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

[Robert_in_SD]

They added the “fullness of the Truth.”

No. They added to the gospel what you want it to say… absolute assurance of personal salvation. That is not biblical. You’ve tacitly conceded the point here - that its extrabiblical.

sandusky:

As I’ve stated before, justification includes endurance to glorification (Rom 8:30). God has provided all that is needed, even to the “fear of the Lord” so that they will not turn from Him (Jer 32:40).

As you’ve confused the issue before… those who are predestined for heaven will be justified and glorified. What you have not shown is that the scripture can give one absolute assurance that they are one of the predestined. What the scriptures give is HOPE, confident hope, but HOPE as opposed to the absolute assurance you suggest.

sandusky:

That’s tradition getting in your way; namely, it’s presumptuous to be joyfully assured because the church teaches that one can have “moral assurance” only; understanding the church’s teaching on sin and loss of salvation, they should call it “moral uncertainty,” IMO.

It is not presumptuous to have joyful and confident HOPE. It is not presumptuous to have confident assurance that Jesus saves. It IS presumption to assume that because I say a sinner’s prayer and have a momentary “warm fuzzy” feeling that my final destination in the afterlife is absolutely assured. THAT is my point. You have completely failed to support the contrary.

sandusky:

You’d have a point if Paul were talking about Abraham; however, he’s not:** Romans 5:1**
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…If he were talking about Abraham, he’d have said “HE HAS PEACE,” not “WE.”

I concur that the audience had peace. They also had confident hope in Jesus Christ. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether they were being given the absolute assurance that were going to heaven even if they did not endure. I think the scriptures are clear that endurance in faith is necessary.

sandusky:

Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

[/indent]Righteousness was reckoned to Abraham then. And from that point on, Abraham had peace through our Lord Jesus Christ, having been justified by faith (Rom 5:1).That’s calvinist tradition getting in your way again. Read the scriptures as they were intended to be understood.

sandusky:

That’s a moot point; it’s best to deal with reality.

But that is a reality for many professing christians. They start down the path, but hit a snag and cease to endure. Your cold-hearted response to these people is that they were “never saved” and they are not predestined for heaven. My response to them is, repent and reform your life, trust Jesus and have confident hope that you will be saved. I think you are avoiding this point becuase it highlights the absolute absurdity of your Calvinist theological position.

sandusky:

Again, endurance is included in God’s foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying. No need to tell about me works—I’m a very hard worker; however, I know that I’m not saved on the basis of those works, but by grace through faith.

Endurance is the necessary response to grace for justification and glorification. It certainly will occur in those who are predestined. BUT that’s not my point. Again, you are heading away from the issue. HOW DO YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE THAT YOU ARE PREDESTINED. My point is that ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE is a presumption on your part. What you have is hope - joyful hope for salvation, and confidence in Jesus Christ to give you the grace needed for endurance.

sandusky:

Again, Paul is reciting the decree of God: Those He foreknew HE ALSO predestined, those He predestined HE ALSO called, those He called HE ALSO justified, those He justified HE ALSO glorified.

Perseverance, endurance are provided in salvation.

From God’s perspective all of this is known. From our perspective, there can be no absolute assurance of where it is we win spend eternity. What we have is hope, nothing less than great hope.

sandusky:

Not so. No one can come to the Father, but through Christ, and no one has the ability to come to Christ EXCEPT the Father draw Him, and all the Father draw will come (Jn 14:6; Jn 6:37, 44). That’s the whole point of John 6—no one can come EXCEPT (Jn 6:65).

That was not my point. My point is that the Savior came for all men, not just for a few. The predestined are those who respond to the grace given by Jesus Christ to all. If the possibility for salvation did not exist in all by God’s grace, then this passage offers false hope… .

[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

Jesus desires the salvation of all men. Some turn away from the grace that is offered. Others answer His call… and endure.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

(continued from post #443)

The context of both passages has to do with the desire of some to leave Christ, and return to the Jewish system—anyone who would desire to do that doesn’t have a Spirit-given faith, with a Spirit-given understanding that the old system cannot save, but only Christ. Again the destruction mentioned in the passages comes upon those who are opposed to the Gospel (cf 1 Cor 1:18).

Wow! Talk about reading into the text. :tsktsk: What these passages speak of is true believers who, after accepting Jesus Christ turn away. It’s as plain as day, and your twisting of the passage to suit your OSAS position is distorting the meaning to your peril. It is important to respond in faith and endure.

sandusky:

You do not understand regeneration.

Au contrare. It is you who do not understand baptismal regeneration. Maybe it’s that Calvinist tradition that is clouding your eyes.

sandusky:

Some have assurance, some don’t; that’s not the important issue for me. The important issue is that anyone justified by God will also be glorified by God.

And yet you do not understand justification as a process, seeing it rather as a one-time imputed legal declaration of righteousness. That is why you must re-write passages like those I quoted earlier. It is clear that what you think of as “justification” is lost to those who sin against God, even after they have been sanctified by Christ.

sandusky:

We can also know that someone hasn’t endured if they cease to endure before our eyes; nevertheless, if that person was justified by God, he will repent, and be finally glorified by God—assurance is not necessary, but is nice to have.

Baldersash. Your own statement here makes no sense. If one can ultimately repent (or not) on their death bed and be glorified, then there is NO WAY we can know if they ultimately endure or not until that person is off their death bed and in front of the Just Judge. Dont’ you see how false your sense of absolute assurance really is?

sandusky:

Two major reasons exist for lack of assurance: 1) church leadership says it’s a sin to have it; 2) your ultimate hope of salvation lies not in God, but in you.

Not so. I have confident hope and I have faith in Jesus Christ. What I do not have is the absolute assurance of my own personal salvation. Instead, I have great hope that Jesus Christ will give me the grace needed to endure. That is what the bible teaches. It does not teach what you argue. Church leadership teaches it is a sin to presume upon God’s mercy without repentence; and it is also a sin to rely upon one’s self for salvation. At its core, this is exactly what a presumption of personal ultimate salvation entails. But don’t take my word for it. The CCC states this succinctly:

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

We seem to be in agreement on both of these issues. Neither of us believes that we can work our way to heaven. And neither of us believes heaven is attainable without conversion and Christ’s merit. Where we disagree is on the question of knowing with absolute assurance that we are one of the elect, who will endure to the end. We both have confident hope that we are called to endure. But you say you have absolute assurance that you are, when your own example (above) shows how false that “absoute assurance” really is. What you really have is what the bible says we can have… hope… great hope.

sandusky:

Thank you for your hope-so prayer of uncertainty.

It was a sincere prayer of joyful hope. Of great hope, and not a prayerful presumption upon God’s overeignty.

sandusky:

Your lack of uncertainty [sic] is due to two things: the fact that your leadership says it’s sinful for you to be certain, and because, as your prayer indicates, your hope of salvation is that you’ll make it happen with a little help from God, rather than being confident that God has given it to you to completion (Php 1:6). Note in that Philippians passage that Paul’s confidence is not that God will complete the work in some of those in whom He’s begun the good work.

Wow! It’s amazing that you still think this is my position when I have clearly articulated something altogether different. First, the Church teaches that we are to have joyfull hope for salvation, but not a presumption of God’s mercy. Repentence and conversion are necessary for salvation, as discussed above. And as you concede, endurance in faith is part of that conversion and repentence… even up to the end of my life there must be endurance. But the grace for endurance too comes from God. So, no, it’s not about me and a little help from God. It is about me being in Christ.

sandusky:

I’m not pretending. My church proclaims the true Gospel; yours changed the Gospel, for certain, when it added as a requirement for salvation the belief in certain of the Marian doctrines.

Your church has fooled itself into thinking that it is right and good to presume upon God’s mercy even where one dies in a state of unrepentent sin, or fails to live out the continuing call to conversion. I think that is sad, but it is not surprising that even believing christians would hope for an easy road to heaven. The road to heaven leads through calvary. We are called to endure it because we are called to follow Him. And we endure, with great and confident hope, but not presumption.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

Sounds like you were converted to Ignorantism!

Sounds like you already had a pre-disposition towards protestant thinking or influence.

All that remains for me and for those who saw you leave the One, True Catholic faith…, is to pray for your safe return home.

 

[jmcrae]

B2, clearly your church changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it added, as a requirement for salvation, the belief in certain of the Marian doctrines.

First, these were not “added.” Mary as New Eve and Ark of the New Covenant are images that have been around since Apostolic times. Later theologians simply unpacked these ideas to see what they meant. Sure, they never said, “Immaculate Conception,” but what else would the New Eve be? (And if they meant that Mary was the mother of the source of a New Covenant, then why not call her the New Sarah, or the New Rebecca? )

Second, getting to know Mary is an important step in getting to know Jesus and His family. (After all, if Jesus is really your best friend, then why would you not wish to be introduced to His mother? )

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

Listening more carefully and fairly than you. God’s grace is not bound by the sacraments. Saying that God can save people without the sacraments is not to say that God can save people without grace. That is a contradiction in terms, because grace is God’s saving activity, making us sharers in the divine life out of His sheer graciousness and mercy.

I did not say that God can save people without grace.

So while you may listen more fairly than me, it’s clear that you don’t listen more carefully.**Deuteronomy 1:34-40

34 “Then the Lord heard the sound of your words, and He was angry and took an oath, saying,

35 ‘Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers,

36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and to his sons I will give the land on which he has set foot, because he has followed the Lord fully.’

37 “The Lord was angry with me also on your account, saying, ‘Not even you shall enter there.

38 ‘Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter there; encourage him, for he will cause Israel to inherit it.

39 ‘Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

40 ‘But as for you, turn around and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea.’

2 Samuel 12:21-23

21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.”

22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’

23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”**

Contarini:

Pelagianism is the denial that we need grace. I don’t know how you are using the word. For God to give us eternal life is for God to act graciously, because nothing proper to us as creatures can ever merit eternal life.

Correct.

 

[cazayoux]

Mary as New Eve …

If Eve was created without sin yet took part in bringing sin into the world, why would we expect that Mary (who took part in bringing Jesus into the world) would be less in stature than Eve?

We should expect that Mary be better (solely by God’s grace) than Eve.

michel

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

No. They added to the gospel what you want it to say… absolute assurance of personal salvation. That is not biblical. You’ve tacitly conceded the point here - that its extrabiblical.

Paul’s statement (Rom 8:30) is crystal clear—perseverance is included in justification.

Show me an equally clear statement by any of the writers that someone has lost justification—just one clear statement sans inference.
Robert in SD:

What you have not shown is that the scripture can give one absolute assurance that they are one of the predestined. What the scriptures give is HOPE, confident hope, but HOPE as opposed to the absolute assurance you suggest.

Absolute assurance is part of the Good News; hope as you define it, hopefully, is good news.

The true Gospel is a Gospel of peace, because God is a God of peace—He’s made the peace between Himself, and me (Rom 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Php 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23), and He’s made that peace through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20). I’m sure of it, and I’m sure I have that peace to the end.
Robert in SD:

It IS presumption to assume that because I say a sinner’s prayer and have a momentary “warm fuzzy” feeling that my final destination in the afterlife is absolutely assured.

As in "the infallible fuzzies?"
Robert in SD:

I concur that the audience had peace. They also had confident hope in Jesus Christ. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether they were being given the absolute assurance that were going to heaven even if they did not endure. I think the scriptures are clear that endurance in faith is necessary

And I concur that endurance is necessary, and that it’s part and parcel of justification.
Robert in SD:

That’s calvinist tradition getting in your way again. Read the scriptures as they were intended to be understood.

And how is that you believe they’re meant to be understood? By wild flights of pious fantasy, spiritualizing, typing and allegorizing. IMO, if I were to give a Catholic a recipe for Chicken Soup, and instruct him to read the recipe as he reads scripture, he’d make a pork roast with baked potatoes and gravy.
Robert in SD:

But that is a reality for many professing christians. They start down the path, but hit a snag and cease to endure. Your cold-hearted response to these people is that they were “never saved” and they are not predestined for heaven.

Assumes, incorrectly, what my response would be.
Robert in SD:

My response to them is, repent and reform your life, trust Jesus and have confident hope that you will be saved.

Then you agree with the biblical position, as do I, and my church.
Robert in SD:

HOW DO YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE THAT YOU ARE PREDESTINED. My point is that ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE is a presumption on your part.

IMO, your unbelief is appalling:**Romans 8:16

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, **As my Catholic neighbor (bless her heart) is fond of saying: “that’s not what it means!” (cf Gal 5:22, 23).
Robert in SD:

That was not my point. My point is that the Savior came for all men, not just for a few. The predestined are those who respond to the grace given by Jesus Christ to all. If the possibility for salvation did not exist in all by God’s grace, then this passage offers false hope… .

No, this passage EXPLAINS WHY SOME COME, AND OTHERS DON’T. There is a difference in the calling—all are called by the Gospel; those in Rom 8 are effectually called on the basis of God’s foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying and glorifying.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #691)
Robert in SD:

Jesus desires the salvation of all men. Some turn away from the grace that is offered. Others answer His call… and endure.

Answered above.
Robert in SD:

Wow! Talk about reading into the text. What these passages speak of is true believers who, after accepting Jesus Christ turn away. It’s as plain as day, and your twisting of the passage to suit your OSAS position is distorting the meaning to your peril. It is important to respond in faith and endure.

C’mon Robert, you’re cherry-picking; read the context from v19. In v 26, the writer includes himself and the others in a conditional and rhetorical statement: “If we go on sinning willfully…,” and in v39, he excludes himself and the justified from that category, “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.”
Robert in SD:

Au contrare. It is you who do not understand baptismal regeneration. Maybe it’s that Calvinist tradition that is clouding your eyes.

I understand that there is no baptismal regeneration viz. all of those who have been baptized that apostatize. Justification is predicated upon grace through faith, not baptism (Eph 2:8).

Those God justified, HE ALSO glorified—‘nuff said.
Robert in SD:

Baldersash. Your own statement here makes no sense. If one can ultimately repent (or not) on their death bed and be glorified, then there is NO WAY we can know if they ultimately endure or not until that person is off their death bed and in front of the Just Judge. Dont’ you see how false your sense of absolute assurance really is?

No I don’t, and there’s much more I could say and offer in support of my position, however, as you dismiss and reject almost all of what I say, I give myself less work.
Robert in SD:

Not so.

Robert in SD:

Your church has fooled itself into thinking that it is right and good to presume upon God’s mercy even where one dies in a state of unrepentent sin, or fails to live out the continuing call to conversion.

False assumption.

 

[Mickey]

And how is that you believe they’re meant to be understood? By wild flights of pious fantasy, spiritualizing, typing and allegorizing. IMO, if I were to give a Catholic a recipe for Chicken Soup, and instruct him to read the recipe as he reads scripture, he’d make a pork roast with baked potatoes and gravy.

That’s funny. I was just thinking about how terribly fragmented is your understanding of Sacred Scripture as seen through the lens of the Calvinistic traditon.

IOW, if I were to give you a recipe for chicken soup, and instruct you to read the recipe as you read Sacred Scripture, you would make a tossed salad!

 

[jmcrae]

That’s funny. I was just thinking about how terribly fragmented is your understanding of Sacred Scripture as seen through the lens of the Calvinistic traditon.

IOW, if I were to give you a recipe for chicken soup, and instruct you to read the recipe as you read Sacred Scripture, you would make a tossed salad!

Actually, he wouldn’t get anywhere, because it doesn’t say explicitly in the text of the recipe where the chicken comes from.

Since there is no instruction on how to get to the store and buy it, he would say that there is no necessity to go out and buy a chicken - just believe the recipe in your heart and with all sincerity, and you will miraculously be fed.

He would decide that it’s not supposed to be literal soup.

 

[Mickey]

Actually, he wouldn’t get anywhere, because it doesn’t say explicitly in the text of the recipe where the chicken comes from.

Since there is no instruction on how to get to the store and buy it, he would say that there is no necessity to go out and buy a chicken - just believe the recipe in your heart and with all sincerity, and you will miraculously be fed.

He would decide that it’s not supposed to be literal soup.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

This is interesting. I am looking forward to more on this point.

Previously you told me that “all” does not really mean “all” in this verse:

" God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:3-5

Does “all” in this verse also not really mean “all”?

**1 Corinthians 1:18

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.**Both the perishing, and those who are being saved hear the Gospel; yet, to the perishing it’s foolishness, but to the being saved ones, it’s the power of God to salvation.

Why is that?**John 6:64-65

“But there are some of you who do not believe…” And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”**Who makes the choice of who comes to Christ? And, on what basis is that choice made?

That’s what John 6 is about—eating and drinking = coming and believing—how it is one comes to Christ, and believes in Him (cf Jn 6:64-65).

guanophore:

Or are you saying that, since God does not convict everyone, he is commanding that people do something that He does not give them the ability to do?

That’s pretty much what Pelagius said.

Pelagius “…taught that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do. Since God warns us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. 1994, p 499).

God commanded the Jews to keep the commandments of the Decalogue, knowing that they could not. He did so that by their inability, they would come to the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20).

 

[Mickey]

That’s what John 6 is about—eating and drinking = coming and believing

…and the partaking of the most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[sandusky]

…and the partaking of the most Holy and Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

It has nothing to do with the Eucharist, but that’s another thread.

 

[Mickey]

It has nothing to do with the Eucharist, but that’s another thread.

John 6 has everything to do with the Holy Eucharist.

 

[jmcrae]

It has nothing to do with the Eucharist, but that’s another thread.

Absolutely it does, because Jesus answers the question, “How do we eat Your body and drink Your blood” at the institution of the Eucharist, by showing them the consecrated bread and wine, announcing that they are His body and blood, and commanding them to eat and drink of them.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul’s statement (Rom 8:30) is crystal clear—perseverance is included in justification.

You’re not listening to what I’m saying. What you state here is not necessarily inconsistent with what I am saying UNLESS you artificially define justification as a one-time legal imputation. Once you do that, you make a hash out of scripture, and are left doing exactly what you have done here - i.e. take snippets of scripture to support your conclusion, while ignoring what the whole of scripture is saying regarding the process of justification and salvation.

sandusky:

Show me an equally clear statement by any of the writers that someone has lost justification—just one clear statement sans inference.

I have, you dismiss the passages by falsely concluding the persons were “never saved” in the first place. That is the result of artificially and improperly understanding justification as a legal imputation as opposed to a covenantal relationship.

sandusky:

The true Gospel is a Gospel of peace, because God is a God of peace—He’s made the peace between Himself, and me (Rom 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Php 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23), and He’s made that peace through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20). I’m sure of it, and I’m sure I have that peace to the end.

You have confidence; confidence and great hope. But you cannot be sure, unless you can foretell the future. You have already conceded that point, when you admitted the person who does not endure either was never saved or, if he was saved, will repent and turn back to Christ. You don’t know which you will be, because you do not know the future. But you can hope, with great confidence, that you are one of those who turns back to Christ.

sandusky:

As in "the infallible fuzzies?"

Not sure if this was intended to be a slight of Catholicism or an admission that your own statement of absolute assurance is akin to an infallible statement by “pope sandusky?” I’ll assume the latter, in charity.

sandusky:

And I concur that endurance is necessary, and that it’s part and parcel of justification.

See above.

sandusky:

And how is that you believe they’re meant to be understood? By wild flights of pious fantasy, spiritualizing, typing and allegorizing. IMO, if I were to give a Catholic a recipe for Chicken Soup, and instruct him to read the recipe as he reads scripture, he’d make a pork roast with baked potatoes and gravy.

I’m not sure how to respond to this, except to say that you’re now grasping at straws. Or is it laddles?

sandusky:

IMO, your unbelief is appalling:

Romans 8:16In my opinion, your presumption is the height of arrogance. Does this sort of exchange accomplish anything, or would you prefer to ratchet down the hysteria now and support the fundamental objection that I have raised to your belief in an absolute assurance of personal salvation?

sandusky:

No, this passage EXPLAINS WHY SOME COME, AND OTHERS DON’T. There is a difference in the calling—all are called by the Gospel; those in Rom 8 are effectually called on the basis of God’s foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying and glorifying.

YOU said that Christ did not come to save all, but instead suggested that he only came to save the predestined. The scriptures say that He came for all men. Whether all men come, hear, believe and endure is another issue. You say one cannot be “predestined” without enduring. But that still is a neat little side-step from my question. How do you know YOU are predestined… The scriptures say you can hope, and have confident hope, and put faith in Christ for it, but as for an absolute assurance, you have already conceded the possibility that you are only fooling yourself. The scriptures clearly do not support what you are trying to prove… OSAS is simply not supported by the whole of scripture.

(continued)
​

​

 

[Robert_in_SD]

C’mon Robert, you’re cherry-picking…”

OK. Let’s look at a broader text selection:

[19] Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
[20] by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
[21] and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
[22] let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
[23] Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful;
[24] and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
[25] not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
[26] For **if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
[27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. **
[28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
[29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?
[30] For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”
[31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
[32] But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings,
[33] sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated.
[34] For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.
[35] Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
[36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.
[37] “For yet a little while,
and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry;
[38] but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”
[39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls. (Heb. 10:19-39)

Contrary to your desperate attempt to twist and turn this passage, the author is not using a “rhetorical” statement on the “saved.” He is warning those among the faithful to remain and endure, as they have. He is encouraging endurance for salvation, not encouraging endurance because of an assured salvation. He is preaching the message of great hope, consistent with Catholic understanding of justification and salvation, not OSAS.

sandusky:

Those God justified, HE ALSO glorified—‘nuff said.

Not 'nuff said. How do you know you are one of the justified, as opposed to being one who just thinks they are justified? You have not answered that question. And you have already conceded that one who does not endure could be either a “saved” person who the HS will cause to return or a “never saved” person who will never repent of all of his sins. How is it that we can know with absolute assurance that we are the former and not the latter, if one can repent and turn to Jesus even on the death bed? You have not (can not?) answer that by simply quoting Romans 8:30. The passage does not support your conclusion.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[pete_29]

It has nothing to do with the Eucharist, but that’s another thread.

Arrogance, sheer arrogance

 

[guanophore]

IOW, faith alone?

I don’t know which Catholic to believe?

No. Faith is never alone. All of us have told you the truth.