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

[banjo]

Salvation is not about perfection, but grace; those who are saved will continue to sin, as within each of them there still dwells the principle of evil and sin, and if, while the Lord is reconciling to the world to Himself through Christ, He doesn’t hold sin against them

I have encountered this notion that God will not hold our sins against us. How does this harmonize with the following statements from Scripture? Ez 18:24, “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.”
This same theme is repeated in Ez 33. If our sin is not counted against us what of the list of sins recorded in 1Cor 6:9-10 of which St. Paul tells us that those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom?
Why must we have “obedient” faith (Rm 1 and 16). What is the point of St. Paul’s exhortation to “Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, …] and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God.”? Eph 4:23-24. Finally, how can we “be imitators of God” (Eph 5:1), unless we undergo a radical transformation and break with sin?
I am not contending that we cannot receive forgiveness, but that we cannot sin with impunity (cf. Gal 6:7-8). If you have responded to these specific points earlier please reference those posts. Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

You tell me what you understand.

My understanding is that sandusky believes that all of his sins, past, present, and future, were forgiven the moment he invited Jesus into his heart, and that nothing can now separate you from your heavenly reward, no matter how big a fall you may take.

I understand that sandusky believes that, if a person falls away from their saving faith, they never were really saved in the first place.

I understand that for sandusky, only the elect of God are saved, and God only died for the Elect, and not those created for perdition because the word “all” in 1 Tim 2:3-5
3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." does not really mean “all” but only the elect.

I also understand that sandusky believes that regeneration occurs before justification, and that people are justified because they are regenerated.

At least, these are things that I think I gathered the last discussion we had on salvation. I am sure you will correct me if I misunderstood any part of them.

 

[moondweller]

To be in the state of grace is to be in the state of Adam and Eve before they sinned.
Redemption is about being restored to that original state of grace.

Divine salvation is not regressive but progressive. The true believer, now in Christ, no longer has anything to do with Adam but all to do with the risen Christ (the “Last Adam”). He is a “new creature” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), made righteous in Him (Rom. 5:19).

According to Scripture, all who the believer was “in Adam” (dead in trespasses and sins) has been “crucified with Christ” (Rom. 6:6; cf. Gal. 2:20) and he has been raised to new life in/with Him (Eph. 2:5-10; Col. 3:1-4). Therefore he is not only forgiven of sins, but being now “in Christ” the “Last Adam” he is freed from sin (Rom. 6:7) having died “to sin” with Christ and raised to new life in Him.

The glorified, resurrected Christ is the believer’s new identity, not Adam. The Theanthropic Man, Jesus Christ, is in fact another “Adam.” A federal head of another humanity now in Him, made righteous.

God has no program to patch up our “old man” in Adam - only death through crucifixion. True believers, it is said, “have been crucified with Christ” and are now identified “in Christ” resurrected.

Redemption has nothing to do with being “restored.” Especially to anything relating to Adam.

There’s three Greek words used in Scripture that describe Christ’s work of redemption on the cross; all interpreted in English simply as "redeemed."Agorazo: Which means “to buy in a market;” from the Greek word, agora, meaning market. Fallen man in Adam is viewed as a slave sold to sin and under the sentence of death, but subject to redemption by the purchase price of the blood of the Redeemer (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4).

Exagorazo, meaning to buy out of the market, that is, to purchase and remove from further sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5).

Lutroo, meaning “to loose and set free, never to return again” (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18).Redemption has nothing to do with “restoring back” to an original state. It has absolutely nothing to do with Adam at all. It has to do with God purchasing men out of the slave market of sin through the blood of Christ, removing them from further sale, never to return again. That’s why Paul writes to the Corinthian believers:1 Cor 6:19-20 "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

1 Cor 7:23 "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."The only thing left that resembles Adam is our yet unredeemed bodies. But even these, it’s revealed, Christ will “…transform into conformity with His body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has…” (Phil. 3:21). IOWs, Christ redeems the whole man: body, soul and spirit. This is what Paul meant by:Eph 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood (the purchase price), the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His graceBiblical redemption has nothing to do with restoring, but being purchased, once for all, from our fallen state in Adam to receiving a whole new identity in the the "Last Adam, the risen Christ, conformed both spiritually and physically to to His glorified image - not Adam’s.

The only way the believer’s redemption can be reversed is if our sins were laid back on Christ and He returned back to the grave. But that ain’t gonna happen.

Christ risen is why the believer’s salvation is eternal. Christ risen is why the believer "HAS eternal life"John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (i.e., Christ’s resurrected life).

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life…says Jesus1 John 5:11 "And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son (i.e., the resurrected Son).

1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him (Christ resurrected) who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life…says John.

All this is what the Bible means by GRACE (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved divine favor through Christ Jesus)!

 

[moondweller]

Adam was created in a state of grace, because to be in a state of grace is to be in a right relationship with God.

How could there be “no need for grace”?

Jesus died on the Cross to restore us to the original state of Adam and Eve; that’s why St. Paul says that he died in atonement for Adam’s sin.

The redeemed in Christ are not restored to Adam and Eve’s original state (innocence, only to fall again through sin) but, according to divine revelation, are “created in Christ Jesus” to a state of righteousness, now in Him.

The redeemed have nothing to do with Adam - only Christ. This is what salvation is all about, man!!!

 

[jmcrae]

The redeemed in Christ are not restored to Adam and Eve’s original state (innocence, only to fall again through sin) but, according to divine revelation, are “created in Christ Jesus” to a state of righteousness, now in Him.

Then why does St. Paul keep mentioning Adam and Eve, and cautioning Christians to avoid the situation that they found themselves in, that led them to sin?

 

[Gamera]

I’ve never before heard any Christian, of any stripe, deny that Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. Of course, before yesterday, I’d never heard anybody claim that one could “fall from” grace without “losing” grace.

 

[sandusky]

I’ve never before heard any Christian, of any stripe, deny that Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. Of course, before yesterday, I’d never heard anybody claim that one could “fall from” grace without “losing” grace.

If you’ve never heard it, then it musn’t be so.

 

[jmcrae]

If you’ve never heard it, then it musn’t be so.

Well, I happen to agree that it’s an extremely unusual interpretation - not the sort of thing one runs into in the mainstream media or around town.

 

[sandusky]

banjo:

I am not contending that we cannot receive forgiveness, but that we cannot sin with impunity (cf. Gal 6:7-8). If you have responded to these specific points earlier please reference those posts. Thank you.

The believer cannot sin with impunity; I’ve never advocated that, nor will I ever advocate that; what I’m saying is the sin of the believer who’s truly in Christ, will never cause the loss of his justification before God.

banjo:

Ez 18:24, “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.”

This same theme is repeated in Ez 33.

What must be remembered, and not forgotten, is that the death penalty of the Mosaic Covenant was first and foremost “physical death,” and not “eternal death.”

“Eternal death” occurred only for those who had not trusted in Messiah as He was represented in the sacrifices.

Those who had trusted in Messiah, although righteous, would die “physically” if they turned from their righteousness to wickedness, but they would not die “eternally” (cf Dt 28:58-66; 30:15-20; cf Rom 10:1-13).

The passage is not dealing with salvation, but is correcting the misunderstanding of the people concerning the message of Ex 20:5 and Dt 5:9. That principle in the 10 commandments teaches that children would be affected by their father’s sin. Parents are models for their kids, and the parents sinful behavior was readily imitated by them. So the children would repeat the sins of their sinful parents; however, the people misunderstood. The children are responsible for their own sins.

The misunderstanding led the people to be irresponsible and think fatalistically (“my father was a sinner, and I’ll be punished for his sin, so what’s the use of attempting to be righteous, my fate is sealed”). That was expressed in the proverb, “the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge" (v2). The people believed that righteousness and wickedness were hereditary, so why bother to change?

What the passage is doing, is correcting that wrong thinking: each one is responsible for his own sin.

banjo:

If our sin is not counted against us what of the list of sins recorded in 1Cor 6:9-10 of which St. Paul tells us that those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom?

I really don’t think that Catholics understand regeneration—do you think the sins described, describe regenerated behavior?

Can regenerate believers commit those sins? Of course; however, the proof is in the pudding: do they repent, and stop the behavior, or do they not repent, but engage in a continual pattern of the described behavior?

The true believer, he who has been justified, will repent, because God has decreed his salvation to completion (cf Rom 8:30).

banjo:

Why must we have “obedient” faith (Rm 1 and 16). What is the point of St. Paul’s exhortation to “Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, …] and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God.”? Eph 4:23-24.

Putting off and putting on is a continuous activity, and I’m certain you know that; Catholics make that very clear.

IMO, the reason Catholics have difficulty understanding what I say is that Catholics believe that they alone know that, and I’m completely ignorant of that.

banjo:

Finally, how can we “be imitators of God” (Eph 5:1), unless we undergo a radical transformation and break with sin?

Radical change does occur within the redeemed, because God says it does; however, God also informs us that within each of the redeemed there continues to dwell the principle of evil, and the principle of sin because of Adam’s fall (cf Rom 7:21-23). (He’s aware of that, and He knows our frame is dust.)

As the Psalmist asks, “Lord, if you mark us by our iniquities, who could stand?”

How do you answer that?

 

[sandusky]

Well, I happen to agree that it’s an extremely unusual interpretation - not the sort of thing one runs into in the mainstream media or around town.

New Advent.

This is for too, Gamera.
I eagerly await your dismissal, and explaining away what I’ve linked. :tiphat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The only “rituals” that Catholics believe always convey grace are the sacraments, which we can surely all agree are not man-made.

If only !​

For reasons I do not fully understand, Evangelical Protestants - yes, I know that a lot of them abhor Protestantism as strongly as they abhor “Rome” - do not like sacraments one tiny bit. I’m inclined to blame Calvin for this one: he did not have a sacramental outlook - a legacy from his Catholic days in Paris, I think.

Catholics also believe in “sacramentals,” but these are simply means that increase one’s devotion–they do not intrinsically convey grace, as far as I understand Catholic theology.

That’s right - they work ex opere operantis: IOW, their fruitfulness depends on the piety of the user. Like images, they have absolutely no inherent “virtue”.​

Your objection may well apply to indulgences–I’m not going to defend Catholics on this one, but at least they don’t think indulgences have anything to do with their eternal salvation.

Edwin

Indulgences are wonderful - especially now that Paul VI has pruned features of them which were perfectly defensible, but could (& did) lend themselves to abuse just a bit too easily (have you read the short story​

about them by Graham Greene ? It’s hilarious).

If people are scandalised even so, I would like to understand why; theologically, they derive from the great fact of the communion of the entire Body in heaven & earth with God, of part with part. What’s the problem people have with them ? They STM to be true to some of the profoundest insights of Evangelicalism, as well as of the NT.

They do most certainly promote our eternal salvation

 

[fbl9]

The believer cannot sin with impunity; I’ve never advocated that, nor will I ever advocate that; what I’m saying is the sin of the believer who’s truly in Christ, will never cause the loss of his justification before God.

Can regenerate believers commit those sins? Of course; however, the proof is in the pudding: do they repent, and stop the behavior, or do they not repent, but engage in a continual pattern of the described behavior?

The true believer, he who has been justified, will repent, because God has decreed his salvation to completion (cf Rom 8:30).

?

why do you ingore Jesus’s words from St.Matthew 12:37For by thy words thou wilt be justified and by thy words thou wilt be condemned…is it because they rebuke your belief that salvation can not be lost?..as to the “true” believer what would happen say if he/she were to die before choosing to repent?interestly Romans 8;23-25 seems to say that you cannot have assurance of salvation…

 

[Gamera]

New Advent.

This is for too, Gamera.
I eagerly await your dismissal, and explaining away what I’ve linked. :tiphat:

Sandusky, where does this say Adam and Eve were not created in a state of grace?

 

[benedictus2]

Christ is definitely building a church.

Those churches who use the scripture as the sole rule of faith.

Church (singular) is what Jesus established. So again, which one of the 33,000 denominations out there is vyiing for the title. And once you’ve zeroed in on one. Can you illustrate how you can trace it back to Jesus saying “Thou art Peter…”.

If you ruminate and meditate on v34, you’ll see that the sheep are not sheep because of the work they did, but for another reason; thus the work the sheep did they did because they’re sheep.

LOL, that is the most ridiculous explanation of this passage I have ever heard. How much more clearer does Jesus have to phrase this for people to get the point that he wants you to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick etc.
Can you please read the entire passage?.

I see, Protestant’s have watered down the CC’s “Prosperity Gospel.”

It seems to be a habit of yours to twist what I write. It is the Protestants who advocate the “Prosperity Gospel” - the evangelical branch in fact.

There was no church at the time of that statement.
.

The germ of the Church was already there. Jesus has already picked the 12

You can call me a Calvinist if you’d like.

Everyone has his favorite passages—even you.

…

It’s not about having favourite passages. It’s about not ignoring passages that do not support your point of view. Matthew 25 again.

That question was directed to the one who began the thread; however, my answer to your question is “yes.”

This will have to be the saddest post I have ever read. What an awful image of God you have. Certainly not the God of love that Jesus so wants us to believe in.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’. .

When Jesus said “It is finished” on the cross, he was not talking about redemption because it wasn’t finished then, the Ressurection had to happen before redemption could be completed.

What was finished was the passover. Jesus had finished the last cup( the 4th cup) which the jews drink during the seder. Remember that He said this after He had taken the wine. This also ties in with Jesus words in the garden regarding the cup passing him by.

Read the “A Father who Keeps His Promise” by Scott Hahn. He goes into great detail about the fourth cup.

On another point, I asked you a “what if” question several posts ago, which you never replied to.

I asked if prior to your being “saved in 1993”, had you died, would you have gone to hell? Would God have consigned you to eternal damnation even though I am presuming you would have loved another person, been merciful, visited someone sick , which are all Christ’s commandments.

Sandusky says yes God would have sent you to hell because you weren’t saved then. I wonder what you think?

 

[wina]

I wonder about what today’s gospel means about salvation or grace especially Matt 21:43:" Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruits."
Doesn’t it mean that people should do something (do God’s will) to be saved? not only by faith?

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky, where does this say Adam and Eve were not created in a state of grace?

Thanks for your dismissal, and explaining it away.

At least now you’ve seen the term. :tiphat:

 

[moondweller]

Then why does St. Paul keep mentioning Adam and Eve, and cautioning Christians to avoid the situation that they found themselves in, that led them to sin?

Paul never associates the redeemed with Adam, only Christ - “the Last Adam.”

 

[sandusky]

why do you ingore Jesus’s words from St.Matthew 12:37For by thy words thou wilt be justified and by thy words thou wilt be condemned…is it because they rebuke your belief that salvation can not be lost?

How do you square Mt 12:37 with Jn 5:24:**John 5:24

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.**

 

[guanophore]

My father can disinherit me all he wants…I’ll never cease from being his son.

Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

It is true that the wayward and disinherited son is still a son. If the prodigal son had not humbled himself, and returned, he would have died in the pigstye with no inheritance, still a son, but without the benefits thereof.

With respect to my sonship in Christ, I don’t beleive that someone who is born again can forsake Christ because he is born of God. See I John 3:9, Eph 1:13, and Ephesians 4:30
If a man does forsake Christ then he is like Judas was, and that is: “a devil from the beginning”.

This is a good Reformed summary of the relationship of the saved to the promise. However, it is contradicted by scripture, which makes it clear that we can be cut off.

Rom 11:22
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

People who are not joined cannot be cut off.