Questions about when people get "saved"

[ltwin]

It does not matter whether it is a sin of conscience or of weakness. Sin is sin, regardless of how it is classified.

Sin is sin, and yet there are different degrees of sin. As a Catholic, I’m sure you are familiar with your own church’s distinctions between mortal sin and venial sin. All sin harms our fellowship with Christ, but there are some “sins that lead to death” or have greater affects on our spiritual health than others. Everyone truly born of God “does not keep on sinning” (1 John 5). There is a growth in grace that occurs in the life of the truly converted, and so we should expect those who profess faith in Christ to mature in their public witness as time goes on.

However, that still does not mean we will not suffer weaknesses and passions common to all human beings. While we strive for perfect love, we don’t attain it completely in this life and yet God, by his grace, helps us in our weakness. If we place our trust in God, we have to also realize that we can’t be perfect (in comparison to Him) but also that we don’t need to be because Christ is our perfection. We pray for forgiveness and live a life of repentance constantly trusting in Him to finish the work He began in us knowing that he is faithful to do it–even if we don’t manage to confess every single sin or subject all of our desires and passions to the mind of Christ. In the end, we place our hope in Christ not ourselves.

 

[guanophore]

I do not believe this person is damned. Neither do I believe this person is in purgatory to be cleansed. They are forgiven–despite the momentary weakness of the flesh–and in the presence of Christ to await the resurrection of the body.

I think there is a false dichotomy here. Only people who are forgiven are eligible for the cleansing needed to enter heaven. People are still “muddy” when they die (most of us, anyway) and must be separated from the effects of passing through this world of sin.

 

[guanophore]

Our spirits continue to exist, but the last vestiges of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam are finally extinguished with physical death.

What is the basis for this doctrine?

 

[ltwin]

We are dead to sin, and the life we now live is the life of Christ. That is while living with the lingering dominion of sin that is progressively being extinguished through the sanctifying grace of God working in our lives. Once we die, that is an end to whatever lingering influence sin has over us. Was it not Ambrose who said natural death is a remedy to sin, not a penalty for it?

 

[guanophore]

Once we die, that is an end to whatever lingering influence sin has over us. Was it not Ambrose who said natural death is a remedy to sin, not a penalty for it?

Yes, once we pass from our mortal body, we are no longer susceptible to the frailties of it. But as much as Ambrose recognized that deliverance from the Body is freedom from sins of the flesh, the effects of the sin still must be cleansed before we can enter where nothing unclean can enter. The purging separates us from any attachment to sin, and from any effects of sin of which we may be unaware.

 

[MT1926]

In the same way, when we wrong another person, we ask for their forgiveness because it is right and just. This is someone made in the image and likeness of God, and we have hurt them by our actions. In fact, Scripture indicates that an unwillingness to reconcile with those we have wronged can hinder our spiritual communion with God. If we love God, we also must love other people and that means admitting when we’ve hurt them and making amends. This is part of mortifying the flesh–letting go of the sin of pride and humbling ourselves. We will never reach Christian perfection if we cannot admit to others when we were wrong.

You are missing my point and actually affirming my position. I totally agree with what you say here. We make amends not just because it is right and just, but also because it helps to bring us to perfection.

Do you not see the contradiction in your statements? You admit we can not reach Christian perfection without admitting to others we were wrong. But when I went on to say that this perfection is part of the purging in Purgatory you said…

But God has already forgiven you and pardoned you.

So which is it we do or don’t have to admit we were wrong. I’m sure you are going to say well once you die you don’t have to admit anymore, but where’s the justice in that?

Either our admitting we were wrong is important or it is not. I don’t see how it is just for God to expect us to clean up the broken glass in this life and not have to clean it up in the next. (Keeping in mind the only way we can clean up the broken glass in this life or in purgatory is because of God’s grace)

I’m still struggling to see how God is still keeping score.

Not sure what this means? How is us admitting our faults after we die considered “keeping score” when I’m sure you would agree it isn’t before we die?

It’s like the promises made are incomplete, and Christ’s sacrifice was not enough.

I’ve always struggled with this phrase. What does it mean? What promise are you referring to? Was there a time frame placed on Christ’s sacrifice? It seems like you are saying if Christ’s sacrifice still needs to be applied, to complete our perfection, after we die than His promise must be incomplete. The reason I ask this is what keeps the OSAS crowd from saying well if it’s not one and done then Christ’s sacrifice was not enough.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t think anyone thinks God lets us sit in our filth for all eternity.

I might be off the mark but the people who claim we are clothed by Christ and God judges us based on Christ’s righteousness and ignores our filth sure seem to. It sure seems like they say we are incapable of being perfected and our only chance of getting to heaven is for God to let us in and ignore our filth.

The question is, should we build an entire theology just to explain how God makes us pure enough to enter heaven.

Personally, I think I would rather know the truth than just say well it doesn’t really matter either way I’m sure you love Christ and he’ll do you a solid when you die.

I honestly don’t see the reason for this entire theology or for the elaborate institutional investment the Catholic Church has committed to it over the centuries

In my opinion the reason is humility. We are to humble ourselves that we aren’t able to attain heaven on our own. We are to humble ourselves that nothing we do in this life can be enough to perfect us for gifts that await us in heaven. We are to humble ourselves that we are still unclean in this life and that heaven is so perfect that nothing unclean can enter heaven. Once we admit these facts with humility the only possible conclusion is the only way we can get to heaven is if Jesus finishes the cleansing after we die.

As for the elaborate, the teaching on Purgatory is actually pretty simple.

1. We ain’t perfect and need purified after death
2. It involves some sort of pain, whether that be the “fire” the love of Christ or the pain of truly seeing how our sins hurt others is not really defined.
3. We on earth can pray for those in Purgatory.

Other than those teaching everything else is pretty much theological ideas and opinions.

I’m just being honest, from an outsider’s perspective it is quite bizarre.

I appreciate your honesty and your responses.

I’m not here to beat you over the head into submission of Purgatory. Quite honestly it seems you believe we must be perfect to enter heaven and that Jesus finishes our purification when we die, which is what we call Purgatory. You just don’t want to call it that.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

There is a gap in time

Sorry I’m not seeing your point? Whether there is a gap or not, whether Jesus is talking about the Temple or the end times how does this change His statement?

I’m not seeing your point here…

The salvation in this context is a literal and physical one. "He who endures (this persecution) unto the end (of the tribulation) will be saved=delivered from it.

Why would Jesus tell the Apostles Hey guys you know what I have an important teaching for you that you would never be able to understand on your own. Whoever endures this persecution to the end of this time period will be saved from this persecution.

Seriously? The Apostles would be like um Jesus isn’t that a no brainer?

Even in Chapter 24, regardless of what the time frame is, Jesus is talking about Christians being led astray by false profits.

When I look at the context of the surrounding verses I see…

9 “Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name.

Jesus is talking to the Apostles here so they are the you. Since we agree this is a future event, as well, I would think the you here would also be their successors.

Verse 10 Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another.

The many here would be the ones taught the gospel by the Apostles, which would be Christians.

Verse 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

Since the Apostles and their successors would be persecuted the Many being led astray, the ones no longer following the Apostles and their successors, are once again the Christians.

12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold.

I would actually interpret this verse to be Christians no longer following the law given by the Apostles. Probably some good examples of this would be some Christians no longer believe in the sanctity of marriage. Some no longer oppose abortion, divorce and remarriage, etc…

Maybe we are in the end times already?

13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Now we get to the verse in question. Taking into account the surrounding verses I see no reason to interpret this any different than I did in Chapter 10. The enduring is Christians not falling away from the teaching of the Apostles. The enduring is Christians not following false teachers. The enduring is not hating your neighbor. The enduring is not submitting to the lawlessness. In this context these Christians, that don’t do any of these things, will be saved.

It makes no sense for Jesus to waste His time saying the ones who can endure literal persecution will be literally saved from said persecution. He isn’t teaching us anything by giving us a statement that should be common sense.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are trying to say but the way you interpret what Jesus is saying doesn’t really make sense to me.

God Bless

 

[Vonsalza]

I find it abhorrent because I can see no way that the idea of purgatory does not nullify Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.

Aww man. From your other post about the temporal consequence of sin, I thought you kinda understood it.



When I break Bob’s window, begging the Lord for forgiveness might forgive me of the sin, but Bob still has a broken window that I must do something about. So in penance, I need to restore Bob’s window.

Sometimes the penance isn’t so clear, so we do our prayers and charitable works - even though Christ has forgiven us the sin, we still have to “fix the window”.

If you owe a balance at life’s conclusion, you finish it off in purgatory.

Purgatory is about penance. Not soteriology. Separate ideas just like being forgiven for breaking the window and actually replacing the window are separate ideas.

 

[guanophore]

true and motivated by his love of God and hatred of sin (rather than fear of punishment)

I think this is a crucial point. The condition of being purified and made fit for heaven is motivated by God’s love, and accomplished by His grace. It is only applied to those whose sins have already been forgiven.

Yet, though he left no enduring work, he himself was saved as through fire (1 Corinthians 3).

Yes, and all that prevented him from producing the fruit of the Holy Spirit is purified from him as well!

The question is, should we build an entire theology just to explain how God makes us pure enough to enter heaven.

There is no need. This is a principle that we received from the Jews, as we did many of our understandings about God. As Jesus said, “salvation is from the Jews” and we receive a great amount of our faith through what He has revealed over the millenia.

I honestly don’t see the reason for this entire theology or for the elaborate institutional investment the Catholic Church has committed to it over the centuries. I’m just being honest, from an outsider’s perspective it is quite bizarre.

Hey, from an insider perspective it does as well! I marvel at the activities rampant prior to Luther, where the Popes wanted to build St. Peter’s Basilica by “selling” indulgences. It seems that many of the faithful were misled by this practice.

But I think it has been a focus since the Reformation because significant parts of Reformation theology was developed in contradiction to it.

Wesleyan/Methodist/Pentecostal perspectives are considered to be post-protestant. I’m sure you are aware of that.

What does that mean?

Both Catholic and Arminian views to salvation turn the work of justification into a “process” rather than an act. In other words, God is in the process of justifying you. As long as you “endure to the end” of your natural life you will be eternally saved.

This is not entirely accurate, as all who look at the process of sanctification being part and parcel of salvation acknowledge that it begins with a specific “act” that initially occurs.

 

[guanophore]

This view is predominant in most so-called protestant Churches.

What is meant by a “so called protestant Church”? is this related to being “post protestant”?

Justification is an ACT which has eternal results.

Yes, the apostles taught that this happens in Baptism, but the results are internal initially. The Apostles did not baptize anyone as a “public declaration” of their faith.

Christ took all of your penalty on himself. Sin’s eternal penalty is forever quenched by His work. Another way of putting it: The death angel has now passed over you “one time” with eternal ramifications. see John 5:24

This is very Catholic sounding.

It is not as if the death angel after seeing the blood on the doorpost of your heart, must continue to pass over and over and over again. He passes over one time when he sees the blood. The death angel is never to be dealt with again. This is the good news!

Except that some want to return to the fleshpots of Egypt, so that they fall from grace.

The enduring is Christians not falling away from the teaching of the Apostles. The enduring is Christians not following false teachers. The enduring is not hating your neighbor. The enduring is not submitting to the lawlessness. In this context these Christians, that don’t do any of these things, will be saved.

So you think there is a point at which, in this life, we can stop enduring and still be saved, because that initial justification is “eternal”. I know you get around the eternality of these passages by separating temporal “salvation” from eternal. A person who does not endure through this live will fail to inherit the Kingdom in this live, but will still be saved.

 

[lanman87]

If you owe a balance at life’s conclusion, you finish it off in purgatory.

My understanding is that the blood sacrifice of Christ fills the gap between our lack of righteousness and the perfect righteousness needed to enter heaven. Christ pays the not only the balance but the entire debt, not us. There is no need for a purgatory type place because, as the hymn says, Jesus Paid it All.

We are incapable of paying the first penny of our on debt of sin, which is why we need Jesus. If we were capable of paying our own debt then we wouldn’t need Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Sometimes the penance isn’t so clear, so we do our prayers and charitable works - even though Christ has forgiven us the sin, we still have to “fix the window”.

If you owe a balance at life’s conclusion, you finish it off in purgatory.

Purgatory is about penance. Not soteriology. Separate ideas just like being forgiven for breaking the window and actually replacing the window are separate ideas.

How do you reconcile that with God “remembering sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34) and “As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12). Would not our “balance” be “paid” by Christ, who was our sacrifice for sin? What does it mean when Hebrews 10 says, “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” and:

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

 

[Vonsalza]

How do you reconcile that with God “remembering sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34) and “As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12).

I don’t have to reconcile it, Itwin. There isn’t a conflict.

When you sin, you offend God and further damage creation. When we obtain the Lord’s forgiveness for breaking Bob’s window, it’s truly a wonderful thing! God shall remember our smashing of Bob’s window no longer! Amen? As far as the east is from the west, our transgression of breaking Bob’s window is removed from us!

This is different from the temporal consequence of the sin.
It is this distinction that you’re not making.

We still owe Bob his window. God’s forgiveness of the sin won’t keep the wind and rain out of Bob’s house. A new window will, though.

Would not our “balance” be “paid” by Christ, who was our sacrifice for sin?

The eternal “balance”? Yup! The temporal “balance”? Nope. And we know this because creation is still degraded. Our sin degrades it further.

Per Christ in Matthew 5:26: “Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”

What does it mean when Hebrews 10…

For those that accept, they’ve been forgiven the eternal cost of their sins. The redemptive work by Christ is compete and the old Jewish law need not be followed.

What do you think it means?
If I break your windshield and tell God I’m sorry, then somehow I don’t have to buy you a new windshield???

 

[tgGodsway]

Sorry I’m not seeing your point? Whether there is a gap or not, whether Jesus is talking about the Temple or the end times how does this change His statement?

I’m not seeing your point here…

Well, this is what usually happen when we’re trying to have a discussion and we get bogged down on theology that shoots us off in another direction. You quoted “He who endures to the end shall be saved” as one of your proof text to something else we were discussing a while back, and I shot back with a, “your passage is quoted out of context.” Then we debate whether or not it is. So there you go.

 

[tgGodsway]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are trying to say but the way you interpret what Jesus is saying doesn’t really make sense to me.

If you want to use that verse to mean He who endures (whatever!) until the end shall be saved eternally, you actually complicate the entire subject.

Firstly, Jesus wasn’t discussing how one has eternal life in the entire passage. All of the little nuances of information have nothing to do with receiving Jesus Christ as savior and thus obtaining eternal life, as we see repeated in John’s gospel.

Secondly, we make “endurance” a condition for receiving justification, which complicates the matter all the more.

But then again, since you see Justification as a process that would probably make sense. You are reading your theology into the passage rather than extracting what is actually there. It should matter that both Mark’s gospel and Matt. 24 use the exact same wording but the context is better developed. I like what you said earlier, Mt. 10 is a prelude that only builds on a more expounded understanding.

 

[tgGodsway]

This is not entirely accurate, as all who look at the process of sanctification being part and parcel of salvation acknowledge that it begins with a specific “act” that initially occurs.

Abraham saw the stars and believed God’s promises. As a result he was made Just. Where did sanctification play it’s part?

 

[tgGodsway]

However, if a person ceases to put their trust in God.

Yes, I too use to believe this. But if a person drifts away from or simply gets mad at God and turns on a dime, the forfeiting of the gift must be based on their bad works, as if their works played a role in how it was obtained in the first place. Their seal of the Spirit must be broken by the merit or lack thereof, and the birth must be reversed. Please give me an example of this from scripture. The gavel declaring their new standing of righteousness was revoked based on who’s work? If Protestants treat it as an act of God based on the work of another, why is it all unraveled by the work of the sinner?

 

[tgGodsway]

Well, do you believe we can be saved if we do not endure?

That is just the point. The gavel had been struct and God has pronounced you Innocent based on the finished work of Christ. You have already obtained eternal life in the very moment you believed. It is not a mortgage payment of faith-installments. You are the owner of the Gift. But if Satan can yank your shield of faith out of your hand, you will stop believing in what already happened.

 

[MT1926]

Well, this is what usually happen when we’re trying to have a discussion and we get bogged down on theology that shoots us off in another direction. You quoted “He who endures to the end shall be saved” as one of your proof text to something else we were discussing a while back, and

Actually, if you look back you brought up Ephesians 1:14. I asked you a question about what first installment meant, you did not respond. So I started discussing the translation of Ephesians 1:14 with @lanman87 who accused me of only looking at a Catholic translation. That’s when I said…

All guarantees have fine print, you can’t take your car and use it for something that it wasn’t intended to be used for then expect it to be covered under the bumper to bumper guarantee. In the same way you can’t be born again and then use your body and sin in ways God did not intend to use your body for, then expect to be guaranteed salvation (without repenting first).

I mentioned enduring in the fine print in my response to him. That’s when you jumped into the conversation I was having with him. So I actually wasn’t having a discussion with you at the time. Not sure why we are getting bogged down. Once you jumped in as far as I was concerned it was a new discussion about Matthew 10 and 24.

I shot back with a, “your passage is quoted out of context.” Then we debate whether or not it is. So there you go.

I think this might be the problem we are having. I spend time giving an interpretation of a verse. I include the context of the Chapter and even go to the length of interpreting what every single verse surrounding the verse means.

You either respond with you are taking that out of context. Or you say your response is so ridiculous it is not even worth my time. or something along those lines.

The one thing we don’t see you ever doing is interpreting the verse in the surround context of the text at hand.

So how about taking one of these enduring verses, forget everything you know (this way you don’t read your theology into the text) and simple read it in the context of the chapter. Then give me your interpretation of this verse as well as the 3 before it and the 3 after it.

God Bless