation built with precious metals in 1Cor. 3:12 . Obviously, we, determine how much of a reward we get by our works.

“Obvious” ? Really? - care to give me a verse/chapter to consider?

1Cor. 3:12… Are you serious Phil? You can’t see it in there? What is wood, hay, stubble, silver, gold, and gems? Someone elses works?

You are a very confused person Phil. sorry.

In love Dan!

 

[Des]

exrc:

1Cor. 3:12… Are you serious Phil? You can’t see it in there? What is wood, hay, stubble, silver, gold, and gems? Someone elses works?

You are a very confused person Phil. sorry.

In love Dan!

This is what the Douay-Rheims Bible says about this verse:

12 “Upon this foundation”… The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity. The building upon this foundation gold, silver, and precious stones, signifies the more perfect preaching and practice of the gospel; the wood, hay, and stubble, such preaching as that of the Corinthian teachers (who affected the pomp of words and human eloquence) and such practice as is mixed with much imperfection, and many lesser sins. Now the day of the Lord, and his fiery trial, (in the particular judgment immediately after death,) shall make manifest of what sort every man’s work has been: of which, during this life, it is hard to make a judgment. For then the fire of God’s judgment shall try every man’s work. And they, whose works, like wood, hay, and stubble, cannot abide the fire, shall suffer loss; these works being found to be of no value; yet they themselves, having built upon the right foundation, (by living and dying in the true faith and in the state of grace, though with some imperfection,) shall be saved yet so as by fire; being liable to this punishment, by reason of the wood, hay, and stubble, which was mixed with their building.

 

[MariaG]

posted by exrc post #896
Pax,
You remind me of a man who is looking through the ocean to find a glass of water. Give up Pax, and leave her. She’s like a millstone around your neck. Can’t you feel it??

Name one sin that doesn’t lead to spiritual death.

Your friend exrc

http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/objects/bible_1.gif 1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Might not be naming the sin, but the Bible clearly says that there is sin that does not lead to death. Just like the word Trinity that is not in the Bible but was created to describe that which is in the Bible, these verses are the explanation of the words venial and mortal sin.

Venial=sin not leading to death
Mortal=sin leading to death

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong, how do you interpret the verses? They seem pretty clear to me but I am willing to listen to your explanation.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Philthy]

Hi Dan!

I’m confused like you said - I’ll read that verse and the entire letter of Paul to try and understand what meanings it may have. But I am not in denial, which you seem to be, regarding Ozzie’s post. It’s not sitting well with you is it? Here’s what you said:

“There is no need to confess sins for the purpose of being rejustified. This is true. Which is what I think he is trying to tell you .”

Perhaps, but unless he comes right out and states it differently(which is what I originally asked him to do since it seemed like a rediculous statement) we have to take him for his word - not what we would like his word to have been.

Ozzie:

Sorry for butting in here, but one does not believe in Christ to "get his sins forgiven."

There is no ambiguity here - only wishful thinking on your part. As I said, you two are not one. You may wish to complicate a simple statement such as Ozzies by introducing the term “justification”, but lets just stcik to what was said - one doesn’t believe to have sins forgiven. Now we can proceed to his next statement which further supports my correct interpretation of his first:

Sins were forgiven at the time of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice 2000 years ago:

Past tense Dan. Our sins were forgiven - not because of our belief, but because God owes it to Christ to forgive our sins whether we believe in Him or not. It’s not about us.

It is for the sake of Christ (because of His sacrificial death) that God has forgiven us our sins. It’s not about you, it’s about Christ. But by His grace you benefit through Him eternally. That is, if you have truly believed in Him.

I find it hard to believe he meant what he said, but we’ll just have to see if he steps in for clarification. Until then it’s pretty clear what he said - I wouldn’t spend too much time on it.

Now onto to this statement of yours, which was in response to my sentiment that we were “mostly on the same team”:

“I don’t think so Phil, not even close my friend.You believe in a different Gospel and a different Jesus.”

I don’t get it. **Why is my belief in JC as my Lord and Savior and my belief that God raised him from the dead insufficient for you? ** What specifically do you believe separates us? How do you know these differences aren’t simply “debateable issues” ? And don’t get too complicated - I’m sure you are aware that only 2% of “christians” have the desire or capacity to discuss some of the issues we discuss on these forums. Complicated theological understanding is not a prerequisite. You seem to be turning your back on the clear biblical directive: " For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised HIm from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 Which teaching of Christ do you feel contradicts this verse and how do you know how to judge others? Hey Dan, you don’t actually have to answer all the questions I posted here, I just want an answer to the top one which I bolded. The rest are questions to consider in answering it.

I will never judge you,

Phil

 

[exrc]

MariaG:

http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/objects/bible_1.gif

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death

Which death does he speak of here physical death or spiritual? Does he specify?

Might not be naming the sin, but the Bible clearly says that there is sin that does not lead to death. Just like the word Trinity that is not in the Bible but was created to describe that which is in the Bible, these verses are the explanation of the words venial and mortal sin.

The trinity can be proven simply, because it is plainly stated in Gen. 1 & Jn. 1 UNMISTAKABLE!

Venial=sin not leading to death
Mortal=sin leading to death

Is eating a fruit more serious than stealing a gumball?

Doesn’t James tell us that we are guilty of the whole law if we break only one part?

If you believe the Catholic Church is wrong, how do you interpret the verses? They seem pretty clear to me but I am willing to listen to your explanation

Pretty simple

God Bless,
Maria

You also,exrc