I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[WBB]

Philthy:

Oh Ozzie - be a little bit more objective. The points WBB raised were excellent ones. The son rejected the father but eventually came back and repented and the happy ending. One has to ask himself, “What would have happened if the son had not returned home ?” Would he not have forfeited everything that the father had in store for him?

Phil

Of course that possibility is there…but then Ozzie doesn’t want to answer “the Sadducees” because it would throw a wrench into his theology.

I find it interesting that we are to just accept this passage as Jesus said, but when we say that Jesus was referring the eucharist as eating his flesh in John chapter 6, well, we aren’t to take that passage the way Jesus spoke it.

 

[exrc]

Phil and Maria,

Let’s define some terms for the sake of clarification. I think if we get a fix on that, we can argue more effectively.

These definitions must however be biblical. In other words derived using only biblical references.OK?

1)Born-again
2)Faith
3)works
4)salvation
5)sin
6)The law
7)justification
8)sanctification
9)glorification
10)Grace
11)life
If you would like to add any, feel free.

I think if you do this you will find a difference with what you say you believe and what you really believe.
In love Dan!

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

Afraid not my friend. Im a legalist - remember? I wouldn’t let words slip my mind. Here is what you ACTUALLY said Ozzie. From Post #912:Ah-ha, I apologize, you read the words correctly. But I still stand by my wording, you do not believe in Him to GET your sins forgiven, When you believe in Him your sins ARE forgiven. ALL your sins are forgiven and you are given resurrection LIFE in Him. It is a packaged deal.

Now if you look at the two rediculous statements you actually made you can easily see how one could get confused.Here again( and this is now the fifth time I have to explain between you and Dan the ground we’ve already covered) we can see where one could draw the conclusion that you believe all sins were forgiven for all of mankind (believers and unbelievers) at the time of the crucifixion. Do you see it now?You’re saying universalism? No, you can’t get that from what I wrote. Jesus, the Lamb of God, 2000 years ago took upon Himself ALL the sins of the world, the sins of ALL, believers and unbelievers alike (contrary to Calvinists). There, God had His judgment day on all the world’s sin and His Son took the heat in our stead (Jn. 1:29). That’s why it’s called a substitutionary death, a substitutionary sacrifice. Now when a person turns from UNBELIEF to BELIEF in the Son (Jn. 3:14-15) His sacrificial work is applied IN FULL, his sins are completely forgiven and he is given new LIFE in Christ. There is no place in Scripture that suggests the believer must constantly go to Christ to GET his sins forgiven. Christ’s work on the cross was once-for-all and His completed work is applied to the believer IN FULL at the time of belief.

That His work is applied to the sinner at the time of personal belief does not in the least imply that His work was not finished, as you contend. When I buy a car is the manufacturing of it not complete until I write out a check? Of course not. That car was fully manufactured the day it left the plant, even if no one buys it and it sits on the lot forever. But if one does buy it, he buys a fully manufactured car. The buyer had no part in manufacturing it. When one believes in Christ he receives the full forgiveness of sins, but unlike the car, salvation/justification are totally FREE for the one who believes. Christ did ALL the work and paid the price for us IN FULL.

All you have to do, Phil, is finally believe it.

 

[MariaG]

Dan:wave:
That is a great idea. I try to post on this later today if I have time to look up the references.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

There is no place in Scripture that suggests the believer must constantly go to Christ to GET his sins forgiven. Christ’s work on the cross was once-for-all and His completed work is applied to the believer IN FULL at the time of belief.

That His work is applied to the sinner at the time of personal belief does not in the least imply that His work was not finished, as you contend. When I buy a car is the manufacturing of it not complete until I write out a check? Of course not. That car was fully manufactured the day it left the plant, even if no one buys it and it sits on the lot forever. But if one does buy it, he buys a fully manufactured car. The buyer had no part in manufacturing it. When one believes in Christ he receives the full forgiveness of sins, but unlike the car, salvation/justification are totally FREE for the one who believes. Christ did ALL the work and paid the price for us IN FULL.

All you have to do, Phil, is finally believe it.

Wow! Someone who wouldn’t use or accept a hypothetical scenario for an argument is now comparing God’s plan of salvation to buying a fully manufactured car… :whacky:

By the way, here’s some good, scriptural-based information on how our sins separate us from God, even after baptism, therefore requiring a continual growth process which includes confession (or reconciliation, if you will).

IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

Cubby

 

[Catherine_S]

WBB:

Such an easy way to dismiss me. I am reading MY theology into the story. Which I could respond to you in the exact same way, that you are reading YOUR theology into the story. Oh, that’s right…YOURS is the correct one because, well, why? Oh yeah, because you said so. Silly me.

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

You make some excellent points Ozzie and it would appear that you have the forgiveness of sins at the point of conversion wrapped up in a tight package. I told you I was going to read the NT in light of this discussion to see where it leads. I started in Matthew and here is the first verse that seemed to have anything to do with the topic:
From the lips of our Lord in the Book of Matthew Chapter 6: “and forgive us our debts(=sins, metaphorically) as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one. If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your father forgive your transgressions.” I don’t know Ozzie, this doesn’t seem to fit with the concept of all the forgiveness being taken care of at the time of conversion. I know this isn’t within the context of confession, but it does seem relevant to forgiveness of sins (which was the original topic). Do you think this somehow doesn’t apply to Christians?

I knew when you said you were going to reread the N.T. I was going to have a mini-Pax on my hands. Pax reads the Scriptures in the same way in which you’re attempting to read them. Not in light of the cross, and the Apostolic teachings based on the cross, but to prove your preconceived ideas. You must understand that Jesus was a Jew, born King of the Jews, and died and rose again as Savior of the world. That’s why Jesus said salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4:22). In the Gospel accounts at times Jesus spoke to His disciples as Jews, under the Law. Other times as their King, in respect to His Kingdom (such as Matt. 5-7). And still other times his wording reflected and anticipated His sacrificial death and the grace that would result from it toward the whole world. Forgiving us our debts (sins) AS we forgive others their debts (sins) against us, does not apply to any believer this side of the cross, Jew or Gentile. If the criterion for the Father to forgive us our sins is based on our ability to forgive others, then the cross is made null and void and Christ died needlessly. And I might add, we’re ALL in a heap of trouble.

You must ask yourself, how does what I read in this portion of Scripture line up with grace teachings such as “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).

And “…in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14).

You and I live this side of the cross, my friend. We don’t live in the shadow of it, we live in the light of it. That’s why the Epistles were written, to explain the cross. The cross is vacant, my friend, the tomb is empty (read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Ah-ha, I apologize, you read the words correctly.

Apology accepted and totally understandable with the number of posts you are producing.

Ozzie:

But I still stand by my wording, you do not believe in Him to GET your sins forgiven, When you believe in Him your sins ARE forgiven.

Whatever. It seems odd that you initiated this discussion by claiming that I mis-quoted you and sought to re-word what you said, and now you are, after all, comfortable with the very wording you earlier rejected.

Ozzie:

ALL your sins are forgiven and you are given resurrection LIFE in Him. It is a packaged deal.You’re saying universalism? No, you can’t get that from what I wrote.

Ozzie:

Ozzie will you please stop already?! In your original statement you FORGOT to include the conditional of one coming to faith in Christ in order to have their sins forgiven(according to the merits of Christ). Without that conditional, everyone would be forgiven their sins whether they believe or not. I know what you MEANT to say, but you ACTUALLY said something different. Leave it alone. It was an honest mistake.

Ozzie:
Jesus, the Lamb of God, 2000 years ago took upon Himself ALL the sins of the world, the sins of ALL, believers and unbelievers alike (contrary to Calvinists). There, God had His judgment day on all the world’s sin and His Son took the heat in our stead (Jn. 1:29). That’s why it’s called a substitutionary death, a substitutionary sacrifice. Now when a person turns from UNBELIEF to BELIEF in the Son (Jn. 3:14-15) His sacrificial work is applied IN FULL

Yes - this is the small detail you left out in your original statement from post 912. And also note, and this is now the 7th time, that the “complete” sacrifice isn’t applied until this faith occurs. This meansthat in a sense the sacrifice was “complete”, but in another sense it was not. The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice was complete but the EFFICACY is not. That’s all - leave it alone.

Ozzie:
, his sins are completely forgiven and he is given new LIFE in Christ. There is no place in Scripture that suggests the believer must constantly go to Christ to GET his sins forgiven. Christ’s work on the cross was once-for-all and His completed work is applied to the believer IN FULL at the time of belief.
This is part of what I’m considering as I read over the NT. Some things that Christ says in Chapter 6 of Matthew seem to imply that situations arise in our lives where we must act in a certain way, repeatedly, in order to continue to have our sins forgiven. The Lord’s prayer is an example. First we are taught to pray “forgive us our debts as we forgive” others, and then Christ goes on to explain in Matt 6:14: “…if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” To me this seems to be saying that born again or not, forgive others otherwise you yourself will not be forgiven by God. Obviously I’ve just started re-reading so I don’t have a lot of Scripture to draw on yet…
Do you really think that someone as ignorant as I am simply reading the bible and understanding it the way I do could, in fact, be jeopardizing their salvation? That seems pretty harsh to me.

Ozzie:
That His work is applied to the sinner at the time of personal belief does not in the least imply that His work was not finished, as you contend.
Yes, it is our “work” that is not done. Doesn’t seem right to call faith a “work” but it seems to fit when understood in the narrow sense we’re using it for.

Thanks Ozzie

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

Why is “life” capitalized? Does the First Church of Ozzie teach that Catholics don’t have life?!?Please excuse my ignorance, Cubby, but I had no idea that when all RCs are baptized they’re renamed “Phil.”

 

[RBushlow]

Ozzie:

I had no idea that when all RCs are baptized they’re renamed “Phil.”

Hi Ozzie,

Once again I must state that we are not all Roman (Some of us are Byzantine, Maronite, Meklite, etc.) Also, some of us find the RC epithet insulting. Please use the correct term i.e. The Catholic Church. Thanks.

May God be with you.

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

Please excuse my ignorance, Cubby, but I had no idea that when all RCs are baptized they’re renamed “Phil.”

If you don’t want questions regarding your posts, then don’t post on an open forum.

You didn’t answer my question. Why would you put LIFE in capital letters? How do you know that Phil doesn’t have life? If Phil’s responses are in line with mine, and many others on this site then aren’t you addressing all of us?

Cubby

 

[MariaG]

Hi Dan:wave:

Let’s start with one that we completely disagree on . This definition is the root of much of the disagreements on this thread.
There are many sources and Scripture verses from the Bible.

Born Again as defined by the Early Church has always referred to Baptism. The key Bible verse is Jn 3:5. There is an excellent explanation which includes Scripture as well as history to show that this is what the early Church taught. I hope you actually choose to read it. It is not long. catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

Using Catholic Christian definitions, to be born again is when we are baptized and become adopted children of God. It is a miraculous work of God in which original sin is removed from our soul.

It is not an automatic ticket to heaven. It is also the reason that Catholics believe that we can be part of God’s family and choose to walk away from Him. There must be a commitment as an adult to continue to walk in His Grace.

This definition of born again has been around since the time of the Apostles. Although I realize you disagree with it, it is Biblical and historical. Obviously, you disagree with the interpretation of Scripture from the Bible, but then the question is why should I put your interpretation above the Catholic one, one that acurrately reflects the apostles teachings and can be proved from writings of the time, as well as Scripture? One that Lutherans follow? One that many of the “Reformed” Protestant religions follow?

Honestly, for me, the only way you could change my mind about Baptism being regenerative instead of just a public declaration reflecting an inward desire to follow Christ, would be to show me people who at the time of the apostles interpreted Scripture in the same way you do. I know you can show me Scripture, so can I. What I would need from you is proof that the early Church taught it and followed the teaching of adult only baptism as the true teaching of the apostles. That baptism was only a public declaration, not a miracle from God.

I do not expect you to suddenly say “The Catholics are right!” But I do hope you can understand some of our differences a little better.

Baptism is where we are born again into the family of God. It is a miracle not just a public declaration.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

p.s.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this?

 

[Cubby]

RBushlow:

Hi Ozzie,

Once again I must state that we are not all Roman (Some of us are Byzantine, Maronite, Meklite, etc.) Also, some of us find the RC epithet insulting. Please use the correct term i.e. The Catholic Church. Thanks.

May God be with you.

Just interpert “RC” as “Real Church” or “Real Christians” depending upon the context in which it is used. :dancing:

Cubby

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie:

Pax reads the Scriptures in the same way in which you’re attempting to read them. Not in light of the cross, and the Apostolic teachings based on the cross, but to prove your preconceived ideas. You must understand that Jesus was a Jew, born King of the Jews, and died and rose again as Savior of the world. That’s why Jesus said salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4:22) …
You and I live this side of the cross, my friend. We don’t live in the shadow of it, we live in the light of it. That’s why the Epistles were written, to explain the cross. The cross is vacant, my friend, the tomb is empty (read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

Now the last paragraph is good stuff. I’ve never heard this type of teaching as a “RC”! But seriously, there have been many references to the Epistles of St. Paul, and we all know that St. Paul is not our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That’s why I (and most of the “RC’s” that I know) read the Epistles in light of the Gospels, and not the other way around, as Ozzie seems to be saying that we should.

God bless you all.

Cubby

PS: “RC” stands for “Real Church” or “Real Christians”, depending on the context.

 

[Ozzie]

Philthy:

This meansthat in a sense the sacrifice was “complete”, but in another sense it was not. The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice was complete but the EFFICACY is not. That’s all - leave it alone.

I can’t leave an error alone, Phil. Christ’s work on the cross is efficacious. That is, it has the power to produce the desired effect, i.e., the complete redemption/forgiveness (Col. 1:14) and total reconciliation to God (2 Cor. 5:18-19) for the one who puts his faith in Christ alone.

Yes, it is our “work” that is not done. Doesn’t seem right to call faith a “work” but it seems to fit when understood in the narrow sense we’re using it for.

You best go with your first inclination, my dear friend. God does not consider faith a work, not even a self-work: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, in that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works…” Faith is an inward response, not a work. When one responds BY FAITH to the gospel message, the efficacious work of Christ is applied by God to the believer IN FULL. The believer is fully forgiven of ALL sins, fully reconciled to God, and fully redeemed. And because of that faith God, as a gift, forever justifies him (Rom. 3:24), i.e., reckons (declares) this ungodly man righteous - all apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6). That’s why it is BY GRACE!

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

Wow! Someone who wouldn’t use or accept a hypothetical scenario for an argument is now comparing God’s plan of salvation to buying a fully manufactured car…

And that’s exactly what it is, a “comparison,” an “illustration” of a Biblical truth. I did not present a hypotheticl situation (a "what if…).

 

[Ozzie]

Cubby:

That’s why I (and most of the “RC’s” that I know) read the Epistles in light of the Gospels, and not the other way around, as Ozzie seems to be saying that we should.

The Gospels are an account of Christ’s earthly life and ministry. They take you as far as the crucifixion and resurrection, but they do not EXPLAIN what the cross and resurrection accomplished on behalf of men. This took further, divine revelation. This is found exclusively in the Epistles. One could never know all that the cross accomplished if all we had were the Gospel accounts.

 

[miguel]

JesusFreak16:

So no one can “know without a doubt” that he/she is going to heaven? I hope you don’t believe that. I hope you know you are going to heaven.

God’s Peace~ Lisa

I think this crazy idea leads to sin and complacency. If I think I’m a shoe in, then I don’t need to worry about my behaviour. I can do whatever I want and God will still let me in. All I have to do is say the magic words (“I believe in Jeeeezusss.”) and I’m saved. Baloney.

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

I knew when you said you were going to reread the N.T. I was going to have a mini-Pax on my hands.

Thank you Ozzie! That is beautiful - I am truly honored.

Ozzie:

Pax reads the Scriptures in the same way in which you’re attempting to read them. Not in light of the cross, and the Apostolic teachings based on the cross, but to prove your preconceived ideas.

We all have preconcieved ideas, all kinds of **** we don’t even realize. I do, Pax does and so do you. If the bible isn’t clear enough on it’s own for someone reading with only good intentions, then it, alone, is useless.

Ozzie:
You must understand that Jesus was a Jew, born King of the Jews, and died and rose again as Savior of the world. That’s why Jesus said salvation is from the Jews (Jn. 4:22). In the Gospel accounts at times Jesus spoke to His disciples as Jews, under the Law. Other times as their King, in respect to His Kingdom (such as Matt. 5-7). And still other times his wording reflected and anticipated His sacrificial death and the grace that would result from it toward the whole world.
Seems pretty complicated to me. Impossibly complicated for 99.9% of those living during the first 1900 years after Christ. what happened to the bibles clarity? Simplicity? sounds like it’s simple, but you need to know what to ignore and how to interpret the rest.

Ozzie:

Forgiving us our debts (sins) AS we forgive others their debts (sins) against us, does not apply to any believer this side of the cross, Jew or Gentile. If the criterion for the Father to forgive us our sins is based on our ability to forgive others, then the cross is made null and void and Christ died needlessly.

Actually this is just you reading your theology into it. What if Christs sacrifice was necessary, but the application of it was contingent upon behavior like believing AND confessing? Then it would make perfect sense. One way it makes NO sense is if Christ’s sacrifice was meant to cleanse all our sins forever based exclusively on a moment of faith.

Ozzie:

You must ask yourself, how does what I read in this portion of Scripture line up with grace teachings such as “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).

And “…in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col.
1:14).
You and I live this side of the cross, my friend. We don’t live in the shadow of it, we live in the light of it. That’s why the Epistles were written, to explain the cross. The cross is vacant, my friend, the tomb is empty (read Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

Some good stuff to think about - Thanks. I will get to Romans eventually. I will read as objectively as I can without intentional prejudice. I will pray for God to reveal Himself to me. I admit that this causes some angst - being open to change, but I seek only truth. I’m not sure what else I can do.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:

This means that in a sense the sacrifice was “complete”, but in another sense it was not. The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice was complete but the EFFICACY is not. That’s all - leave it alone.

Ozzie:

I can’t leave an error alone, Phil. Christ’s work on the cross is efficacious. That is, it has the power to produce the desired effect, i.e., the complete redemption/forgiveness (Col. 1:14) and total reconciliation to God (2 Cor. 5:18-19) for the one who puts his faith in Christ alone.

This is quite depressing that we have to go over this again. No biggy though - these are easily overlooked implications. Two things:

1. Please remember that the entire context of this discussion is within the realm of FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
2. Efficacious means “Actually producing a desired effect.”(Webster), not simply “having the power to”. Potency refers to “having the power to produce the desired effect” as you describe above. Basically we’re talking about actual vs potential application of forgiveness.
   Now we can go on:
   I never said the Crucifixion wasn’t efficacious for forgiveness, I said it wasn’t COMPLETELY efficacious 2000 years ago. Christs sacrifice 2000 years ago was completely SUFFICIENT to forgive all the sins of the world. However, it was NOT COMPETELY EFFICACIOUS 2000 years ago. If it were both COMPLETELY efficacious and sufficient for the forgiveness of sins then everyone would already be forgiven and we would arrive at Universalism - which we both reject. Right? You believe it is COMPLETELY EFFICACIOUS for the forgiveness of sins when one comes to faith in Christ. Stated differently, it’s efficacy for forgiveness is completed by or through the faith of the believer whenever that happens.

Ozzie:

You best go with your first inclination, my dear friend. God does not consider faith a work, not even a self-work: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, in that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works…"

I thought this referred to works of the law…y’know - jewish audience and all.

Ozzie:

Faith is an inward response, not a work. When one responds BY FAITH to the gospel message, the efficacious work of Christ is applied by God to the believer IN FULL.

Im not ignoring all the rest, but I do want you to realize two implications of the text I bolded:

1. The EFFICACY of the sacrifice is completed by and at the time of the faith response.
2. Your statement “IN FULL” implies that Christ’s sacrifice had NO ACTUAL EFFICACY with respect “the believer” at the time of the crucifixion.

Ozzie:

The believer is fully forgiven of ALL sins, fully reconciled to God, and fully redeemed. And because of that faith God, as a gift, forever justifies him (Rom. 3:24), i.e., reckons (declares) this ungodly man righteous - all apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6). That’s why it is BY GRACE!

Beautiful isn’t it? :yup:

Phil