I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[exrc]

Philthy:

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

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

How long does it take to believe the truth about Jesus Phil?

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent,3] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

How long does it take to be born physically?
How long does it take to be born spiritually?

It is instantaneous! Yippy!!

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”

Let me try to demonstrate that despite what you say, this is in fact what you are doing.

You say that a “mortal” sin can put you in hell correct? OK then this sin was not paid for at the cross 2000 yrs ago. This is like saying that the land that your great great grandfather purchased long ago was paid in full, and this that you have the deed for, is now null and void. Why? Do you need to pay additional payments? Was there a mistake in the calculations? Was the mortgage holder crooked? I don’t think there is any mistake on Gods part, it must be your mistake. How did you acquire this land? I’ll tell you, you were born into it, you are part of the family. By the will of your Father.

Phil, that sin you say can put you in hell, what will atone for it, If Christ already atoned for it with his blood?

How many of Abrahams sins were atoned for at the the cross? Or Adams, Rahabs, Moses?

Did Christ have to individually die for all your past sins?
Was atonement for those contingent upon whether you could remember each one and acknowledge, or confess them?

What was the conditional atonement for sins in the OT? It was one animal sacrifice for one sin. Were future sins atoned for by representing the sacrifice? No! only by sacrificing anew?

.

however, although Christ’s work is finished, something still needs to be done on our part to truly complete this process.

Not complete the atonement , appropriate it. In the OT the Jew would place his hands on the head of the lamb symbolizing the sin being transferred to it. The priest would then slit the throat of the lamb, blood poured into a basin where a hyssop branch was dunked to sprinkle the offender and he was cleansed. Have you laid your hands on the substitute yet Phil?

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.

The Spirit bears witness to us.I cannot tell you, you must experience this.

Is this better posting from me?

Phil Yes! thank you my friend.

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

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”?

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"4] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:

9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”

(here you are saying the same thing as the Father Phil, Does the Father deny Jesus is lord?)

and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.

The conditional is **confessing **Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart.Thats all! This is a **present **conditional, not future.

Your problem is that you are not believing this promise fully, that’s the key.

It is still contingent for you.

Regardless how you dress it up, your salvation is dependent on how well you can obey the law, and make yourself available to the RCC’s provision for the atonement of your sins.God does not show up at your door on Sunday with a RC priest and make you participate in mass, and confession, it is of your own volition. Your behavior can cancel your salvation, or enable it. You must become worthy of either. Why can’t you see this? Your salvation is dependent on your work, this is your own belief biting you in the butt, because it contradicts Eph. 2:8&9.

10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you **confess **and are saved.

Present tense.

In love Dan!

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

Originally Posted by 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

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank God Luther saw his sin the way God saw it, and convicted him to realize that all sins are mortal.

Originally Posted by 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.

False. She needs to remain in Him and she’s all set. Prayer, Sacraments, Service and Fellowship help perpetuate and strengthen this relationship.
This is still your ability, and your own work.

Originally Posted by 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”.

You have just contradicted yourself Phil. What if she doesn’t do those things. Works Phil, are anything that you can accomplish using body, soul, and spirit.

Originally Posted by 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

.
Reduce or eliminate your effectiveness to allow Christ to speak through you, to reach others for him. Remember ST. Francis of Assisi, “Preach the gospel always, and sometimes use words”. If you’re involved with adultery will you speak out against it?

Sorry for butting in!

No problem, Your friend Dan!

 

[ANWK]

Hi exrc,

I think your quote on St. Francis is not very right, I think he said something more to the effect of, “Use words only as a last resort.” and anyway, what you said about adultery seems to be rather disjointed with the quote from St. Francis. I don’t really understand what is it that you are trying to say.

You also mentioned something about, “Works Phil, are anything that you can accomplish using body, soul, and spirit.” By your own definition, wouldn’t confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart that Jesus died for our sins amount to works as well? Doesn’t this fly in your face about not preaching a “works-based salvation” when by your own definition, even the very fact of confessing and believing is a work?

I think that all Catholics would agree that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is bigger than any sin that we will be able to commit.

Jesus “opened” the way to salvation to us, no one is denying that, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will want to choose to walk in the door.

Jesus did mention that heaven will rejoice in the one soul that was lost and then found rather than the 99 that were already saved. By his very use of the words, “lost”, would it not be right to understand that this one that was lost did belong to the “saved” in the first place? For if you were not “saved” at all, how can you be “lost”? If I did not have something in the first place, how can I lose that thing?

Is this not a clear example that salvation can be lost dependant on whether you choose to accept Christ and continue with this decision all the days of your life?

Comments please from anyone on whether I’m understanding this correctly.

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

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 1J1:9Well, it’s not inconsistent when understood in context. The acknowledging of sins is in contrast with those who deny they have sin. Very simple.

We started out with Ozzie apparently saying everyone was forgiven everything independent of belief - we now have this cleared up.And where did I ever make such a statement?

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.

How is it Phil you make something so simple so complicated in your mind? It’s listening to the words of men rather than the Words of God. There is nothing unclear or complicated about siimply trusting in Jesus Christ and the work He accomplished on the cross on our behalf. God has not made salvation complicated, men have. Why? So that you follow after them and they can lord it over your faith.

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.

Well, we certainly would have pointed out the blatant contradiction of your statement.

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…I think I actually said, no one comes to Jesus Christ to get his sins forgiven. They come to Him to receive LIFE (see Jn. 5:38-40). And I concluded that this is what Jn. 6 is all about. When one believes in Jesus Christ his sins ARE forever forgiven him because of Christ’s finished, redemptive work on the cross. You failed to read me carefully, my friend. You’re too quick to want to give a response.

 

[Ozzie]

ANWK:

I think that all Catholics would agree that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is bigger than any sin that we will be able to commit

No, that’s the whole point. RC’ism teaches that one so-called “mortal” sin essentially cancels out Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross. And that so-called “mortal” sin is laid back on the one who committed it. Christ’s sacrifice is ineffective toward all “mortal” sins. Actually, toward venial sins as well, since those sins must be cleansed by one’s own suffering in “Purgatory.” So one must ask, what’s the purpose of the cross if Rome is right?

Jesus “opened” the way to salvation to us, no one is denying that, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will want to choose to walk in the door.

But we do deny that "Jesus opened the way to salvation." He HIMSELF is the way. "…I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through ME," Jesus said in Jn. 14:6. That’s why salvation is through faith in HIM and HIM alone. And as for the “Door?” Jesus Himself IS the door of salvation “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (Jn. 10:9).

It’s all very simple my friend. Will you trust in Him and Him alone? God has provided no other way.

 

[Ozzie]

SPOKENWORD:

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

It’s the story of the prodigal “SON,” my friend. From where in the story do you arrive at the idea that the father ever disowned him? And even at the son’s lowest point he still referred to his father as his father. Think more about the attitude of his brother and you might get the real purpose of the story.

 

[ANWK]

Hi Ozzie,

Let’s not argue on semantics, we are not arguing whether Jesus is the way, I have no doubt He is. What I’m saying is that we can choose not to “enter through Him”, if you will.

You are telling me that just because Jesus died for me that I have no more free will not to choose Him, that He forced my own salvation on me, that I have no more independent will to reject Him? This appears to be what you are saying.

In that case, what is Hell for? Why the repaeted warnings in the Bible that if you do not do such and such a thing, or if you do such and such a thing that you will end up in Hell?

Why bother about Hell when salvation has already been “forced” on me and tha nothing that I will ever do will cause me to lose my salvation. Hey, that’s liberating. I just made a confession that that Jesus is Lord and I believe sincerely that He died for my sins.

Guess all that’s left is to go and “take care” of that irritating colleague of mine who’s been on my back ever since my first day at work.

Along the way, might decide to rob a bank, get enough money to live it up, hey, might even decide to get some people pregnant, who cares if somebody gets hurt along the way, doesn’t bother me, I have salvation anyway. What could be more important than that?

Nothing’s gonna cause God to take away from salvation from me anyway since He is unchanging and nothing I do is ever big enough to distance me away from Him. Yo Bro!! it’s a win-win… I love it and definitely will be loving it.

After I live it up down here, will see you up there Bro!!

Sounds good doesn’t it, hey Catholics, don’t miss out on such a wonderful deal?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Des]

ANWK:

Nothing’s gonna cause God to take away from salvation from me anyway since He is unchanging and nothing I do is ever big enough to distance me away from Him. Yo Bro!! it’s a win-win… I love it and definitely will be loving it.

After I live it up down here, will see you up there Bro!!

Sounds good doesn’t it, hey Catholics, don’t miss out on such a wonderful deal?!?!?!?!?!

But don’t you see ANWK, he’s only going to tell you that you were never saved in the first place.:whacky:
Anyways, these two popes are only here to tell us how it is and not even consider that they may be wrong. They and many like them, have been duped by sola scripure and will continue preaching the “word of man” untill Jesus returns.:yup:

 

[WBB]

Ozzie:

It’s the story of the prodigal “SON,” my friend. From where in the story do you arrive at the idea that the father ever disowned him? And even at the son’s lowest point he still referred to his father as his father. Think more about the attitude of his brother and you might get the real purpose of the story.

But the point of the story is not that the father ever disowned his son, but that the son disowned his father; that the father allowed the son to choose his own destiny yet never refused the son the right to “come home.” I think that this is wherein the confusion lies. To be a “child of God” does not imply that you cannot reject God. We are God’s child in the eyes of the Catholic Church once we are baptized, but God allows us to freely reject him and heaven, while all the while waiting for us to repent if we have strayed. To imply that to lose salvation means that you are disowned by God is not Catholic teaching, rather to fall from Grace means that we are the ones doing the disowning. Perhaps the problem is not so much a difference in belief but a difference in the definition of the term salvation, for in the Catholic Church to be a “child of God” is not a guarantee for salvation.

 

[Ozzie]

WBB:

But the point of the story is not that the father ever disowned his son, but that the son disowned his father; that the father allowed the son to choose his own destiny yet never refused the son the right to “come home.”

You’re reading your theology into the story. The son never “rejected” his father, he only foolishly squandered his inheritance. Your attitude is more like the brother’s.

 

[Ozzie]

ANWK:

Hi Ozzie,

Let’s not argue on semantics, we are not arguing whether Jesus is the way, I have no doubt He is. What I’m saying is that we can choose not to “enter through Him”, if you will.

Yes, and you would remain unsaved.

You are telling me that just because Jesus died for me that I have no more free will not to choose Him, that He forced my own salvation on me, that I have no more independent will to reject Him? This appears to be what you are saying.

The propositional message is “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” Have your read Jn. 3:14-18?

In that case, what is Hell for? Why the repaeted warnings in the Bible that if you do not do such and such a thing, or if you do such and such a thing that you will end up in Hell?

Hell is for the UN-believers. No one goes to Hell because they’ve sinned. ALL of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 23). They will go there because they refused to BELIEVE. But the one who BELIEVES in Christ is *“justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” *(Rom. 3:24). Now before you go through this whole thing about rejecting the gift, go back are read the previous posts. It’ all been covered. There are no warnings in the Bible that if a true believer does such and such he will go to Hell. You really need to go back and read the posts.

After I live it up down here, will see you up there Bro!!

Have you any idea what regeneration is? You may no know what it is to be “made alive” in Christ Jesus. If not, then maybe we should start there.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Dan-

Have to split this up…

exrc:
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
The only two comments I will make here is that the term believes is in the present tense, not the past tense. This begs the question that if one “believes” and then lost that “belief” do the promises apply? The other comment is that crossing over from death to life does happen at that point - but is it the complete process and is it irreversible?

exrc:
How long does it take to believe the truth about Jesus Phil?
I don’t know - what does Scripture say?

exrc:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13children born not of natural descent,3] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
This is a good argument for salvation by faith apart from the law, however “the right to become children” does not equal “once saved always saved”. Again, people do foolish things, waive their rights for some percieved greater benefit (lure of the world) - especially when Satan is involved.

exrc:
You say that a “mortal” sin can put you in hell correct? OK then this sin was not paid for at the cross 2000 yrs ago.
Dan, your logic is so sloppy. Now, for the third time, I have to clear up the single most important point we made with all our prior discussions: Although Christ atoned for our sins completely 2000 years ago, the APPLICATION of that atonement does not occur until we come to faith in Christ. Otherwise, all humanity is saved. Right? You said this much in your last post to me, remember? In a sense “it is finished”, in a sense it is not. We must complete the sacriffice of Christ by coming to faith in Him. The only question is whether the application of his sacrifice is complete and permanent at the time of coming to faith or if the application of the atonement continues to be applied throughout our lives as the need arises(we sin) and we confess our sins.

Lets not continue to fail to recognize this: Christ did his job completely In order to make his sacrifice efficacious, we must, at the very least, cme to believe in him. Otherwise, his sacrifice does not actually atone for our sins.

 

[Philthy]

exrc:
Phil, that sin you say can put you in hell, what will atone for it, If Christ already atoned for it with his blood?

Dan, that sin of the unbeliever, why does he need to come to faith if Christ already atoned for it with his blood?

exrc:
How many of Abrahams sins were atoned for at the the cross? Or Adams, Rahabs, Moses?

I think they all were, no?

exrc:
Did Christ have to individually die for all your past sins?
Was atonement for those contingent upon whether you could remember each one and acknowledge, or confess them?

I don’t understand the first question.
The second question implies a misunderstanding of confession from a Catholic perspective. One does not need to be conscious of all their specific sins to confess them and be forgiven. The ones they are conscious of, the ones laid on their hearts by the holy Spirit, must be confessed to be forgiven, the rest are forgiven as well.

exrc:
What was the conditional atonement for sins in the OT? It was one animal sacrifice for one sin. Were future sins atoned for by representing the sacrifice? No! only by sacrificing anew?

Comparing the eternal sacrifice of Christ to animal sacrifices is useful but it has it’s limits. New sin required new sacrifice/atonement/application of atonement under the Law. Now, because we have AVAILABLE an eternal and complete atonement in Christ we don’t need to sacrifice anything we simply must have it approriated by “acknowledging” them and He will be faithful (to Christs sacrifice) and He will forgive them.

exrc:
Have you laid your hands on the substitute yet Phil?
Yes, but I have not completely surrendered my will - I struggle to grow more Christ-like in this respect, and expect to continue to do so for the rest of my life.

exrc:
The Spirit bears witness to us.I cannot tell you, you must experience this.

Yes! thank you my friend.
PHil

 

[Pax]

exrc:

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…
…
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!

Dan,

I take back my negative remarks concerning your definition of salvation since you depended on a source with an abreviated definition. You were being honest, although I still disagree strongly with your conclusion. The context of the verse is clear.

Your use of the verses from Romans do not alter this truth. In the verses you chose, Paul is praising God and remarking on the power of God’s grace. All Catholics say “Amen” to these verses because we know the power of God’s grace in our lives. We also know, however, that we can still lose our salvation. Romans11:21-22 tells us, "That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.** For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.** Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." The context of Romans is quite clear about “once saved always saved.” The doctrine is not scriptural.

Your example of the HIV patient doesn’t fit the context of our verse in Corinthians. The implication of the verse, if tied to your logic, would mean that **if ** the HIV patient merely had a Godly repentence and not a worldly repentance then he would be cured through the “mortal” salvation that you made reference to.

 

[exrc]

Pax:

Dan,

I take back my negative remarks concerning your definition of salvation since you depended on a source with an abreviated definition. You were being honest, although I still disagree strongly with your conclusion. The context of the verse is clear.

That’s OK Pax, I am not offended, nothing you say can offend me. I realize that you are unable to understand what I am saying. I cannot fault you for that. God must open your eyes. I do however get frustrated. Although my exegesis on this verse was admittedly awful, and for that I apologize.

Your use of the verses from Romans do not alter this truth. In the verses you chose, Paul is praising God and remarking on the power of God’s grace. All Catholics say “Amen” to these verses because we know the power of God’s grace in our lives. We also know, however, that we can still lose our salvation. Romans11:21-22 tells us, "That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.** For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.**

Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." The context of Romans is quite clear about “once saved always saved.” The doctrine is not scriptural.
These are Jews and gentiles as a whole. He is not speaking of individuals, but groups. Like removing the lampstands of church groupings in revelation.

Your example of the HIV patient doesn’t fit the context of our verse in Corinthians. The implication of the verse, if tied to your logic, would mean that **if **

the HIV patient merely had a Godly repentence and not a worldly repentance then he would be cured through the “mortal” salvation that you made reference to This is a contrastual example. If the Corinthians would not have repented they would have been subject to discipline, like my friend with HIV. He is saved , but nevertheless his sin led to physical death. Believers are born twice and die once , unbelievers are born once and die twice.

However, I believe ozzie has the more correct exegesis on this. I was hasty in my response, and did not exhaust my research.

Bless you, Dan!

 

[exrc]

Philthy:

Dan, that sin of the unbeliever, why does he need to come to faith if Christ already atoned for it with his blood?

I think they all were, no?

I don’t understand the first question.
The second question implies a misunderstanding of confession from a Catholic perspective. One does not need to be conscious of all their specific sins to confess them and be forgiven. The ones they are conscious of, the ones laid on their hearts by the holy Spirit, must be confessed to be forgiven, the rest are forgiven as well.

Comparing the eternal sacrifice of Christ to animal sacrifices is useful but it has it’s limits. New sin required new sacrifice/atonement/application of atonement under the Law. Now, because we have AVAILABLE an eternal and complete atonement in Christ we don’t need to sacrifice anything we simply must have it approriated by “acknowledging” them and He will be faithful (to Christs sacrifice) and He will forgive them.
Yes, but I have not completely surrendered my will - I struggle to grow more Christ-like in this respect, and expect to continue to do so for the rest of my life.

PHil Oh Phil,

I think we need to go back even further, we need to start defining the terms of our debate. No time now.

catch you later

Dan

 

[Pax]

Dan,

Perhaps we will simply have to “agree to disagree.” You and I are looking through different lenses. You are using a lens provided by your denomination and I am using a Catholic one when looking at scripture.

Naturally, I believe the Catholic one to be correct and you assume yours to be the same. You may believe that I am blind and lacking in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I could make the same claim toward you. We could go on endlessly in this type of an exchange. One of the things you should keep in mind in this regard is that everybody makes claims for context, exegesis, guidance by the Holy Spirit and many other things to support their position within Protestant circles yet their are endless disagreements therein. You may be convinced that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, and I’m sure that Ozzie thinks that he is too. The problem is that everybody thinks they are guided by the Holy Spirit and yet disagreements run rampant.

The different divisions, factions, denominations, interpretations, opinions on context and exegesis are all examples that are contrary to the unity described and prayed for by Jesus in the gospel of John chapter 17. Still everyone claims to go by scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our discussions clearly show that the guidance of the Holy Spirit isn’t working in the way most people think. If it were then the Holy Spirit would be responsible for chaos.

You consider the Catholic Church to be a millstone around our necks, but it is the Catholic Church that is preserving the truth. If you know history and will honestly face the truth of Christian historical teaching you will see that the Church is indeed right. The very existence of the Catholic Church and its “constant” teaching for over two thousand years is a powerful work of Christ in our midst. It is the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

The Church and its teachings are not a burden but a joy. They come from God and cannot be anything but what He planned them to be. Yes, there are sinners great and small in the church but the Church in time will be as scripture says, “without spot or wrinkle.”

 

[SPOKENWORD]

This is the way I look at it. The moment we are truely born again is when the Holy Angels[as witnesses] bring our names into the throne room. There our names are recorded in the book of life along with every sin we committeed up to that point. Next the Highly appointed Angel comes in and with a piece of cloth soaked with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ begins to wipe every sin recorded until all pages are clean as white as snow. That book is now put away until we come before the Lord again. It is then brought out to see what is recorded as we continued to walk in our faith. Hopeful the pages remain clean,if not Christ will impose the penalty on Judgement day. Our Job is to make sure that those pages remain blank by living in the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. I pray that there are no unforgivin sins written in the book. God Bless.

 

[Pax]

exrc,

In reference to my use of Romans 11:20-22 you responded with the following:

exrc:

These are Jews and gentiles as a whole. He is not speaking of individuals, but groups. Like removing the lampstands of church groupings in revelation.
…

Bless you, Dan!

In response to this I can only say that you are desperate in your attempts to explain this verse away. When Paul writes a letter to a local church he doesn’t send a personalized custom copy to each member. Instead, he writes a general letter that would be similar to a sermon should he be preaching. The message is not just to a group as if a group had no members. The message is to individuals within the group or it has no meaning.

When Paul condemns fornication, idolatry, murder, etc and warns the believers that those that do these things will not enter heaven he is addressing a group of individuals. Individuals can go to hell. They can do so one at a time or they can do it in a group setting should they all die at once. Why warn a group if it meant nothing to the individuals?

You cannot explain away these kinds of verses in the NT. “Once saved always saved” is a dangerous non-biblical doctrine. This teaching is in no way explicitly stated in scripture. Because of the nature and significance of this teaching, if it were true, it would be explicitly stated in scripture. From our perspective it isn’t even implicitly stated. It appears to us that efforts to scripturally support the teaching are such an extreme stretch that large portions of scripture have to be completely ignored to allow the few that remain to be twisted around to support it.

Another thing that you might keep in mind is that only a relatively small minority of Christians worldwide accept this doctrine which was never even heard of until the Reformation. It’s simply an error and a very serious one at that.