Loss of Rewards

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julius_Caesar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But we agree that the object of our faith is known by divine revelation, and as your #128 post rightly said, as well as an internal witness of the Spirit, that we are His.
Oh yes, no problem with that. Faith, itself, is taught to be a dim foretaste of the Beatific Vision, seeing God “face to face” in the next life. But here we’re speaking of something so deeply profound- a full “glimpse” of that final vision or a “locution” strictly and obviously orchestrated by an infinitely superior “Other”- that one could probably not even remain standing in that Presence. There’s simply nothing to compare such experiences to. Such that, if a person thinks that they may have had something like this, then they haven’t.
 
Last edited:
But here we’re speaking of something so deeply profound- a full “glimpse” of that final vision or a “locution” strictly and obviously orchestrated by an infinitely superior “Other”- that one could probably not even remain standing in that Presenc
So Trent goes to all this trouble to offset the writings of a theologian in Geneva about assurance of perseverance to the end by saying it
can only happen thru rare mystical experience of like being before God ? Ok.
 
So Trent goes to all this trouble to offset the writings of a theologian in Geneva about assurance of perseverance to the end
Which definitely was not expounded on by the man from Tarsus or the fisherman formerly known as Simon or any of their colleagues?
 
Which definitely was not expounded on by the man from Tarsus or the fisherman formerly known as Simon or any of their colleagues?
Well to my point, no less than them expounding on assurances by said rare mystical experiences.
 
Last edited:
So Trent goes to all this trouble to offset the writings of a theologian in Geneva about assurance of perseverance to the end by saying it
can only happen thru rare mystical experience of like being before God ? Ok.
Oh, not at all. While all the various ideas of the various Reformers concerning justification are certainly addressed, that knowledge regarding private revelations comes by experience- of church members over the centuries. Trent is simply coming from the position of what the church knows to be true. In any case God does such things at His discretion and for His purposes.
 
Last edited:
48.png
Vico:
Chapter 9
… no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
Are we not seated in heavenly places, now?
The direct sight of God is enjoyed by the blessed in heaven.
 
Again because I have an apparent choice and capability to throw away the gift of sonship i do not have the assurance of preseverance in such?
An assurance that isn’t given in Scripture?
 
An assurance that isn’t given in Scripture?
Look, I play the fence on this one. Plenty of verses that speak of such endurance. They don’t pull it out of thin air. Of course there are plenty of verses that seem to suggest a perseverance and focus on our free will to go back to our own vomit. I believe both sides sythesize said scriptures differently, but incorporate them they do.

Anyways, I like lanmans scriptural presentation on this. They fit what I experienced as a Catholic converting to Protestantism. I feel they do a better job of teaching and experiencing the hope that is within us in Christ, by grace vs a works type walk. It seems a better balance or focus on what Christ has done and by what foundation we are to show forth good works.

To be fair it is much more than that. Also I could have experienced same “conversion” within Protestantism. That is of going from a religious works based walk to a more grace based walk. I also know a few who have experienced Christ in similar fashion and remained Catholic but lit they are just the same.
Which is what baptism is.( born again, put in Christ, chosen)
It wasn’t for me and many others, including the covenant initiation rites for Jews of Jesus’s time…such rites did not automatically make one chosen, but called yes.
Being born again and being in Christ are not the same thing. You can be born again and cut off from Christ.
Understand. Just wish you would accept the other possibility when someone is obviously out of grace, that they were never truly in grace the first time.

Paul says of such they were never circumcised of the heart.They did the outward religious rite but it was ineffectual. He does not say you were circumsised of the heart so repent and get back to such grace. (Yes, he does so elsewhere but not using such terms. It is obvious though that he addresses both possibilities as a real basis for sinful, ungraced living.)
 
Last edited:
The direct sight of God is enjoyed by the blessed in heaven.
Understand. Yet I do not disagree with those who suggest that Paul speaks of a downpayment, a mark of sonship thru some experience of such glory now. Afterall, the tense of the text is present but obviously with more and fuller things to come.

No one denies we have been spiritually raised up with Christ as siginfied in baptism, nor are we unrelated to those in heaven now, but are all part of the Body.
 
Last edited:
Final perseverance of a person could be known (revealed) or unknown (the usual).
Understand the Catholic perspective thank you. Just don’t think the apostles saw it the same, or were religious that way ( deciding which Christians were saints).
 
Understand. Just wish you would accept the other possibility when someone is obviously out of grace, that they were never truly in grace the first time.
One reason for the possible differences in opinion here stems from the imputed righteousness vs infused righteousness doctrines. If righteousness is strictly imputed at justification that creates a bit more nebulous area when considering whether or not one can lose their state of righteousness or justice by living and acting unjustly.
 
Understand. Just wish you would accept the other possibility when someone is obviously out of grace, that they were never truly in grace the first time
You’ve never read Catholic commentary on Simon Magus.

It’s Calvinists who you need to be discussing this with.
 
Because it is possible to be deceived. Everyone believes that.
Well that’s the point-we cannot know with absolute certainty, we can deceive ourselves for that matter.
It is not something He gives to us as we respond in Faith. It is something He gives when we come to faith. The moment we come to faith we receive the righteousness of God, all of it. Faith doesn’t enable us to receive it. Faith is the way we receive it.
No, its both. Faith in God is both a gift-and a very human act-because it’s a gift we can still resist and reject, as with all grace, or embrace and act upon. And the real point is that the righteousness of God is a real righteousness given, and something we do not possess on our own, apart from Him.
We are not saved by Grace through faith and me. Which is, in essence, what you are saying. The only part of “me” that scriptures say saves me is “Faith”. By faith I don’t just mean belief. I mean a changed heart and complete trust in Christ. And from that Faith (belief, trust, Spirit Indwelling, Changed Heart) comes love, obedience, repentance, works, and so on. Any claim of faith that isn’t changing a person to the image of God isn’t really faith. It might be a form of faith but it isn’t the kind of faith that saves. The kind of faith that saves produces the fruit of obedience, repentance, and love.
Yes, if we continue to cooperate with God faith, hope, and love will grow. But the church has always recognized, as Paul does in 1 Cor 13, that faith can exist without love.

continued:
 
continued:

We have to understand that God wants man’s will involved. There’s nothing good or noble about continuously dwelling on what a bunch of worthless worms we are. That’s not God’s opinion of us-and certainly not what He wants for us-or who He created us to be. To the extent that God draws even a weak “yes” out of us rather than making that yes for us-even as His grace is required to move us to that point- our justice or righteousness begins. And He wants nothing more than for us to grow that “ownership” into full-on love of Himself and neighbor, to the exclusion, incidentally, of sin or anything that would harm neighbor or offend Him IOW. And love is always a choice-or it’s not the real thing. He ultimately wants beings who, semi-autonomous from Him while in a willing subjugated union with Him, freely love Him above all else-because He’s the highest good- and loving and worshipping Him is our highest good.

If God wanted to simply end up with some people in heaven and some in eternal torment, He could’ve just done that. He could’ve prevented Adam from sinning to begin with-or sent him to hell, aka “eternal death”, immediately after his sin. But instead God deemed it worthwhile that man have a reprieve, so to speak, and spend some time here in relative exile from Him: dead, asleep, sick, lost, with little or no desire for Him and no means to find or reach Him even if man wanted to. And yet here man might just develop a hunger and thirst for truth and righteousness in a world that so often has little use or value for either, and no desire for the God who might interfere with their worldly desires. Here we might begin to sense that something is missing. Here we might grow jaded of the evil that we witness, participate in, and/or fall victims to. And here we might be prepared as God graciously never abandoned man but began to patiently work with him, revealing Himself little by little as man was ready, teaching man by the experience of the law that man possesses no real righteousness on his own, allowing man to directly experience- to know-good and evil so that he might be all the more ready to embrace the good alone when He finally sees it in front of him. This world is a schoolhouse, an institute of formation, to help man recognize his need for God when God comes calling, to impress the will of the need for something more, something bigger. It’s always been about God patiently seeking to elicit from man a “yes”, reversing Adam’s “no”.
 
Last edited:
I feel they do a better job of teaching and experiencing the hope that is within us in Christ, by grace vs a works type walk
This is the problem with Protestantism. You make dichotomies when they don’t exist.

That’s like teaching a child vs encouraging him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top