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

[moondweller]

After he repented.

“Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.”

It’s not a prayer for the restoration of salvation, but the “joy” of His salvation.

Nathan confronted David with his sin(s) and David finally acknowledged them. Nathan did not respond that he absolved his sin but that the Lord Himself had taken it away, rather than he die according to the Law.

But the point made (which you avoided) was that David could not lose the grace that he was never under. He was under LAW.

But to the believer, this side of the cross, it is said:Rom 4:25 - 5:2 {He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."David (or anyone prior to the cross of Christ) knew nothing of this GRACE in which the believer now stands through the power of the cross.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, that’s why grace is grace; those who are Christ’s will never perish.

To keep Contarini from another wrong inference, grace is not a license to sin.

The reason given for that falling is very specific: adding to faith in Christ the act of circumcision for salvation.

Have you read the whole chapter? There is a lot more to losing grace than simply adding circumcision - he also includes fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolotry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and other things like these.

 

[sandusky]

Have you read the whole chapter? There is a lot more to losing grace than simply adding circumcision - he also includes fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolotry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and other things like these.

Paul says those who are seeking to be “justified by Law” have fallen from grace, and he cites circumcision specifically.

Engaging in fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatory, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like those is not seeking to be justified by Law; correct?

 

[jmcrae]

Paul says those who are seeking to be “justified by Law” have fallen from grace, and he cites circumcision specifically.

Engaging in fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatory, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like those is not seeking to be justified by Law; correct?

Like I said, read the whole chapter. I’m not going to retype the whole thing here.

 

[jmcrae]

By the way, Sandusky, what is your definition of grace? Because I don’t think you’ve told us that, yet.

 

[Genesis12345]

I do not understand your reasoning of thought. You said that you were converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19. What are you trying to say?

---

Could you please expound how you were saved by leaving the Catholic Church?

---

"No one ever said that God’s graces are there faith in Christ and not in some man made ritual."

---

Graces are not man-made. I honestly do not know what you are talking about and none of it makes any sense.

---

You are saved through the Powerful Sacrament of Confession. It tells you very clearly whose sins are forgiven will be forgiven and whose sins are retaine are retained. This is no man-made. This comes from Christ. Read your Bible and you will find it.

---

I am sorry, but I totally disagree with your logic.

---

Christ is in Catholicism, so how could you covert to Christ and He is present in the Catholic Church?

---

"Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." Matthew 14:27

---

---

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Again, assurance is not necessary to salvation, but it’s nice to have it.

I’m not sure what to make of this comment. I’m not arguing that one must have assurance to be saved? You are the one telling me that a person can have absolute assurance that they are saved. I’m telling you that’s not true… then you say assurance is not necessary, but it’s nice to have??? So, are you now saying that someone can be saved… but not know they are saved even though the bible (according to you) says those who are saved are given an absolute assurance? I find your comment somewhat defeating and inconsistent with your position on OSAS.

sandusky:

I see no problem with hard words and exhortation:1 Corinthians 15:1-2Then you are being inconsistent with your own doctrine.

sandusky:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand

,

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.The grammar doesn’t state that the “vain” belief became “in vain,” but that if it was “in vain,” it was so from the point of its origin.

How can you come to that conclusion when the text is clearly exhorting those who “received” and are “standing in” the gospel and believing. What you are saying is that their belief was “false” from the beginning, when that interpretation takes a REAL stretch of the text you are haning to. Truly, your argument is hanging by the skin of its teeth here. What you are saying is that at least some of the believers who are standing in the gospel (and have apparently just come through great ordeals because of their belief) NEVER really believed? I guess you will read this however you have to read it to support your OSAS notion. But I see it as a distortion of the text.

sandusky:

The whole chapter deals with the resurrection, a subject which they knew, and Paul’s qualifying statement, unless you believed in vain, recognizes and calls to their attention that some probably have a non-saving faith. They heard and believed the gospel, as do demons, but they had no love for Christ. The truly saved have a love for Christ, and they hold fast to the gospel, and they endure to the end (cf Lk 8:15; Jn 8:31; 2 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 2:24; 2 Jn 9).

Wow. And you say I am arguing from silence. Your argument hear takes an inference from an assumption that simply is not supported. “belief in vain” is speaking of belief (real belief) that is cast away by those who do not endure in Christ… like the branch that bears no fruit will begin to whither, etc.

sandusky:

It’s God who initiates salvation, and God who finishes salvation (cf Php 1:6; Heb 12:1; etc.).

OK. I agree. My point is that God does not force people to become saved. He completes in the elect what He has begun… and the elect will perservere. But that does not mean those of us who presently believe ourselves to be “elect” are IN FACT the elect of God. We may be fooling ourselves, thus self-assurances can sometimes be misleading and dangerous.

sandusky:

Those against whom judgment will come are referred to in the passage as hupenantios—adversaries, opposed to the Gospel (v27). That doesn’t sound like a “right relationship” to me, but that they ”believed in vain,” from the beginning (cf Heb 3:6, 14).

Again, I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m not saying that judgment comes to those who are in a right relationship with Christ. I’m saying that it is possible for someone who is presently in a right relationship with Christ to turn away by an act of free will. Whether they repent and return to a right relationship or continue to sin and become adversaries to Christ is what ultimately must be played out to a conclusion. We are assured that those who die in friendship with Christ are saved, while those who die outside of that relationship are not saved. So, again, I ask where does the Gospel say we can be absolutely assured that we are going to go to Heaven when we die?

sandusky:

I’ve been over this, Robert.

Not adequately, sandusky. :dts:

sandusky:

What I find presumptuous is a leadership who teaches that’s it’s presumptuous to believe a writer of Scripture when he states that the purpose for his writing Scripture is so that one may know he has eternal life.

It is not presumptuous if it is the truth, taught with authority. But because you reject the authority of the Church, I can understand why you would see it that way.

The scriptures promise eternal life to those who “finish the race” and “endure” in Christ. Despite what you have tried to assert, I still believe we cannot know with absolute certainty at the present time that we will endure to the finish. That is why we are urged to endure; not just because we are to lead a christian life, but because the final destination of our eternal soul remains in play even after we are reconciled to Christ by faith. I agree we can have the moral assurance, and we can have real hope (with the grace of God) that His grace will keep us in Him.

I regret that I cannot make you see my point of view. And you have not stated anything that makes me change my mind. I don’t think I can maintain the discussion without simply restating what has already been stated.

But I have enjoyed our chat. I hope our conversation has blessed you and others, in some small way.

Peace friend,
-Robert

 

[udoc89]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, 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, 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’.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.

 

[udoc89]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, 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, 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’.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.

It just occurred to me that you were never a Catholic.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

Like I said, read the whole chapter. I’m not going to retype the whole thing here.

C’mon Judith; don’t try to persuade me that engaging in sinful works of the flesh is equivalent to seeking to be justified by the law.

If you have a point to make other than that, please make it.

jmcrae:

By the way, Sandusky, what is your definition of grace? Because I don’t think you’ve told us that, yet.

Grace is God’s undeserved and unmerited favor.

 

[jmcrae]

C’mon Judith; don’t try to persuade me that engaging in sinful works of the flesh is equivalent to seeking to be justified by the law.

But St. Paul equates them. He states that to live in the Law is to live in the flesh, and that the works of the flesh are all these other things, as well.

Grace is God’s undeserved and unmerited favor.

And how do people receive it?

 

[reen12]

In terms of the forgiveness of sins:

The God of Israel had already granted mercy, forgiveness
and life eternal.

So how is one to read the following, in light of Christian doctrine?

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord:
Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

What* is* this? “Conditional” forgiveness…until centuries later,
and the coming of Jesus?

reen12

 

[reen12]

In terms of the forgiveness of sin, and the washing away of
original sin via baptism]…

We’re supposed to believe that Moses and Abraham were
barred from the beatific vision - until Jesus came? -
…and won ‘forgiveness’ for them, from something that does not exist? Ontological sin.

And speaking of original sin, here’s where dogma enters:
[mighty complex dogma, at that.]

There is the theological ‘construct’ -

------> Mary was born free of original sin - the salvific act being
‘applied’ to her, at her conception…

[Grace working backwards, in time?]
But not too far back - for the patriarchs?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The other 5 billion people, on the planet, note that Christianity is
riven right down the middle. No wonder. Christians cannot seem to
agree on even basic teachings, e.g., the ‘mode’ forgiveness takes.

reen12

 

[reen12]

In terms of the forgiveness of sin, and the washing away of
original sin via baptism]…

We’re supposed to believe that Moses and Abraham were barred from the beatific vision -
until Jesus came? …and won ‘forgiveness’ for them - from something that does not exist? Ontological sin.

And speaking of original sin, here’s where dogma enters:
[mighty complex dogma, at that. It has to be, considering
the already existant ‘infallible’ teachings]:

A theological construct -

------> Mary was born free of original sin - the the salvific act
being ‘applied’ to her, at her conception…

[Grace working *backwards, in time?]
But not too far back - for the patriarchs?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The other 5 billion people, on the planet, note that Christianity is
riven right down the middle. No wonder. Christians cannot seem to
agree on even basic teachings, e.g., the ‘mode’ forgiveness takes.

reen12

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

I’m not sure what to make of this comment. I’m not arguing that one must have assurance to be saved? You are the one telling me that a person can have absolute assurance that they are saved. I’m telling you that’s not true… then you say assurance is not necessary, but it’s nice to have??? So, are you now saying that someone can be saved… but not know they are saved even though the bible (according to you) says those who are saved are given an absolute assurance? I find your comment somewhat defeating and inconsistent with your position on OSAS.

I responded that way because you continue to respond to Rom 8:30, saying that it doesn’t prove assurance.

You seem to be ignoring my referencing you to the repetition of two words in that verse: “He also,” and the linking of each of the actions.

As I said earlier, the least that can be said of the true believer at the present time is that he has been foreknown, predestined, called, and is justified; what can be said of him in the future is that he will be glorified.

Your church teaches that there are those God justifies, but does not give them the grace of perseverance; that position is arrived at by inference taken from strong warning and exhortation.

The clear statement concerning those God justifies is that He also glorifies them. Perseverance is included in justification.

You offer no proof that I can recall, that assurance of salvation is not true; you just say that it’s isn’t.
Robert in SD:

How can you come to that conclusion when the text is clearly exhorting those who “received” and are “standing in” the gospel and believing. What you are saying is that their belief was “false” from the beginning, when that interpretation takes a REAL stretch of the text you are haning to. Truly, your argument is hanging by the skin of its teeth here. What you are saying is that at least some of the believers who are standing in the gospel (and have apparently just come through great ordeals because of their belief) NEVER really believed? I guess you will read this however you have to read it to support your OSAS notion. But I see it as a distortion of the text.

Some of them (and Paul is not speaking certainly), but some of them may have believed in vain from the point of their belief, as I said.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that someone can hear the Gospel, receive it, but not believe it? Receiving is not true believing, but enduring.
Robert in SD:

Wow. And you say I am arguing from silence. Your argument hear takes an inference from an assumption that simply is not supported. “belief in vain” is speaking of belief (real belief) that is cast away by those who do not endure in Christ… like the branch that bears no fruit will begin to whither, etc.

The overarching definition of real belief given by Christ is that it hears the word, holds it fast, and endures. A cast away belief, has heard the word, but not held it fast, and not endured, and is therefore, not a real belief.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #393)
Robert in SD:

OK. I agree. My point is that God does not force people to become saved. He completes in the elect what He has begun… and the elect will perservere. But that does not mean those of us who presently believe ourselves to be “elect” are IN FACT the elect of God. We may be fooling ourselves, thus self-assurances can sometimes be misleading and dangerous.

God forces no one to believe. What He does is bring them to life thereby enabling them to freely believe (Eph 2:4-5). There is a reason the HS uses the analogy of “born again” and being “dead in trespasses and sins.” Everyone is born “dead to the things of God.”
Robert in SD:

Again, I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m not saying that judgment comes to those who are in a right relationship with Christ. I’m saying that it is possible for someone who is presently in a right relationship with Christ to turn away by an act of free will. Whether they repent and return to a right relationship or continue to sin and become adversaries to Christ is what ultimately must be played out to a conclusion. We are assured that those who die in friendship with Christ are saved, while those who die outside of that relationship are not saved. So, again, I ask where does the Gospel say we can be absolutely assured that we are going to go to Heaven when we die?

God’s possession will never perish Robert**1 Peter 1:3-9

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,

7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,

9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.**The words of your first Pope, so-called.

Perhaps he wasn’t speaking ex-cathedra?
Robert in SD:

It is not presumptuous if it is the truth, taught with authority. But because you reject the authority of the Church, I can understand why you would see it that way.

And there’s the primary bone of contention between us—along with many others, I reject the self-proclaimed authority of your church.

Stop preaching Holy Mother the Church, and start preaching Christ—he’s the one with ability to save.

 

[cathopologist]

reen12, i get it. You converted to Judaism. But what’s the point of coming into a Catholic forum or a thread just to nag at us?

Why aren’t you at a Jewish forum? Wouldn’t you feel much happier and “at home” there? Please don’t think of my remark as trying to drive you out. You’re more than welcome to stay, but i truly do not see the point of your nags. Help me understand you better, please. No insinuations please. Just your direct thought.

 

[benedictus2]

(continued from post #393)

And there’s the primary bone of contention between us—along with many others, I reject the self-proclaimed authority of your church.

Stop preaching Holy Mother the Church, and start preaching Christ—he’s the one with ability to save.

The Church’s authority is not self-proclaimed. Christ gave her that authority (You are Peter and upon this rock I will be my Church). The Catholic Church is Christ’s church and that is why of all the Christian churches She is the only one that has held on to the moral teachings that has been taught by Christ.

The other churches have all watered down to one degree or another Christ’s teachings.

It is Christ’s church and the promise that the Holy Spirit will be sent to lead Her into all truth is given to the Church.

I don’t know what denomination you are but please do a thorough study of the history of your church.

Why did it break away from the previous denomination and how many branches down is it from Luther/Calvins churches.

What were the doctrinal issues that caused all the denominations in between to break away fromt the initial Lutheran / Calvinist point of view.

You might find that the devil in in the detail.

And no, you are not peaching Christ, but an adulterated version of Christ. Otherwise, you will preace the entire Bible and not just passages that suit your point of view.

 

[wina]

Did David lose grace when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and in deceit tried to cover it up, and when his deceit failed, he murdered Uriah—did David lose grace because of that?

(Why didn’t David lose grace?)

I think some people has helped me to answer it.
Thanks for jmcrae

 

[wina]

I could’ve cited that myself had this been concerned with “falling out” from grace; however, that’s not what wina stated originally (see post #312), but losing grace.

Where in scripture is one said to “lose” grace?" (Gk appolumi).

I know where scripture says that one can “fall out” (Gk ekpiptio) from grace, and the reason given for that falling out.

Those are two different things.

Again, where in scripture is one said to “lose” grace? (Gk appolumi).

Ok, so my English word may have limited because it’s my secondary languange.
So if someone fall out from grace, what will happen to him/her? will he/she still be saved?