I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[silvano]

SPOKENWORD:

Br. Ozzie, There are born again christians who have truly given themselves to the Lord and have fallen into sin. Not that I would want to doesnt mean that it doesnt happen. Satan is constantly seeking those he can lead us into temptation. Some christians are not rooted deeply enough and fall into sin,including myself. Yes ,the Holy Spirit is always right,its us that lack the understanding. God Bless.

Hello,

You are absolutely right! In my area,there was a very prominent married,ex-RC,Born Again Pastor/Minister,who was responsible of luring thousands of Catholics to join his Ministry, that extended not just in the USA,but also to Mexicn his weekly TV program,people were glued to their seats watching him preached the Gospel.His mega-Church was filled to the rafters, with over 90% ex-RCs,during worship services.In fact,the RCC hierarchy here was awakened with his enormous success, that many Priests started preaching during homily that the RCC,is the only church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

Anyway,one day,our entire region was shocked,to find out that this charismatic Pastor died in hic church’s office,had a cardiac arrest with his pants down,having sex with one of his secretaries.Now,his ministry is run by his wife,which was transformed from a very vibrant community to an almost non existent one.There are very,very few cars parked during worship services and the TV program is long gone!Now,people only remember what he did during his last day in this world,which was very shameful!

 

[SPOKENWORD]

silvano:

Hello,

You are absolutely right! In my area,there was a very prominent married,ex-RC,Born Again Pastor/Minister,who was responsible of luring thousands of Catholics to join his Ministry, that extended not just in the USA,but also to Mexicn his weekly TV program,people were glued to their seats watching him preached the Gospel.His mega-Church was filled to the rafters, with over 90% ex-RCs,during worship services.In fact,the RCC hierarchy here was awakened with his enormous success, that many Priests started preaching during homily that the RCC,is the only church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

Anyway,one day,our entire region was shocked,to find out that this charismatic Pastor died in hic church’s office,had a cardiac arrest with his pants down,having sex with one of his secretaries.Now,his ministry is run by his wife,which was transformed from a very vibrant community to an almost non existent one.There are very,very few cars parked during worship services and the TV program is long gone!Now,people only remember what he did during his last day in this world,which was very shameful!

Hi Sil, This is a perfect example of the verse, The consequences of SIN IS DEATH.

 

[Catherine_S]

silvano:

Hello,

You are absolutely right! In my area,there was a very prominent married,ex-RC,Born Again Pastor/Minister,who was responsible of luring thousands of Catholics to join his Ministry, that extended not just in the USA,but also to Mexicn his weekly TV program,people were glued to their seats watching him preached the Gospel.His mega-Church was filled to the rafters, with over 90% ex-RCs,during worship services.In fact,the RCC hierarchy here was awakened with his enormous success, that many Priests started preaching during homily that the RCC,is the only church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

Anyway,one day,our entire region was shocked,to find out that this charismatic Pastor died in hic church’s office,had a cardiac arrest with his pants down,having sex with one of his secretaries.Now,his ministry is run by his wife,which was transformed from a very vibrant community to an almost non existent one.There are very,very few cars parked during worship services and the TV program is long gone!Now,people only remember what he did during his last day in this world,which was very shameful!

:tsktsk: Not good…not necessary and definately not from God !! Can you not do better than slinging mud? For what it is worth**.****…I am deeply disappointed** .

Shalom

 

[Pax]

I requested that you try using scripture to refute something I said and you responded with:

exrc:

I just did, using your own verse. I am sorry you cannot see the similarity.

Your Friend Dan!

Okay, Dan, I’ll give you credit for “trying” even though you did nothing to refute it. The reference was 2 Corinthians 7:10 which says, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.” You gave the definition of the Greek for the word salvation used in this verse and then proceeded to claim that this was a reference to only a temporal saving and not an eternal one. This is just plain silly and you never should have gone there. Paul is talking about eternal salvation and in the last part of the verse he is speaking of death as in damnation. If you can’t see this then you’re are in real trouble.

For your own edification I am going to quote Henry’s Concise Commentary because it is non-Catholic. Henry’s says the following concerning this verse:

“And this repentance is connected with saving faith in Christ, and an interest in his atonement. There is a great difference between this sorrow of a godly sort, and the sorrow of the world.”

Notice that Henry’s does not make the goofy claim that you have, but instead connects this Godly repentence to “saving faith in Christ and His atonement.” You are simply wrong yet even so you claimed that you didn’t insult me, and then you immediately insulted me again by improperly criticizing my correct argument by claiming that you get better refutations from JW’s.

Do you have any clue at all at what you’re doing?

 

[Pax]

I spoke of lawlessness and you made the following remark:

exrc:

That’s OK, they said the same thing about Paul in Romans 3:8

Your Friend Dan!

Yes, Paul does make a reference in Romans 3:8 but that reference is not on task to my remarks. Instead you should try the following verses which are on target:

1 Timothy 1:8-11
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Hebrews 1:9-12
Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades." And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest;

1
2 Peter 3:17-18
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

1 John 3:3-6
And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

Do you get it now Dan, or do I need to go on ad infinitum!?

 

[Catherine_S]

Pax:

I requested that you try using scripture to refute something I said and you responded with:

Okay, Dan, I’ll give you credit for “trying” even though you did nothing to refute it. The reference was 2 Corinthians 7:10 which says, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.” You gave the definition of the Greek for the word salvation used in this verse and then proceeded to claim that this was a reference to only a temporal saving and not an eternal one. This is just plain silly and you never should have gone there. Paul is talking about eternal salvation and in the last part of the verse he is speaking of death as in damnation. If you can’t see this then you’re are in real trouble.

For your own edification I am going to quote Henry’s Concise Commentary because it is non-Catholic. Henry’s says the following concerning this verse:

“And this repentance is connected with saving faith in Christ, and an interest in his atonement. There is a great difference between this sorrow of a godly sort, and the sorrow of the world.”

Notice that Henry’s does not make the goofy claim that you have, but instead connects this Godly repentence to “saving faith in Christ and His atonement.” You are simply wrong yet even so you claimed that you didn’t insult me, and then you immediately insulted me again by improperly criticizing my correct argument by claiming that you get better refutations from JW’s.

Do you have any clue at all at what you’re doing?

He certainly does ! :yup: It is beginning to work too. Look two or three letters back. Some real mud slinging has begun. The whole devil ish game is to get others frustrated because you refuse to listen to them. If you can do this… who has the control ? None of this is about Truth…it is all about Power. This kind of behavior is caused by the deepest kind of insecurity. It is a learned behavior…it was done to those who do it…and what one has not worked through they will continue to act out. Compassion is in order and one moves on. We were instructed…Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught: “avoid them” (9Rom.16:17) It is a dead end street.
**Shalom **

 

[WBB]

Catherine S.:
He certainly does ! :yup: It is beginning to work too. Look two or three letters back. Some real mud slinging has begun. The whole devil ish game is to get others frustrated because you refuse to listen to them. If you can do this… who has the control ? None of this is about Truth…it is all about Power. This kind of behavior is caused by the deepest kind of insecurity. It is a learned behavior…it was done to those who do it…and what one has not worked through they will continue to act out. Compassion is in order and one moves on. We were instructed…Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught: “avoid them” (9Rom.16:17) It is a dead end street.
**Shalom **
What a steady voice of reason you are, Catherine S.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Pharisee

 

[Pax]

exrc,

I researched your claim concerning the word “salvation” in our disputed verse in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Here is the definition given in the NT Greek lexicon.

1.deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
a. deliverance from the molestation of enemies
b. in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation

1. of Messianic salvation
2. salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
3. future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.

Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink

Now please take note that I listed the entire definition and did not truncate it as you did. What you tried to pull is dishonest. Now that you have been shown a protestant commentary, the full definition and use of the word in the NT Greek Lexicon, and the context of scripture itself, you have but one thing left to do. Please acknowledge that your statement that “repenting of new sins only has to do with repairing communication with God and not salvation” is incorrect. And while you are at it, please acknowledge that we must confess/repent of new sins because it is tied to our salvation for it is scripture that says "…godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation…"[2 Corinthians 7:9]

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Ozzie,

exrc has, in this quote, layed down another “hypothetical” on the heels of your false claim that you guys don’t engage in this kind of thing. Moreover, he has been shown from scripture that there are both mortal and non-mortal (i.e. venial) sins. I wonder what really motivates you guys to do this stuff. It does not help your cause but only establishes more strongly that which you object to, and for that I thank you.

Pax, when I made the statement that we have not presented hypotheticals it was in the context of the doctrine of salvation. We primarily presented on this thread the Scriptural backing of salvation by GRACE through faith alone. We did not present our case by a bunch of hypothetical like “what if a person does this” or “what if a person does that?” “Is a person saved if he doesn’t do this?” Is he saved if he doesn’t do that?" We domonstrated our soteriology by God’s objective, written Word, not on “what ifs.”

You, on the other hand, have now gotten petty with your comments and are no longer even trying to remain objective. It’s almost getting to become useless to dialogue with you.

 

[Catherine_S]

Ozzie:

Pax,

You, on the other hand, have now gotten petty with your comments and are no longer even trying to remain objective. It’s almost getting to become useless to dialogue with you.

And the farmer hauled another load away ! ! Ego defense and projection ! :yup: !

---

Shalom

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Pax, when I made the statement that we have not presented hypotheticals it was in the context of the doctrine of salvation. We primarily presented on this thread the Scriptural backing of salvation by GRACE through faith alone. We did not present our case by a bunch of hypothetical like “what if a person does this” or “what if a person does that?” “Is a person saved if he doesn’t do this?” Is he saved if he doesn’t do that?" We domonstrated our soteriology by God’s objective, written Word, not on “what ifs.”

You, on the other hand, have now gotten petty with your comments and are no longer even trying to remain objective. It’s almost getting to become useless to dialogue with you.

Ozzie,

I apologize if my methods are irritating you. You say that I am being petty. From your point of view that may be true, but let me explain my actions. You have presented your case and I will give you much more credit than I will give to exrc for the use of scripture. Frankly, it is only reasonable that I be quite demanding when it comes to scripture in a discussion with non-Catholic Christians. The reason for this is simple; non-Catholic Christians claim to use scripture alone and demand that everyone prove everything by scripture.

Although I am a Catholic and I have scripture, the Church and apostolic tradition, I will make every effort to accommodate my non-Catholic brothers and sisters by using scripture alone or “almost” exclusively in my discussions. This places demands on both sides of the discussion. You expect me to rigorously present and defend my position and I expect the same from you. I have admittedly become impatient with the following:

1. non-scriptural, unsupported claims against Catholic teaching.
2. misrepresentations of Catholic teaching.
3. lack of recognition of the slam dunk scripturally based arguments presented by us.
4. abuses of context.
5. the deliberate and dishonest use of scripture such as exrc’s attempt to deliberately mistranslate the word “salvation” in his recent post.

These things matter. You do not arrive at the truth through dishonesty and subterfuge. We might disagree on something and there may be reasonable grounds for some debate, but the truth and souls are at stake here. Because of this I decided not to let any point, no matter how small, go unchallenged if it doesn’t fit the truth or is not scripturally defensible. If I’m being overly aggressive or abusive, please correct me in specific terms. If I am in error or being unchristian I will immediately apologize. I am, in fact, apologizing now if I have in any way been uncharitable.

 

[exrc]

exrc,

I researched your claim concerning the word “salvation” in our disputed verse in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Here is the definition given in the NT Greek lexicon.

1.deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
a. deliverance from the molestation of enemies
b. in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation

1. of Messianic salvation
2. salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
3. future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.

Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink

Now please take note that I listed the entire definition and did not truncate it as you did. What you tried to pull is dishonest.

This was the total definition in my strongs concordance, it was not truncated. No matter. You do realize that this word can be used interchangeably. It is defined by context. The question becomes, does Paul believe that salvation can be lost? This will determine the words definition by context. Let’s see!

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all–how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."1] 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
“38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,1] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Rom 8:31-39

I guess he doesn’t believe such a thing Pax.

Let’s look at it another way.

Did Jesus die to save our physical bodies or our spiritual bodies?Face it Pax there are some sins that lead to physical death without leading to spiritual death. I have given you an example of this already with the christian with AIDS. Does the fact that this christian repented, change the reality of his premature demise?
By the way, this is not hypothetical, I know this individual.

Let’s leave this immature teaching Pax, let’s eat some meat buddy!

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death. Hebrews 6:1

Don’t mess with the Holy Ghost Pax, he’ll put mens traditions to shame all the time!

I just want you to know that I just prayed for your eyes to be open to the truth. I really did!

Your patient friend Dan!

 

[Ozzie]

2 Corinthians 7:-11
As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death." Paul is talking about eternal salvation and in the last part of the verse he is speaking of death as in damnation. If you can’t see this then you’re are in real trouble.

Oh come on Pax. Again, you utterly fail to interpret Scripture verses within their intended context. Paul had written a letter to them in which he obviously rebuked them of a certain un-Christian behavior or attitude. Probably in reference to the incestuous relationship between a man and his father’s wife, and they did not mourn over the situation and take proper action (1 Cor. 5). He says the letter caused them sorrow, though only for a while (vs. 8). But now he rejoiced, not because they were made sorrowful (he didn’t say they lost their salvation), but that they were made sorrowful to the point of repentance (a change of mind/heart/attitude toward sin amongst them) and took immediate action.

In other words, they did not become embittered by Paul’s letter of reproof. But they had a Godly sorrow, a sorrow based on a true conviction toward sin by the Holy Spirit, i.e., according to the will of God, not just Paul’s letter of rebuke toward them. The Godly grief and pain which God permits produces a true repentance that leads and contributes to salvation, and in their specific case, deliverance from evil. And it never brings regret both for salvation and deliverance from the sin that might plague the believer.

Paul nowhere in the context even hints to the idea that the Corinthians had lost their salvation. They had allowed a sinful act in their midst and did nothing about it. By his letter, and a Godly inspired repentance (change of mind), they had gained a Godly attitude toward that sin in their midst and were eager to change.

If we take your extreme interpretation, based on the context, Pax, then ALL Roman Catholics have lost their salvation because Rome did nothing about the sin of pedophilia by priests in their own church. Not until it went public was this sin even addressed. Based on your interpretation, Pax, all RCs had lost their salvation. Is that really where you want to go with this?

You’ve got this sick idea that the Father and the Son are sitting in Heaven on thrones just waiting for the redeemed to mess up so they can, with great joy, kick their butts into Hell. And you diligently search the Scriptures to prove it. But the only way that can be done is take verses out of their intended context, which you constantly do. But, alas, such is the mind of the religious legalist. They have no idea of the truth of the gospel (good news) message based on the power of cross of Christ, and they work to keep others from knowing it as well.

 

[exrc]

Catherine S.:

Excerpts

from very good articles…If you care to read them you may get a glimps of the **big **picture … and where rugged Individualism can lead when practiced in religion. Again I ask if you believe Jn 16:13

Indeed, this reaction is what characterizes the Wahhabite movement that dominates Saudia Arabia and inspired Osama bin Laden’s ideology. Philosopher Roger Scruton notes that in the Wahhabite view,

** **“whoever can read the Quran can judge for himself in matters of doctrine.”

---

This attitude, which is tantamount to an Islamic version of sola scriptura, is likely to prove as durable in Muslim circles as it has been in Protestant Fundamentalist circles. As long as that is the case, there will be fresh waves of Muslim martyrs willing to take the Quran’s statements on killing literally, apply them to today, and then hurl themselves into combat with whomever they perceive asthe Great Satan.
How purposely ignorant you are that muslims are not led by the same spirit as christians are.

**

More of the Big

** picture

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/opinion/marshall.htm

My own view is that** many of the problems of contemporary Islam** are more like Protestant problems than like Catholic problems, and therefore that something more akin **to a dilution **of Protestantism is required.Perhaps instead we should be urging an Islamic Counter-Reformation.
I dare you to walk down the street and ask RC’s there opinion on any RC doctrine and find not more than 50% agreement, and that’s being generous.
Let’s take a look at who voted George W. Bush into office. It was evangelicals! Not RC’s. Why? It’s called spiritual discernment. Pax seems to think that this is indicative of nothing. Gee, thats funny, all that unity without a magisterium. I wonder who is behind that mass conspiracy?

You want to sling mud? I’ve got infinitely more than you. Try me.

Let’s begin with Scripture

. One Protestant emphasis is sola scriptura, which stresses reliance on the Bible alone, rather than on tradition, reason, and natural law thinking. Really? who aspires to believe in evolution, instead of creation. Natural law thinking? reason? Wow, you had better quit while you are only slightly behind.

**

Seeing the Big

** picture requires connecting the dots…God has given us intellect and the Holy Spirit to do this always !

Shalom
You’re missing some important dots Cath.

Your friend Dan!

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

Ozzie,

I apologize if my methods are irritating you. You say that I am being petty.

My only “irritation” was your taking out of context what I had stated and harping on it.

Frankly, it is only reasonable that I be quite demanding when it comes to scripture in a discussion with non-Catholic Christians. The reason for this is simple; non-Catholic Christians claim to use scripture alone and demand that everyone prove everything by scripture.

And why shouldn’t everything pertaining to the true faith, especially salvation, be proved by Scripture? Should “tradition” ever contradict Scripture? If it does, what should be thrown out, tradition or Scripture?

You expect me to rigorously present and defend my position and I expect the same from you.

And you’ve gotten it from us.

I have admittedly become impatient with the following:

1. non-scriptural, unsupported claims against Catholic teaching.
2. misrepresentations of Catholic teaching.
3. lack of recognition of the slam dunk scripturally based arguments presented by us.
4. abuses of context.
5. the deliberate and dishonest use of scripture such as exrc’s attempt to deliberately mistranslate the word “salvation” in his recent post.

Well, I think exrc attempted to show you the context of the use of the word “salvation.” You’re under the misguided impression that every warning in Scripture has eternal, damnable consequences. That is a GREAT misrepresentation of Scripture. I don’t think we misrepresent “Catholic teaching,” but we do present its erroneous teachings based on a true exegetical study of God’s written Word. What’s wrong with that? If my church was teaching contrary to God’s written Word, I would confront them just as Paul confronted Peter, publicly and face to face.

We might disagree on something and there may be reasonable grounds for some debate, but the truth and souls are at stake here.

Truth definitely is at stake here. The pure Gospel message of the cross of Christ. The grounds for divine salvation BY GRACE, through faith. It’s worth the debate in my estimation. I’m sure it is for you too.

 

[Catherine_S]

exrc:

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all–how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."1] 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
“38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,1] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Rom 8:31-39

Let’s leave this immature teaching Pax, let’s eat some meat buddy!

Don’t mess with the Holy Ghost Pax, he’ll put mens traditions to shame all the time!

:whacky: If you propose to interpret one verse and accomplish that by listing irrelevant verses that refer to something other than the specific point in controversy, lazy readers will conclude that you have marshalled an impressive array of evidence.

Shalom

---

**PS…Don’t mess with the Holy Ghost Pax, he’ll put mens traditions to shame all the time! This you got right EX-RC :clapping: **

 

[Catherine_S]

exrc:

Again I ask if you believe Jn 16:13

How purposely ignorant you are that muslims are not led by the same spirit as christians are.

**I dare you to walk down the street and ask RC’s there opinion on any RC doctrine and find not more than 50% agreement, and that’s being generous. **
Let’s take a look at who voted George W. Bush into office. It was evangelicals! Not RC’s. Why? It’s called spiritual discernment. Pax seems to think that this is indicative of nothing. Gee, thats funny, all that unity without a magisterium. I wonder who is behind that mass conspiracy?

You want to sling mud? I’ve got infinitely more than you. Try me.

Really? who aspires to believe in evolution, instead of creation. Natural law thinking? reason? Wow, you had better quit while you are only slightly behind.

You’re missing some important dots Cath.

Your friend Dan!

Again I askif you believe Jn 16:13…** Absolutely !!! Slinging mud is something I do not do…you did not read correctly again and nothing else in your message deserves a response.**

---

Shalom

---

**PS…**My name is Catherine !

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

You’re welcome!

Let me clarify a bit further.

God can only forgive us, once we appropriate Jesus’ sacrificial atonement for our sins.

Yup. The only question is when this “appropriating” happens. You and Ozzie say it happens instantly and completely when you come to faith in Christ, which seems inconsistent with 1J1:9

exrc:

You want to equate atonement with forgiveness in all respects.
In other words, you want to make salvation contingent upon each and every time we confess and God forgives.

No, that’s not what I was trying to do. I simply wanted to understand how forgiveness works with respect to God. We started out with Ozzie apparently saying everyone was forgiven everything independent of belief - we now have this cleared up.

PART of my original intent was to get you both to realize that the criticism of RC’s continuing to confess sins for forgiveness in no way indicates that we feel Christ’s sacrifice was incomplete, nor are we “recrucifying Christ”. And, in a very real sense, the concept that Christ’s sacrifice “is finished” is misleading - I think you both would have lambasted me if I suggested this much before this conversation. We all now realize, however, that although Christ’s work is finished, something still needs to be done on our part to truly complete this process. Namely, we must believe in Him. Just exactly what it means to “believe” and how one judges themself as a “true believer” is not so clear.

exrc:

When we believe and confess ( say the same thing as the father about Jesus) ONCE unto righteousness, this appropriates individually for us that atonement. We are now forgiven of being a sinner. We are born again.

Ever since I claimed to have the same assurance of salvation that you have since I “confess and believe” you are no longer comfortable with Paul’s wording as inspired by the holy Spirit for Rom 10:9-10. Where exactly do you come up with “say the same thing as the father about Jesus”? Do you have a verse from Romans 10 to support this? Is it no longer palatable to accept that belief and confession are enough?

exrc:

All future acknowledgements of our sins (or confessions of our sins) is to appropriate forgiveness for the purpose of restoring
fellowship with the Father, not salvation.

What purpose does the term “to appropriate forgiveness” have in this sentence, and how would the sentence’s meaning change if it were eliminated? You and Ozzied have repeatedly stated that the appropriation of forgiveness is an instantaneous, complete and permanent event at the time one comes to faith in Jesus. Seems like you’re sneaking it in again each time we confess…

exrc:

No Phil, The atonement must be appropriated, it is not available to unbelievers. They are not yet able to be forgiven because of their unbelief in Jesus. This is the only sin that can keep you out of heaven, its called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I know. You left this simple fact out and I was just keeping us together. Still a little shell-shocked that Ozzie let “we don’t believe in Christ to get our sins forgiven” get posted…

In love Dan!
Is this better posting from me?!

Phil

 

[Philthy]

exrc:

Maria,
May I say that you are confident only at this very moment that you are saved, because you are convinced that you are within the salvation guidelines of the RCC. What if all sins are “mortal” as I’ve pointed out with James 2:10, and Paul Rom. 6:23, and Adams sin.

In a sense all sin is mortal. In another sense some is not.

exrc:

Disobedience in any fashion is worthy of death Eternally. You would literally have to spend every waking moment in the confessional.

False - this was Luther’s problem. Not Catholicisms.

exrc:

Can’t you see that you’re on the road to self righteousness? If you don’t put your total trust in Christ to save you completely, then you are trusting in your own ability to become worthy of being saved.

No, She needs to remain “in Him” - this requires cooperation and perseverance.

exrc:

Because you have to keep yourself away from “serious” sin, in order to maintain your salvation. Your salvation is conditional, and dependent upon your behavior.

False. She needs to remain in Him and she’s all set. Prayer, Sacraments, Service and Fellowship help perpetuate and strengthen this relationship. Satan will try to disrupt this relationship as will her remaining sin nature. Is all of Satan’s effort directed at unbelievers? Don’t count on it.

exrc:

You have no assurance that you will be saved, because you haven’t lived your entire life out yet.

False. She has tremendous assurance. She simply is acknowledging that there will be trials to face and that she should be preparing herself to face them, not relaxing because “it is finished”.

exrc:

It’s possible of course that a real christian could do the most heinous of things. The enemy can find a chink in anyones armor and exploit it. However, Christ’s sacrifice is more powerful than any sin, and can keep him saved through any circumstance.

Then why would Satan waste his time on someone saved? Doesn’t add up Dan.

No, There two categories:

1. the religious unbeliever who thinks he is saved because he joined a church and was baptized.( calls himself a christian)

2)The truly born again believer who fell victim to the devils wiles.
( but is still saved)

Again, it makes no sense for Satan to tempt someone who he can’t have victory over.

You also, Dan!
Sorry for butting in!

Phil

 

[SPOKENWORD]

IF once saved always saved is true what purpose does the story of the Prodigal Son serve.? God Bless.