I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[Robert_in_SD]

We both have presuppositions concerning whether or not a person justified by God can lose his salvation; however, as I said earlier, your presuppositions are based upon inference, mine are based upon clear statements—those who are justified by the Father, and given to Christ will never perish (Jn 10:28ff).

sandusky:

When did the 1500 years begin; what I read in the writings of the apostles is that those God justified He also glorified.

This statement from scripture must be read in light of the rest of scripture. What it says is that those who are glorified are those that he also justified. It does not say that every single person that received the initial justification of baptism was assured glorification. Better yet, it does not say that every single person the “believes” in Jesus Christ knows that they are both justified and will receive final glorification. When read in context with all of scripture, indeed it cannot mean what you presuppose it means.

sandusky:

What you say doesn’t align with what the apostles say.

sure it does.

sandusky:

The writers of scripture never address those to whom they are writing as ”to you who believe, and all of you false professors among them.” But they address those to whom they are writing as though each one were indeed saved.

Then why the exhortation to endure in Hebrews. Was not Paul assuming (as you claim) that those who are saved will stay that way? Why exhort someone to endure if you know already that God won’t let them “not endure.”

sandusky:

The Catholic believes that he as a “moral assurance” of salvation, and that he has been saved, is presently being saved, and hopefully, will be finally saved in the future.

Doesn’t your priest in his sermons and homilies exhort you to endurance, in spite of your “moral assurance???”

Yes. Because my priest rightly understands that despite the gifts of grace poured out from Christ to me personally, I have the free will to spurn the gift and turn away, placing my immortal soul in jeopardy. THAT is why my priest exhorts me to endure, just as the writer to the Hebrews is exhorting his readers.

sandusky:

Exhortation to Christian living is proper, as the sheep, at times, have the tendency to forget who they are in Christ, and they may fall into sin; however, because of grace, sin doesn’t unsave anyone.

Then why does the writer in Hebrews raise the threat of the loss of one’s righteous standing before God, and fearful judgment? Is he being intellectually dishonest with his “saved” audience?

Again, what you’re doing is inferring the loss of salvation on the basis of exhortation.

No. The loss of salvation is expressly communicated in the text of Hebrews. How can you not see it?

sandusky:

And you’re going with your magisterium, who teach that John 15 is about salvation, rather than about bearing fruit—again you infer a loss of salvation from a discussion on fruit bearing.

I’m not sure exactly what (or if) the Church has ever expressly defined what John was intended to teach. I’m looking only at the text in its context with the rest of scripture and it seems to me that it clearly talks about branches (attached to Christ the Vine) being cut off and thrown in the fire. How can one be “on the Vine” but not “really” justified. This is what James is perhaps eluding to when he speaks of the dead faith… like a dead branch that is eventually thrown in the fire.

sandusky:

That same apostle recorded other straight-forward and clear words, spoken by the same Jesus earlier, ”I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.

And my point is that one’s membership in the “they” who never perish is not determined in the middle of a life, but at the end, when one can say “I endured through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ; by His grace I endured.”

sandusky:

Assumes, without proof, that a justified person can, and will renounce his justification.

LOL! My guess is that any example I could show you; you would simply pass off as a person who was “never really justified.” I’m not going to get on that merry-go-round again, even though I do believe you are being sincere.

sandusky:

As will I. :tiphat:

As far as this doctrine goes, we can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. Nevertheless, I hope for your salvation, as I am sure you hope for mine.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[cfrancis]

I’m not saying that it isn’t. I’m saying that ultimately our salvations come from our faith in Christ. Without that one thing, nothing else means anything.

Of course! All the good works done without faith in Christ are for naught.
But it’s equally true that all the faith in the world without being obedient in that faith (Rom1:5), with cooperating with His grace to do the works He has ordained for us (Eph 2:10) won’t merit us eternal life with Christ.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

My moral assurance is for the present moment, only. If I sin in the future, I will lose my salvation.

On what basis do you lose your salvation?

(If not, then why call it “sin,” in the first place? Also, if sinning couldn’t make you lose your place in Heaven, then what’s wrong with it? Why should the Apostles spend so much time exhorting people not to sin? )

The literal definition of sin has to do with “missing the mark,” that mark being perfect holiness. No one is perfectly holy.

But the apostles exhort the faithful to holiness because of what they are—perfect in Christ.

That’s known as the indicative/imperative—the Gk indicative deals with the state of being; namely, the faithful are perfect in Christ. The Gk imperative mood deals with a command; in this case, ***you are in Christ ***(indicative), live as Christ lived (imperative).

It’s proper to exhort the faithful to a right Christian life.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

On what basis do you lose your salvation?

Mortal sin, which destroys the relationship between the person and God.

sandusky:

The literal definition of sin has to do with “missing the mark,” that mark being perfect holiness. No one is perfectly holy.

Except Christ. Christ is holy. We are in Christ. If we then sin mortally, we are no longer in Christ.

sandusky:

But the apostles exhort the faithful to holiness because of what they are—perfect in Christ.

Right. Why would they need to exhort Christians to holiness if Christians are already in Christ for eternity, and know it with absolute assurance?

sandusky:

It’s proper to exhort the faithful to a right Christian life.

Why, if their salvation is assured? Do not christians by necessity work out their salvation - if they are “saved?”

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

Mortal sin, which destroys the relationship between the person and God.

How does the sin of one of the faithful destroy his relationship with God?
Robert in SD:

Except Christ. Christ is holy. We are in Christ. If we then sin mortally, we are no longer in Christ.

Right. Why would they need to exhort Christians to holiness if Christians are already in Christ for eternity, and know it with absolute assurance?

Why, if their salvation is assured? Do not christians by necessity work out their salvation - if they are “saved?”

I explained that in my last post to you, and in the post to Judith that you’re citing, but you left that out.

 

[M0nkey]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion.

The fact that you even brought it up begs to differ.

When I was saved,

Are you so certain? Sounds like presumption, which by the way is a sin.

Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts - 1 Corinthians 4:5

no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion,

No one would be asked to leave, you deserted your own faith.

I simply believed that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with his blood and I called upon him to save me: just like the Philipian jailer in Acts 16:31. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” He did, and he was. To the saved believer,

So what now? What does this mean to you?

the thought of someone trying to administer God’s grace through some ritual is the highest form of idolatry there is. Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’.

God may do as He please with whom He pleases. We are merely instruments to God’s grace. Believing in Christ is not the end. It’s only the beginning of your spiritual journey. Now, there would be no journey if you didn’t have the spirit to begin with.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals.

God gave us a Church so that we may share in the love of God as a community, not as mere individuals. You cannot enter the kingdom of heaven by yourself. Belief in Jesus is being in communion with the body of Christ. That body, is His One Holy Church.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

How does the sin of one of the faithful destroy his relationship with God?

I explained that in my last post to you, and in the post to Judith that you’re citing…

You may have tried to explain it, but your attempt was not persuasive. What you said, essentially, was that everyone who is really a professing christian is saved once and for all at the moment they believe. But if you find upon your death that you are actually a goat headed to Hell, it is because you were never really a saved christian at all… that feeling the un-saved person thought was saving faith; well it turns out that feeling was the false faith that James warns us to avoid. Now, I ask you, if that is OSAS, where is the assurance?

The gist is: I’m saved if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but if my “acceptance” is just me fooling myself, then I’m not saved, even if I assure myself that I am saved? But regardless, I should rest assured in my salvation, because if I am elect, I’ll be saved no matter what I do, and if I’m not one of the elect, then no matter what I do I won’t be saved… What assurance is that?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mercygate]

You may have tried to explain it, but your attempt was not persuasive. What you said, essentially, was that everyone who is really a professing christian is saved once and for all at the moment they believe. But if you find upon your death that you are actually a goat headed to Hell, it is because you were never really a saved christian at all… that feeling the un-saved person thought was saving faith; well it turns out that feeling was the false faith that James warns us to avoid. Now, I ask you, if that is OSAS, where is the assurance?

The gist is: I’m saved if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but if my “acceptance” is just me fooling myself, then I’m not saved, even if I assure myself that I am saved? But regardless, I should rest assured in my salvation, because if I am elect, I’ll be saved no matter what I do, and if I’m not one of the elect, then no matter what I do I won’t be saved… What assurance is that?

Peace,
-Robert

This is absolutely the broken knee of O.S.A.S. There is no way around it. None. Although a “saved” person, in this scheme, may be saved forever, he *cannot *know it with what Catholics call “the certainty of faith.” So the absolute “assurance” of personal salvation is nothing but a chimera.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

This statement from scripture must be read in light of the rest of scripture. What it says is that those who are glorified are those that he also justified. It does not say that every single person that received the initial justification of baptism was assured glorification.

Read the entire verse, from front to back and not from back to front; pay particular attention to the words He also, noting the linking of the preceding action to the subsequent action—they are inextricable.
Robert in SD:

Better yet, it does not say that every single person the “believes” in Jesus Christ knows that they are both justified and will receive final glorification. When read in context with all of scripture, indeed it cannot mean what you presuppose it means.

Assurance of salvation is not necessary to salvation.
Robert in SD:

sure it does.

:nope:
Robert in SD:

Then why the exhortation to endure in Hebrews. Was not Paul assuming (as you claim) that those who are saved will stay that way? Why exhort someone to endure if you know already that God won’t let them “not endure.”

The writer writes to all as though they were believers, he exhorts them all as though they were all going to forsake Christ and return Judaism—what would you expect him to do?

Do you believe that everyone in the hearing of the reading of the letter was committing the sin, or on the verge of committing the sin being addressed by the writer?
Robert in SD:

Yes. Because my priest rightly understands that despite the gifts of grace poured out from Christ to me personally, I have the free will to spurn the gift and turn away, placing my immortal soul in jeopardy. THAT is why my priest exhorts me to endure, just as the writer to the Hebrews is exhorting his readers.

Thank you Robert, in spite of your moral assurance he exhorts you to right living, even though I’m certain that you are living an exemplary life and exhibit exemplary character, and partake of all of the sacraments, and never miss a day of obligation, but his exhortation is not directed to you only—there are others in your church, perhaps those who sat next to you last Sunday, who are not leading such a life, but are teetering on the edge because they are not truly believers, or maybe there are some who attend mass who are not Catholic, they’ve neither repented nor confessed Christ—exhortation to Christian living is proper—even in the Vatican.
Robert in SD:

Then why does the writer in Hebrews raise the threat of the loss of one’s righteous standing before God, and fearful judgment? Is he being intellectually dishonest with his “saved” audience?

You continue to assume that all to whom the letter is written, and all in the hearing of the letter are in fact saved.
Robert in SD:

No. The loss of salvation is expressly communicated in the text of Hebrews. How can you not see it?

IMO, you infer it.
Robert in SD:

I’m not sure exactly what (or if) the Church has ever expressly defined what John was intended to teach. I’m looking only at the text in its context with the rest of scripture and it seems to me that it clearly talks about branches (attached to Christ the Vine) being cut off and thrown in the fire. How can one be “on the Vine” but not “really” justified. This is what James is perhaps eluding to when he speaks of the dead faith… like a dead branch that is eventually thrown in the fire.

They are not all Israel who are from Israel; neither are they all Christians who are from the Church.
Robert in SD:

And my point is that one’s membership in the “they” who never perish is not determined in the middle of a life, but at the end, when one can say “I endured through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ; by His grace I endured.”

It’s determined in eternity (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:3ff).
Robert in SD:

LOL! My guess is that any example I could show you; you would simply pass off as a person who was “never really justified.” I’m not going to get on that merry-go-round again, even though I do believe you are being sincere.

Actually, I’d show you how you were wrong in trying to pass off your inferences as clearly stated fact.
Robert in SD:

As far as this doctrine goes, we can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. Nevertheless, I hope for your salvation, as I am sure you hope for mine.

:tiphat:

 

[jmcrae]

On what basis do you lose your salvation?

On the basis that to sin is to become a sinner, which is a person who is unsaved.

The literal definition of sin has to do with “missing the mark,” that mark being perfect holiness. No one is perfectly holy.

Everyone who goes to Heaven is perfectly holy. The “mark” that one misses, when one commits sin, is the “mark” of salvation. If you “miss the mark” then you “miss” salvation - you become “unsaved.”

I hate to break this to you, but if you are not perfectly holy, you will not go to Heaven. The grace to become perfect comes from Christ, but if we throw away our perfection by committing sin (or by omitting to do good), then we lose our salvation.

But it is through Christ and His Church that we attain the perfection that we need; it cannot come from ourselves, because we don’t have it.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

You may have tried to explain it, but your attempt was not persuasive.

Sorry Robert, I lumped three of your statements/questions together. Here’s my statement to which I was referring:

The literal definition of sin has to do with “missing the mark,” that mark being perfect holiness. No one is perfectly holy.

But the apostles exhort the faithful to holiness because of what they are—perfect in Christ.

That’s known as the indicative/imperative—the Gk indicative deals with the state of being; namely, the faithful are perfect in Christ. The Gk imperative mood deals with a command; in this case, you are in Christ (indicative), live as Christ lived (imperative).

It’s proper to exhort the faithful to a right Christian life.

Robert in SD:

What you said, essentially, was that everyone who is really a professing christian is saved once and for all at the moment they believe. But if you find upon your death that you are actually a goat headed to Hell, it is because you were never really a saved christian at all… that feeling the un-saved person thought was saving faith; well it turns out that feeling was the false faith that James warns us to avoid. Now, I ask you, if that is OSAS, where is the assurance?

Assurance is not necessary to salvation; God gives some great assurance, to others, He gives great struggles with assurance.
Robert in SD:

The gist is: I’m saved if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but if my “acceptance” is just me fooling myself, then I’m not saved, even if I assure myself that I am saved? But regardless, I should rest assured in my salvation, because if I am elect, I’ll be saved no matter what I do, and if I’m not one of the elect, then no matter what I do I won’t be saved… What assurance is that?

The Catholic faces the same dilemma.

He may do everything required of him by the church, and may be nothing more than a goat.

Is that correct?

Or, is that not possible?

 

[jmcrae]

Read the entire verse, from front to back and not from back to front; pay particular attention to the words He also, noting the linking of the preceding action to the subsequent action—they are inextricable.

Assurance of salvation is not necessary to salvation.

:nope:

The writer writes to all as though they were believers, he exhorts them all as though they were all going to forsake Christ and return Judaism—what would you expect him to do?

Do you believe that everyone in the hearing of the reading of the letter was committing the sin, or on the verge of committing the sin being addressed by the writer?

And if they can’t lose their salvation by committing sin, then why does it matter whether or not they commit the sin? What’s the big deal? Why whinge on about it for 80 pages, especially since ink and parchment were not exactly cheap in those days? (One sheet of vellum, which produces 8 pages of text if written on both sides, was worth a year’s wages for a day labourer; St. Paul used up at least 10 of them to produce his Epistles.)

 

[jmcrae]

The Catholic faces the same dilemma.

He may do everything required of him by the church, and may be nothing more than a goat.

Is that correct?

No.

Or, is that not possible?

If someone does everything that is required by the Church, he will be perfectly holy, and without sin.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

On the basis that to sin is to become a sinner, which is a person who is unsaved.

Sounds like your sinless; are you?

jmcrae:

Everyone who goes to Heaven is perfectly holy. The “mark” that one misses, when one commits sin, is the “mark” of salvation. If you “miss the mark” then you “miss” salvation - you become “unsaved.”

I hate to break this to you, but if you are not perfectly holy, you will not go to Heaven. The grace to become perfect comes from Christ, but if we throw away our perfection by committing sin (or by omitting to do good), then we lose our salvation.

But it is through Christ and His Church that we attain the perfection that we need; it cannot come from ourselves, because we don’t have it.

I hate to break this to you, Judith, but one doesn’t need to be Catholic to be saved; read your catechism.

And I predict that as ecumenism gains momentum, the church’s requirements for salvation will become more and more lax.

 

[sandusky]

No.

If someone does everything that is required by the Church, he will be perfectly holy, and without sin.

Indeed.

 

[jmcrae]

Sounds like your sinless; are you?

For the present, since I have recently been to Confession, and all of my sins were washed away in the blood of Christ. If I sin again, then I would no longer be sinless.

I hate to break this to you, Judith, but one doesn’t need to be Catholic to be saved; read your catechism.

Where did I say you had to be Catholic? Jesus can join people to His Church without them being Catholic. I think it’s easier if they are, but Jesus does whatever He wants to do.

And I predict that as ecumenism gains momentum, the church’s requirements for salvation will become more and more lax.

I doubt that.

 

[sandusky]

For the present, since I have recently been to Confession, and all of my sins were washed away in the blood of Christ. If I sin again, then I would no longer be sinless.

jmcrae:

Where did I say you had to be Catholic? Jesus can join people to His Church without them being Catholic. I think it’s easier if they are, but Jesus does whatever He wants to do.

You said that perfection is attained through Christ and His church.

jmcrae:

I doubt that.

I don’t.

 

[sandusky]

And if they can’t lose their salvation by committing sin, then why does it matter whether or not they commit the sin? What’s the big deal? Why whinge on about it for 80 pages, especially since ink and parchment were not exactly cheap in those days? (One sheet of vellum, which produces 8 pages of text if written on both sides, was worth a year’s wages for a day labourer; St. Paul used up at least 10 of them to produce his Epistles.)

I thank my God for His provision of sufficient writing materials for the apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

I thank my God for His provision of sufficient writing materials for the apostles.

It also blows away the theory that they were a bunch of homeless mendicants. Obviously, they had money, and it was coming from somewhere.

 

[jmcrae]

You said that perfection is attained through Christ and His church.

This is true.

Everyone who is saved is saved by means of the grace of God, which comes to us through the Church - either because we are joined to the Church through the Sacraments, or by means of the prayers of cloistered nuns such as St. Faustina Kowalski, who pray for their souls, or else becasue they have the Bible, which of course comes from the Church, or by some other means known only to God.