Refuting Reformed Theology on "2 Corinthians 5:21"

[SnoopSword]

I’m pretty sure everyone knows Judea is a renedering of the word Judah in Greek, so again I ask you, what point are you trying to make?

No. ‘Judea’ is a modern ‘province’ in Palistine at the time of Jesus.

‘Judah’ is one of the 12 tribes over 1000 years earlier.

When Palistine split into two Kingdoms, the southern kingdom was called was called The Kingdom Of Judah. The NORTHERN was called ISRAEL. That should be a ‘clue’ of things.

It’s also very important to mention something that is NEVER talked about. By the time Jesus came, the original 12 ethnic tribes were LONG GONE. People were shuffled in and out of that land many, many times as the OT well documents. Also, Satanic gods were worshipped on that land - like a certain god which bore a STAR as its symbol. This god requires child sacrifice to provide power and wealth. Today this god is fed more children than ever through a deception called ‘abortion’ which is the REAL reason we viciously OPPOSE abortion.

Did you know in some states 3 of every 10 babies are sacrificed? Some places in NY more than half. This is the real reason why ‘personal liberty’ is a dogma here. Combined with the OT it becomes clear its formchild sacrifice.

Oh well, the wealth and luxury has a way of making people feel better about the whole situation… i mean come on, new homes in Texas are so cheap, but are so big they have home theatre rooms as standard. Live in luxury on minimal wages. Let the rest of the world pay for it. Funny though how we never got wealthy until the abortion laws passed. Satan must have his own children on earth to do his bidding in his own kingdom. People who are not even under God’s jurisdiction. The type of people that even if Jesus tried to heal them he wouldn’t be able to.

Maybe Judas and his ilk are not ‘human’ in a technical sense (I’ll get the catechism verse later). but rather a small group of mankind which Satan can use a vessel. His own hands on earth. People in a kingdom who are united in a world wide web and exist for no other reason than to attack the Catholic Church and bewitch kind folks into believing their lies. The wheat looks just like the tares… they are hard to differentiate - simlar to Judah and Judea.

Notice how far North Jesus and the Apostles were in the map below

 

[jcrichton]

:tiphat:

Was Peter’s faith in danger of failing? Jesus conspicuously said, “TURNED BACK” – epistrepho is a real spiritual turning; please see 2Pet2:20-22.

Hi!

I can’t argue etymology; yet, the fact remains (“I will strike the Shepherd…”); would this turning from Jesus be equated to St. Peter’s, and others, admonishment to those who turn their back to the Faith (reject God)? …consider the source… they were right there, being Taught by the Teacher… could their abandonment not be of a greater disloyalty than those who were second or third… generations removed?

Yet, this is not the issue; the comparison I’m making is Jesus’ Prayer for Simon (His Sir Lancelot–knight of knights) vs. His determination to not Pray for Judas (Jesus’ Mordred)–this absence of concern for Judas could only be understood in the Unfolding of Scriptures:

13 For if my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne with it. And if he that hated me had spoken great things against me, I would perhaps have hidden myself from him. 14 But thou a man of one mind, my guide, and my familiar, 15 Who didst take sweetmeats together with me: in the house of God we walked with consent.

(Psalm 54:13-15-- DRV)
Jesus’ betrayal had to come from one in close proximity–an intimate Disciple. How could Jesus Pray that Judas not commit the betrayal?

Clearly Judas made a conscious choice. Personally I think Judas believed Jesus was to be the physical

king, and he wanted to force the issue – it appears he was shocked when Jesus was arrested and crucified. Judas had seen the miracles, surely Jesus would do something astonishing.
Correct! Yet, Judas did not actually witness the Crucifixion; he terminated his life prior to the actual event. It is my estimation that God’s Mercy did act upon him as in his turmoil and impotence he did the only thing that he thought he could do to demonstrate his regret:

24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.

(St. Matthew 26:24)
…I can’t recall such solemn Scriptural pronouncement being made of any other person–there are a few that come close… yet not as a curse on a specific individual for the task he had at hand.

It still remains, why did Jesus answer

Peter’s protest-of-loyalty, with Judas?
I responded to this previously.

Where does Paul teach we can “be in fellowship with Christ yet carnal”? Because I do not see a subject-change between Heb5:14 and 6:1, (probably Paul) calls “carnal”, unrepentant/apostasy

.

In 1Cor3:1ff, “carnal” exhibits things like “JEALOUSY” and “STRIFE” — which Paul blatantly says in Gal5:19-21, “will-not-inherit”! So to perceive some kind of “Antinomianism” — fleshly/in-fellowship-with-Christ — wouldn’t we have to start stamping passages like Gal5:19-21 with “NOT REALLY”, or at least "Well, there are exceptions…"?

How can there be exceptions? Who decides what they are?
…again, this is a matter of vocabulary (understanding); can the Holy Spirit Inspired, coerce, compel, trick, or test/tempt man? He cannot! He would not! Yet, Believers are tempted and Believers do fall prey to temptation and commit sin/s.

This is the Battle which St. Paul speaks about… that Battle where he, though dead to sin because of Christ, still fails to do the good (righteousness) that he desires and does the wicked/bad (unrighteousness) which he loathes… St. Paul’s victory is not in his “complete” indwelling of the Holy Spirit but in Christ… since his carnal/flesh passions govern his carnal members (Romans 7:14-25).

If we are Lead by the Holy Spirit and we Walk in the Light, with the Holy Spirit Indwelling in us fully, can we then conclude that it is not the devil that made us sin but the Holy Spirit?

St. Paul says: “God forbid!” (Romans 6:12-23)

Because we are lead by the Spirit we turn from sin to God; we do not revel in unrighteousness but in righteousness… and when we fail to remain in God’s Grace we can turn to Him through Christ’s Power and Mercy:

1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also to walk, even as he walked.

(1 St. John 2:1-6)
…continued…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I hope now you understand “the conflict that I perceive”. Where does Paul affirm, “fleshly but saved-fellowship-with-Jesus”? Rom6 (for instance) teaches "we are dead to sin and cannot still live in it"!

…continued:

That’s where vocabulary (understanding) comes to head… could St. Paul then be attributing his failings to the Holy Spirit or are you intimating that St. Paul was ever sinless after his encounter with Jesus?

I know that you do not believe such disconcerted theology; our discrepancy lies in what it means to be carnal or flesh; I stand with St. Paul’s expression: I do the unrighteous acts that I loathe and I do not do the righteous acts that I long for… why? …because of the flesh; not because I’m not a Believer, but because I’m frail… when I move away from abiding in God I embrace rather then repel temptation…

What happens next is where you and I differ in defining/understanding… if I were to revel in my unrighteousness I would be rejecting Christ’s Death on the Cross for my sins… and if I were to revel in my unrighteousness with calloused disregard under the erroneous tenet that I can sin because Christ died for all the sins of “the Believers” (past, present, and future) I would be engaging in heresy.

So I am a Believer who can lose his Salvation; yet, in the Path to Holiness and Salvation. My continuous Fellowship in Christ allows me the Hope for Eternal Salvation–this Salvation is found Hidden in Christ:

3 Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.

(St. John 15:3-4)

Scripture is absolutely full

of instances and warnings against “falling-from-salvation”. It does take effort to cling to one of the three “OSAS” views…

But the unregenerated CANNOT receive Him (so Reformed Theology requires), but if regeneration PRECEDES His coming then they do not need Him! You will find they just won’t answer this…

As you and I have discussed, there is “pride” involved; RT’s very often say things like, “I used to believe as you did, but then I (matured, learned, was taught by the Spirit, etcetera)”. It’s a superior position that would cause embarrassment if it’s reversed…
It is interesting that not once did the Apostles boast of “saved” or “eternally save” or “can’t lose salvation:”

23 And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? 25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God.

(Romans 8:23-27)
…if “Salvation” (“Saved,” “Eternally Saved,” “Always Saved”) is a done deal, is the Holy Spirit not a complete dolt, helping man’s infirmity and interceding with unfathomable groans for that which has already been acquired?

That’s why we have several warnings about getting caught up in our own wisdom:

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again: The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Let no man therefore glory in men. 22 For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; 23 And you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

(1 Corinthians 3:19-23)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I will likely step on a few toes — “one baptism”, meaning:

“I have a baptism to be baptized with, and it distresses Me greatly until it is accomplished.” Lk12:50

"Are you willing to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, are you willing to drink the cup that I drink?" Mk10:38

One Lord, one Faith, one Gospel. One salvation — through Jesus, our mutual Savior.

Hi!

…yeah… I’m sidestepping this one.

Ahhhh, you’re not understanding their confusion

!

"They cannot understand God’s salvation, cannot even desire His righteousness unless He changes their hearts first! Well, they can desire to be saved and even joyfully think they ARE SAVED (Lk8:13), but they do NOT REALLY want to be saved. Except they’re joyful about it; but it’s false, they don’t even know it’s false. They cannot want to be saved (except when they do want to), but it must be only a "superficial we-wanna-be-like-you" fitting in and not true desire for eternity. Except they are joyful about it. But not really; they are INCAPABLE of turning to God in ANY measure – except when they do turn, but it’s only SUPERFICIALLY, they prove they are not genuine by falling away. Even though they “believed joyfully”, it was NOT REALLY belief because they left; their joy was false! They can’t turn or even WANT to, except when they want to — but they can’t, thinking themselves part of God’s righteous makes them feel joyful — but they don’t WANT to be righteous BECAUSE THEY CAN’T (not without His sovereign and monergistic heart-change!) …except when they can and do, but it’s not real, because it can’t be, even though it says “believed joyfully” — if they HAD believed THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT!"

Fade in a circus, with performers JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS. Goodness.
WOW… its like watching Laurel and Hardy meet the Three Stooges while bouncing off Abbott’s and Costello’s “whose on first?”

I’m gonna look for a special Novena and repeat it once a month for a year… it will be my special prayer for their trek into God’s Wisdom!

Find one on the Internet, and use the “img” tag!

…yeah, I did a quick search… it was scary! I’ll forgo that wish for now!

God must be pretty dense, to command ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent, if He really is behind-the-scenes scripting who will, and who will not.

Here is where the word, “STRONGHOLD” — applies. Some doctrines really are strongholds. We must be infinitely patient, unendingly kind and loving, and prayerfully

directed by God when we teach.
…what I find truly difficult is that these people are not just average joes and jills; they are quite intelligent (as it happens with atheists); yet, they do fall for that stronghold mentality… we need more Prayer Warriors!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

[snip for space]

So, how can I break this all down into discussion points and bring it into a form that can be talked about without getting to wordy?

If “impute” is the key word focused on

The CCC uses the word as follows

Impute:

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.

Imputed:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Imputable:

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question. The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

 

[Gadgeteer]

No. ‘Judea’ is a modern ‘province’ in Palistine at the time of Jesus.

‘Judah’ is one of the 12 tribes over 1000 years earlier.

When Palistine split into two Kingdoms, the southern kingdom was called was called The Kingdom Of Judah. The NORTHERN was called ISRAEL. That should be a ‘clue’ of things.

It’s also very important to mention something that is NEVER talked about. By the time Jesus came, the original 12 ethnic tribes were LONG GONE. People were shuffled in and out of that land many, many times as the OT well documents. Also, satanic gods were worshipped on that land - like a certain god which bore a STAR as its symbol. This god requires child sacrifice to provide power and wealth. Today this god is fed more children than ever through a deception called ‘abortion’ which is the REAL reason we viciously OPPOSE abortion.

May I reply? You are completely right; seems Americans still serve “moloch”, which is only a pseudonym for satan…

Did you know in some states 3 of every 10 babies are sacrificed? Some places in NY more than half. This is the real reason why ‘personal liberty’ is a dogma here. Combined with the OT it becomes clear its formchild sacrifice.

Oh well, the wealth and luxury has a way of making people feel better about the whole situation… i mean come on, new homes in Texas are so cheap, but are so big they have home theatre rooms as standard. Live in luxury on minimal wages. Let the rest of the world pay for it. Funny though how we never got wealthy until the abortion laws passed. satan must have his own children on earth to do his bidding in his own kingdom. People who are not even under God’s jurisdiction. The type of people that even if Jesus tried to heal them he wouldn’t be able to.

Ultimately, they ARE under His jurisdiction. I personally think that sins are like oil; we (Christians) take no delight from how long and brightly some people will burn – and brightest are those who have dispatched 50,000 innocent children during their lifetimes.

Maybe Judas and his ilk are not ‘human’ in a technical sense (I’ll get the catechism verse later). but rather a small group of mankind which Satan can use a vessel. His own hands on earth. People in a kingdom who are united in a world wide web and exist for no other reason than to attack the Catholic Church and bewitch kind folks into believing their lies. The wheat looks just like the tares… they are hard to differentiate - simlar to Judah and Judea.

It has been said, “satan does not bother with people he likes; troubles are usually signs of triumph!” It helps to repeat verses like James1:12 to ourselves…

Notice how far North Jesus and the Apostles were in the map below

(map image)]

An interesting post, Snoop. I’m still curious – do you think Judas was “never Human”, specifically never saved? It still seems to me that the only point Jesus could have had in Jn6:70, was — “Judas is proof that leaving is possible”.

It’s like the last two verses in James; for those who claim “true salvation can never be forfeit”, they are unable to explain how one can wander away from faith they’ve never had, or come back to a place they’ve never been.

In Jn6:67 Peter protested his loyalty; Jesus responded by holding up Judas. Is there a second possible meaning for Jesus holding up Judas?

 

[Gadgeteer]

I can’t argue etymology; yet, the fact remains (“I will strike the Shepherd…”); would this turning from Jesus be equated to St. Peter’s, and others, admonishment to those who turn their back to the Faith (reject God)? …consider the source… they were right there, being Taught by the Teacher… could their abandonment not be of a greater disloyalty than those who were second or third… generations removed?

That’s right. But did they have the freedom to abandon Jesus and God? The only possible answer, has to be “yes”.

Yet, this is not the issue; the comparison I’m making is Jesus’ Prayer for Simon (His Sir Lancelot–knight of knights) vs. His determination to not Pray for Judas (Jesus’ Mordred)–this absence of concern for Judas could only be understood in the Unfolding of Scriptures:

Jesus’ betrayal had to come from one in close proximity–an intimate Disciple. How could Jesus Pray that Judas not commit the betrayal?

Jesus would have been crucified with or without Judas. He did not “have to be betrayed”…

Correct! Yet, Judas did not actually witness the Crucifixion; he terminated his life prior to the actual event. It is my estimation that God’s Mercy did act upon him as in his turmoil and impotence he did the only thing that he thought he could do to demonstrate his regret:

…I can’t recall such solemn Scriptural pronouncement being made of any other person–there are a few that come close… yet not as a curse on a specific individual for the task he had at hand.

I responded to this previously.

Yes – well – Judas had to be held up for some reason.

Jesus: “YOU aren’t going to leave Me too, ARE you!”
Peter (paraphrased): “Of course not; we know You’re the Messiah.”
Jesus: “I chose all twelve of you, and one of you is a devil…”

How could Judas not connect with “leaving”?

…again, this is a matter of vocabulary (understanding); can the Holy Spirit Inspired, coerce, compel, trick, or test/tempt man? He cannot! He would not! Yet, Believers are tempted and Believers do fall prey to temptation and commit sin/s.

This is the Battle which St. Paul speaks about… that Battle where he, though dead to sin because of Christ, still fails to do the good (righteousness) that he desires and does the wicked/bad (unrighteousness) which he loathes… St. Paul’s victory is not in his “complete” indwelling of the Holy Spirit but in Christ… since his carnal/flesh passions govern his carnal members (Romans 7:14-25).

As we discussed, we are not supposed to live in Rom7, but in Rom8.

Let me throw a verse at you:

“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Gal5:24
“Stauroō”, aorist active indicative. Statement of fact; “have-crucified-the-flesh”. They that are Christ’s — those who belong to Him.

Someone who is carnal, who has NOT crucified the flesh, does he still BELONG to Jesus? How could he?

The next verse admonishes “if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” – has to mean, "let us walk in salvation"! What else?

If we are Lead by the Holy Spirit and we Walk in the Light, with the Holy Spirit Indwelling in us fully, can we then conclude that it is not the devil that made us sin but the Holy Spirit?

Silly – God tempts no one, each of us is tempted when enticed and carried away by our own lusts. Lust conceived births sin, and sin brings death; do not be deceived beloved brethren." See 1Cor10:12-13 — God graciously gives us an escape to sin, but permits us to choose His escape, or the sin.

St. Paul says: “God forbid!” (Romans 6:12-23)

But it’s not really forbidden? Back to 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21 — all say “Those who DO these things SHALL NOT INHERIT…”

Because we are lead by the Spirit we turn from sin to God; we do not revel in unrighteousness but in righteousness… and when we fail to remain in God’s Grace we can turn to Him through Christ’s Power and Mercy:

If we turn to sin, we must turn BACK to God — else we “die in our sins” and perish. Cold hard facts…

 

[steve_b]

May I reply? You are completely right; seems Americans still serve “moloch”, which is only a pseudonym for satan…

Ultimately, they ARE under His jurisdiction. I personally think that sins are like oil; we (Christians) take no delight from how long and brightly some people will burn – and brightest are those who have dispatched 50,000 innocent children during their lifetimes.

It has been said, “satan does not bother with people he likes; troubles are usually signs of triumph!” It helps to repeat verses like James1:12 to ourselves…

An interesting post, Snoop. I’m still curious – do you think Judas was “never Human”, specifically never saved? It still seems to me that the only point Jesus could have had in Jn6:70, was — “Judas is proof that leaving is possible”.

It’s like the last two verses in James; for those who claim “true salvation can never be forfeit”, they are unable to explain how one can wander away from faith they’ve never had, or come back to a place they’ve never been.

In Jn6:67 Peter protested his loyalty; Jesus responded by holding up Judas. Is there a second possible meaning for Jesus holding up Judas?

It’s like the Prodigal son story. The point that gets swept under the rug, in so many homilies,

Lk 15: 24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’

• Was that son always the Father’s son? Yes.
• Did the Father love His son? Yes
• until that son returned however, that son was dead and lost to His Father while he was gone…
• Which means the son had choices. Forfeit everything was a real choice and a real possibility if he didn’t return to his Father and his family.

 

[Gadgeteer]

That’s where vocabulary (understanding) comes to head… could St. Paul then be attributing his failings to the Holy Spirit or are you intimating that St. Paul was ever sinless after his encounter with Jesus?

No one ever said “anyone is sinless”; but “carnal”, by definition means walking IN sin. In what sense can “carnal” be separated from Rom8:12-13, “if I walk in the flesh I must die”?

I know that you do not believe such disconcerted theology; our discrepancy lies in what it means to be carnal or flesh; I stand with St. Paul’s expression: I do the unrighteous acts that I loathe and I do not do the righteous acts that I long for… why?

No. Romans chapter 7 is PAST HISTORY — Paul DID the very things he did not want to do. The whole argument is ended with, “Wretched man that I am, who will FREE me from this war inside?” And Paul serves up the solution in the very next words, chapter eight: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, for the law of the Spirit of Life has set you free from the law of sin and death”. The law of the FLESH (sin and death!) has been BROKEN by the Cross! Now we choose to walk in the flesh (if we do we must die), or to walk in Christ HAVING CRUCIFIED THE FLESH.

Is Gal5:24 negotiable, Jcrichton?

…because of the flesh; not because I’m not a Believer, but because I’m frail… when I move away from abiding in God I embrace rather then repel temptation…

Over and over we’re right back to the intimate UNION between believer, and Creator, that is the essence of salvation! We either belong to Christ (and have CRUCIFIED the flesh), or we are carnal and do NOT belong to Christ. Where is the “fence-straddling”?

What happens next is where you and I differ in defining/understanding… if I were to revel in my unrighteousness I would be rejecting Christ’s Death on the Cross for my sins… and if I were to revel in my unrighteousness with calloused disregard under the erroneous tenet that I can sin because Christ died for all the sins of “the Believers” (past, present, and future) I would be engaging in heresy.

Again – we (saved!) do sin, but our hearts so belong to Him that all sin drives us to our knees at His feet, begging both forgiveness and the power to overcome sin the next time.

So I am a Believer who can lose his Salvation;

How would you DO that? The answer is clear — “if we CONTINUE sinning willfully (become fleshly again!), Jesus’ sacrifice no longer covers us!” Heb10:26!!!

yet, in the Path to Holiness and Salvation. My continuous Fellowship in Christ allows me the Hope for Eternal Salvation–this Salvation is found Hidden in Christ:

We must cease thinking of salvation as a process, rather than what it is — “He has CANCELED our certificate of debt, having nailed it to the Cross!” Col2:14.

1Jn5:13 “he who has Jesus has eternal life, he who does not have Jesus has not the life.” He who has Jesus cannot be carnal!

What do you (or anyone else) think I’m missing?

It is interesting that not once did the Apostles boast of “saved” or “eternally saved” or “can’t lose salvation:”

…if “Salvation” (“Saved,” “Eternally Saved,” “Always Saved”) is a done deal, is the Holy Spirit not a complete dolt, helping man’s infirmity and interceding with unfathomable groans for that which has already been acquired?

It is a “done deal”, BUT — Peter puts it elegantly:

“an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1Pet1:4-5

The inheritance is a “done deal”, and it’s a FREE GIFT OF GRACE; he who receives it is fully saved now. BUT — we are protected by God’s power, through OUR continued faith – 1Pet1:9 “receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH salvation”.

Contrast 1Jn5 (“he who has Jesus has eternal life”, NOW, we can KNOW we HAVE eternal life) — WITH 2Jn1:7-9 “if we go too far and cease abiding in the teachings we (no longer!) have God!”

There is nothing unclear about these words that a “OSAS” person can still deny it, is there?

 

[Gadgeteer]

…yeah… I’m sidestepping this one.

That’s fine. Readers can see Lk12:50 and Mark10:38 assign “Jesus’ BAPTISM”, as having nothing to do with water; when it says “are you willing to be baptized with the baptism I’m baptized with” (clearly meaning “are you willing to be united with My death”), each can decide for himself or herself how Rom6:3-4 (“united with Him by baptism into death”) reflects Lk12:50 and Mk10:38, or switches and means water.

WOW… its like watching Laurel and Hardy meet the Three Stooges while bouncing off Abbott’s and Costello’s “whose on first?”

That’s right; try to pin them down on “how the Thirteeners (Lk8:13) wanted to be saved, and BELIEVED JOYFULLY”, and they’ll do all sorts of gyrations! Really goes against "they can only will to pursue sin because they are not sovereignly monergistically regenerated…"

That’s not what Jesus said!

I’m gonna look for a special Novena and repeat it once a month for a year… it will be my special prayer for their trek into God’s Wisdom!

Remember the fiction with which they perceive 2Pet3:9?

…what I find truly difficult is that these people are not just average joes and jills; they are quite intelligent (as it happens with atheists); yet, they do fall for that stronghold mentality… we need more Prayer Warriors!

Many have DEGREES from seminaries and other theological institutes! As I said, you cannot confront them with one or two verses; they hold nearly SIXTY “proof-text verses” in their arms, you have to answer every ONE of them, all at once!

Only when their arms are EMPTY, will they even start thinking, “Uhmmmm…”

 

[Gadgeteer]

If “impute” is the key word focused on

The CCC uses the word as follows

Impute:

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.

Excellently stated.

Imputed:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

And yet if we pursue sinlessness, we find ourselves on the same road as every other religion; and ourselves too weak to triumph. The essence of this thing we call “Christianity”, is CHRIST IN US. It is His power, and His overcoming by which we triumph (have already!).

We pursue HIM, and consequently we turn away from sin. Only He has the power, we do not…

Imputable:

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” He asked Cain the same question. The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

And we are required to “share the gospel with the world” — for if we fail to tell them of Jesus, then we have not just killed them, we have killed them forever. Yes there is one Savior, and we ain’t HIM. But:

“Save others, snatching them from the fire.” Jude23.
“How shall they believe in whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher?” Rm10:14

 

[Gadgeteer]

I would like to gain some insight and advice from the community. Particularly if you are a convert from the Reformed tradition. My brother-in-law is a fallen-away Catholic who is currently in a reformed community. We both have a monthly bible study group and we both try to attend each others group. This month his group his study is on a sermon by Charles Spurgeon titled: THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL. It’s based on the reformed understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

I’ve included a section of the sermon here. If you want to read it in it’s entirety you can here: The Heart of The Gospel by C. H. SPURGEON (Interestingly enough, the version he gave us to read is only part of the sermon from this link. I will be reading the entire sermon from the link)

I hovered over the “op” and reread the popup; thought it might be fun to reply again.

RT’s preach as if we have a choice in salvation — as you quoted Spurgeon, " he that believeth in Christ Jesus is made just and righteous". He that BELIEVETH? Who believes?!

RT claims God MACHINATES EVERYTHING. So God is puppeteering EVERYTHING, He’s making all men to be wicked and to be furnace-fuel (impossible for them to turn to Him), then He capriciously changes SOME so that their hearts only believe (can’t do nuthin’ else!). Therefore, the entire Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, is MERE PAGEANTRY – meaningless! 'Cause God is doing this giant SCREENPLAY! So God decides who believes and who does not, then God rewards OR punishes men for what HE actually decided (He’s a fraudulent judge, a hypocrite and insincere!)

What’s the point of even preaching, if God has already decided long ago who will live and who will burn – and there’s nothing we can do to change anything? I’ve never heard an RT give a credible answer to that…

I would like some advice on how to approach this. I have the understanding that Reformed theology on 2 Cor 5:21 is the following: Our sin was imputed to Christ, “making Him to be sin,” while on the other hand Christ’s perfect obedience was imputed to us, “making us the righteousness of God.” Given the option between Imputation and Infusion, we know that since Christ wasn’t literally made sin, we can certainly say sin wasn’t infused into Him, which thus makes imputation the only acceptable interpretation. Plus, in the immediate context Paul says God did not impute our sins to us (2 Cor. 5:19), indicating that God must have imputed our sins to somewhere else, namely to Christ’s account.

If you can get past the “God-decides-everything-we-can’t-change-anything” (and the violation that does to verses like Jude23, Rom14:15, Matt23:13-15 and so on), please see 1Jn2:2. Jesus is our propitiation – hilasmos, appeasement, propitiation. To please and make calm someone’s wrath. Rom2:4-5 says “we store wrath for ourselves by stubborn unrepentance”.

See Col2:14, He has canceled out our certificate of debt, with its charges against us and was hostile to us, He has removed it and nailed it to the Cross. “The wages of sin are death”, we earned spiritual death; someone had to die because of our sin, Jesus took our deserved place. :bighanky:

Having established the framework of imputation in Paul’s lesson, we can say that just as Jesus “becomes sin” (by imputation), the parallel must also hold true, namely that we “become the righteousness of God” in the same way (by a second imputation, received by faith alone). Here, in one concise verse, Paul is clearly describing a “double-imputation” going on, or a “Great Exchange” as many Protestants fondly refer to it. This is the essence of the Reformation teaching on Justification by Faith Alone.

Jesus never had sin-guilt; He bore our sins in His body (1Pet2:24), I believe really physically bore them. But they did not infect His soul as our sin infects ours (this is opinion). Conversely, we are to BE righteous — His righteousness actually changes our hearts, while our sin did not change His. When Isaiah61:10 says “He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness”, it’s far more than just a surface whitewash!

The problem is, this passage doesn’t really say that. First, the text does not suggest we become righteousness in the same way Jesus becomes sin, i.e. by a double imputation, because Paul uses two different Greek words here, “made [sin]” and “become [righteousness]”.

Also, the Bible never speaks of imputing sin from a sinner onto an innocent substitute, such that guilt is transferred from one person to another, so to say “made sin” refers to imputation has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Thus, Christ being “made sin” must be assumed to refer to something other than imputation.

It means He simply bore the punishment for our sins; and Peter did say “bore our sins in His body”. Thus – “made-sin”, sin necessitates a death-sentence, the only way they could have been removed from us was from someone’s death. And not just ANYONE’S death, it had to be by a perfect, innocent lamb.

Did I add anything helpful?

 

[Gadgeteer]

It’s like the Prodigal son story. The point that gets swept under the rug, in so many homilies,

Hi, Steve! Yes, it does. The coin may not have chosen to return, the sheep may not have chosen to return, but the Prodigal certainly did. It’s like 2Tim2:26, “if they may come to their senses” – the Prodigal came to his senses! (Per Reformed Theology, one does not “come to his senses”, his senses sovereignly from God come to HIM!)

Lk 15: 24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’

“Anazaō” (aorist active indicative) really does convey “again”.

• Was that son always the Father’s son? Yes.

Not really; when he was dead, he wasn’t actually a son. This against some OSAS advocates who argue, “He never stopped being his father’s SON (saved), did he?” A corpse is not a son. We cannot get around “lost and dead”, which is not compatible with “stayed-saved”…

• Did the Father love His son? Yes

• until that son returned however, that son was dead and lost to His Father while he was gone…

• Which means the son had choices. Forfeit everything was a real choice and a real possibility if he didn’t return to his Father and his family.

Exactly – excellent, Steve. The son repented and returned; complete choice.

Again, the last two verses in James’ letter — “If any among you wander away from the faith, and (if!) another leads him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way has saved a soul (psuche!) from death (thanatos!) and covered many sins.”

Seems pretty clear to me…

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Steve! Yes, it does. The coin may not have chosen to return, the sheep may not have chosen to return, but the Prodigal certainly did. It’s like 2Tim2:26, “if they may come to their senses” – the Prodigal came to his senses! (Per Reformed Theology, one does not “come to his senses”, his senses sovereignly from God come to HIM!)

“Anazaō” (aorist active indicative) really does convey “again”.

Not really; when he was dead, he wasn’t actually a son. This against some OSAS advocates who argue, “He never stopped being his father’s SON (saved), did he?” A corpse is not a son. We cannot get around “lost and dead”, which is not compatible with “stayed-saved”…

Exactly – excellent, Steve. The son repented and returned; complete choice.

Again, the last two verses in James’ letter — "If any among you wander away from the faith, and (if!) another leads him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way has saved a soul (psuche!) from death (thanatos!) and covered many sins."

Seems pretty clear to me…

Hi!

…not only clear but the “one” that leads back is not Yahweh God but another Brethren! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

…so… clearly, man does not only have the choice to seek God and cooperate with his own Salvation, but he can intercede for the Salvation of others!

…we, Catholics, call that the Communion of the Saints.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That’s right. But did they have the freedom to abandon Jesus and God? The only possible answer, has to be “yes”.

Jesus would have been crucified with or without Judas. He did not “have to be betrayed”…

Hi!

…these are two distinct issues… while the Twelve were free (given freewill) to reject/abandon Christ, only one of the Twelve was compelled to betray Christ (as prophecy mandated) and it is he, Judas, for whom Jesus did not pray as He did in the particular form as He did for Simon.

The erroneous belief that “if” Judas did not betray Jesus “everything” would have proceeded as Planned fails to consider that once set as a prophecy, the betrayal of the Son of man had to take place in order to fulfill Scriptures… everything had to be according to what was prophesied by God’s Word or His Word would mean practically nothing!

…though I know many will have issues… it is as saying that Jesus did not have to be born of a Virgin or, as some have argued, that He could have had married Mary of Magdala–this is ignoring God’s Divine Revelation and Divine Plan.

Yes – well – Judas had

to be held up for some reason.

Jesus: “YOU aren’t going to leave Me too, ARE you!”
Peter (paraphrased): “Of course not; we know You’re the Messiah.”
Jesus: “I chose all twelve of you, and one of you is a devil…”

How could Judas not connect with “leaving”?
I concur with the fact that Judas left… yet the Office was not to remain vacant and because of prophecy it could not be filled with Saul since he did not fulfilled the requirements (which forces us to revisit the issue of prophecy, Judas’ betrayal, and God’s Salvific Plan).

As we discussed, we are not supposed to live

in Rom7, but in Rom8.

Let me throw a verse at you:

“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Gal5:24
“Stauroō”, aorist active indicative. Statement of fact; “have-crucified-the-flesh”. They that are Christ’s — those who belong to Him.

Someone who is carnal, who has NOT crucified the flesh, does he still BELONG to Jesus? How could he?

The next verse admonishes “if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” – has to mean, "let us walk in salvation"! What else?
…again, this goes to understanding (vocabulary); if those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh (sin) then not only do Christians not sin but they are unable to sin; quite the crux of the matter since that would bring us to the OSAS theology and its derivatives…

In Catholic theology, one who Becomes a Christian is able to and does sin.

Since we do not hold to always saved theologies, a Christian, by walking according to the flesh (returning to sin/unrighteousness) loses Grace (his/her relationship with God, through Christ). Yet, it never means ‘Christians do not sin’ or ‘Christians have no sin in them.’

These passages are understood in that light; if we are of Christ we must endeavor to remain/walk in the Spirit (Holy Spirit); we must crucify our flesh (that which compels us to follow the allure of temptations and forces us to surrender to sin).

Silly – God tempts no one, each of us is tempted when enticed and carried away by our own lusts. Lust conceived births sin, and sin brings death; do not be deceived beloved brethren." See 1Cor10:12-13 — God graciously gives us an escape

to sin, but permits us to choose His escape, or the sin.
Correct! No way and no how would God enable us to sin; hence, there has to be another source/fountain: our frailty is in the flesh not the Spirit!:

41b The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ (St. Matthew 26:41b)

But it’s not really

forbidden? Back to 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21 — all say “Those who DO these things SHALL NOT INHERIT…”
This too goes to vocabulary; St. Paul is saying that: ‘no way and no how would God cause us to sin.’ He is not suggesting that God forbids us to employ “freewill.”

If we turn to sin, we must turn BACK to God — else we “die in our sins” and perish. Cold hard facts…

Correct! Nothing impure can enter into God’s Presence! Believers who sin must Repent (turn Back to God) and be holy (walk in the Light/Spirit):

30 House of Israel, in future I mean to judge each of you by what he does – it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks. Repent, renounce all your sins, avoid all occasions of sin! 31 Shake off all the sins you have committed against me, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why are you so anxious to die, House of Israel? 32 I take no pleasure in the death of anyone – it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks. Repent and live!

(Ezekiel 18:30-32)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No one ever said “anyone is sinless”; but “carnal”, by definition means walking IN sin. In what sense can “carnal” be separated from Rom8:12-13, “if I walk in the flesh I must die”?

No. Romans chapter 7 is PAST HISTORY — Paul DID the very things he did not want to do. The whole argument is ended with, “Wretched man that I am, who will FREE me from this war inside?” And Paul serves up the solution in the very next words, chapter eight: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, for the law of the Spirit of Life has set you free from the law of sin and death”. The law of the FLESH (sin and death!) has been BROKEN by the Cross! Now we choose to walk in the flesh (if we do we must die), or to walk in Christ HAVING CRUCIFIED THE FLESH.

Is Gal5:24 negotiable, Jcrichton?

Over and over we’re right back to the intimate UNION between believer, and Creator, that is the essence of salvation! We either belong to Christ (and have CRUCIFIED the flesh), or we are carnal and do NOT belong to Christ. Where is the “fence-straddling”?

Again – we (saved!) do sin, but our hearts so belong to Him that all sin drives us to our knees at His feet, begging both forgiveness and the power to overcome sin the next time.

How would you DO that? The answer is clear — “if we CONTINUE sinning willfully (become fleshly again!), Jesus’ sacrifice no longer covers us!” Heb10:26!!!
We must cease thinking of salvation as a process, rather than what it is — “He has CANCELED our certificate of debt, having nailed it to the Cross!” Col2:14.

1Jn5:13 “he who has Jesus has eternal life, he who does not have Jesus has not the life.” He who has Jesus cannot be carnal!

What do you (or anyone else) think I’m missing?

It is a “done deal”, BUT — Peter puts it elegantly:

“an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1Pet1:4-5

The inheritance is a “done deal”, and it’s a FREE GIFT OF GRACE; he who receives it is fully saved now. BUT — we are protected by God’s power, through OUR continued faith – 1Pet1:9 “receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH salvation”.

Contrast 1Jn5 (“he who has Jesus has eternal life”, NOW, we can KNOW we HAVE eternal life) — WITH 2Jn1:7-9 “if we go too far and cease abiding in the teachings we (no longer!) have God!”

There is nothing unclear about these words that a “OSAS” person can still deny it, is there?

Hi!

…we are arguing for the same cause… only thing is that we use different terms (vocabulary); we both agree that there’s no such thing as OSAS–there never was. Salvation is Eternal and will never be revoked; but, it is Hidden in Christ. All men (humanity) have access to it:

13 But now in Christ Jesus, you that used to be so far apart from us have been brought very close, by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is the peace between us, and has made the two into one and broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart, actually destroying in his own person the hostility 15 caused by the rules and decrees of the Law. This was to create one single New Man in himself out of the two of them and by restoring peace 16 through the cross, to unite them both in a single Body and reconcile them with God; In his own person he killed the hostility. 17 Later he came to bring the good news of peace, peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near at hand. 18 Through him, both of us have in the one Spirit our way to come to the Father. 19 So you are no longer aliens or foreign visitors: you are citizens like all the saints, and part of God’s household. 20 You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets*c] for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone. 21 As every structure is aligned on him, all grow into one holy temple in the Lord; 22 and you too, in him, are being built into a house where God lives, in the Spirit.

(Ephesians 2:13-22)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That’s fine. Readers can see Lk12:50 and Mark10:38 assign “Jesus’ BAPTISM”, as having nothing to do with water; when it says “are you willing to be baptized with the baptism I’m baptized with” (clearly meaning “are you willing to be united with My death”), each can decide for himself or herself how Rom6:3-4 (“united with Him by baptism into death”) reflects Lk12:50 and Mk10:38, or switches and means water.

Hi!

…well for that exegesis to work we would have to hold that all Christians during all times will suffer persecution and death as Jesus did–otherwise it would be as symbolic as the saying: ‘I was there when they Crucified my Lord…’

Conversely it would make the command of water Baptism an exercise in superfluity:

37 Hearing this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the apostles, ‘What must we do, brothers?’ 38 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered ‘and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 2:37-38)

45 Jewish believers who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit should be poured out on the pagans too, 46 since they could hear them speaking strange languages and proclaiming the greatness of God. Peter himself then said, 47 ‘Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now they have received the Holy Spirit just as much as we have?’ 48 He then gave orders for them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterwards they begged him to stay on for some days. (Acts 10:45-48)

30 and escorted them out, saying, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ 31 They told him, ‘Become a believer in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and your household too’. 32 Then they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all his family. 33 Late as it was, he took them to wash their wounds, and was baptised then and there with all his household. (Acts 16:30-33)
It is by receiving Baptism that a person is able to partake in Christ’s Suffering and Crucifixion. The early persecution of the Church would forcibly mandate that Jesus’ Apostles suffer and be put to death; yet, not all of Christ’s Followers would suffer similar persecutions, sufferings, and martyrdom–so it could hardly be said that the Apostles point to Christ Suffering and Crucifixion as the Baptism that all Believers receive and in which unites them to the Body (Christ).

That’s right; try to pin them down on "how the Thirteeners (Lk8:13) wanted

to be saved, and BELIEVED JOYFULLY", and they’ll do all sorts of gyrations! Really goes against "they can only will to pursue sin because they are not sovereignly monergistically regenerated…"

That’s not what Jesus said!

Remember the fiction with which they perceive 2Pet3:9?

Many have DEGREES from seminaries and other theological institutes! As I said, you cannot confront them with one or two verses; they hold nearly SIXTY “proof-text verses” in their arms, you have to answer every ONE of them, all at once!

Only when their arms are EMPTY, will they even start thinking, “Uhmmmm…”
…it would be glorious to have such complete union that there in deed be One Gospel amongst all Christians.

…yet, the confusion is so deeply ingrained in individual Christian groups as that of a person who, today, was lecturing me about ethics and respect… in his drunken stupor he finally pronounced that he was an angel among evil people and that he was the lion that set the rules in this territory (the place where we were)… the only thing I was able to gain was to have his attention turned towards me and away from the lady he was hounding…

If I could turn everyone’s attention to the Word of God… that would be something!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

Hi, Steve! Yes, it does. The coin may not have chosen to return, the sheep may not have chosen to return, but the Prodigal certainly did. It’s like 2Tim2:26, “if they may come to their senses” – the Prodigal came to his senses! (*Per Reformed Theology, one does not “come to his senses”, his senses *sovereignly from God come to HIM!)

Ah, reformed theology.

in spite of what they say,

the son who was a prodigal, didn’t stop being the father’s son as a prodigal son. If he died as a prodigal son, he was screwed. But although screwed, he was still his father’s son. For support of that, when the prodigal returned, what did the father say?

This idiot has returned, and NOW he’s become my son again? No.

He said
*
Lk 15:
24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry.

The prodigal son never stopped being his father’s son
G:

Not really; when he was dead, he wasn’t actually a son. This against some OSAS advocates who argue, “He never stopped being his father’s SON (saved), did he?” A corpse is not a son. We cannot get around “lost and dead”, which is not compatible with “stayed-saved”…

OSAS folks, think a son can’t be lost. A son can only be the one saved. That’s the problem with OSAS Protestant theory.
G:

Exactly – excellent, Steve. The son repented and returned; complete choice.

Again, the last two verses in James’ letter — “If any among you wander away from the faith, and (if!) another leads him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way has **saved a soul **(psuche!) from death (thanatos!) and covered many sins.”

Seems pretty clear to me…

In this case of the prodigal son, what changed the prodigal’s mind to repent and come home?

The prodigal said

Lk 15:
he squandered his property in loose living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want. 15 So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would gladly have fed on**(“Lk15 RSVCE - The Parable of the Lost Sheep - Now the - Bible Gateway”)] the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything. 17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father."

Note:

• This son’s father is still his father, and this son is still his father’s son.
• This is about repentance of a prodigal son, and from that repentance, came forgiveness from his father. What if there was No repentance on the son’s part? The prodigal son was screwed.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…not only clear but the “one” that leads back is not Yahweh God but another Brethren! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

…so… clearly, man does not only have the choice to seek God and cooperate with his own Salvation, but he can intercede for the Salvation of others!

Yes! Jude3:23, we can SAVE others DIVERTING those who absolutely were heading towards the fire!

Conversely, we can DESTROY those for whom Christ died, Rom14:15, 1Cor8:11, Matt23:13-15!

…we, Catholics, call that the Communion of the Saints.

Is this not precisely the command in Mark16:15? In that, we are to “encourage one another lest any of US become hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God; for we are partners in Christ IF we HOLD FAST the beginning of our assurance firm until the end”!

(Heb3:12-14)

(…how many do you think will catch that I quoted from Jude chapter three???)

 

[Gadgeteer]

…these are two distinct issues… while the Twelve were free (given freewill) to reject/abandon Christ, only one of the Twelve was compelled to betray Christ (as prophecy mandated) and it is he, Judas, for whom Jesus did not pray as He did in the particular form as He did for Simon.
.
.
…I concur with the fact that Judas left…

Hi, JCR. “Judas left” — and he could not leave a place he had never been. Jesus using Judas as an example in Jn6:70, is one of the boldest refutations of “OSAS” there is. Jesus only held out Judas to dispute Peter’s claim, “we-cannot-leave”. By what gymnastics or prestidigitation can one claim “Jesus was not opposing Peter’s protest-of-loyalty”?

None. Of course Jesus was. And that only makes sense if Judas was once saved.

yet the Office was not to remain vacant and because of prophecy it could not be filled with Saul since he did not fulfilled the requirements (which forces us to revisit the issue of prophecy, Judas’ betrayal, and God’s Salvific Plan).

…again, this goes to understanding (vocabulary); if those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh (sin) then not only do Christians not sin but they are unable to sin; quite the crux of the matter since that would bring us to the OSAS theology and its derivatives…

This does not interact with the discrepancy between “we-who-belong-have-crucified-our-flesh”, and the idea that we can be “carnal/walking-in-the-flesh-saved”.

Only those who belong to Jesus have eternal life.
Only those who have crucified the flesh, belong to Jesus.
Those who are fleshly, have not crucified their flesh, and they do not belong to Jesus (nor have eternal life)…

In Catholic theology, one who Becomes a Christian is able to and does sin.

Not just Catholic theology — Scripture blatantly says the same thing.

Since we do not hold to always saved theologies, a Christian, by walking according to the flesh (returning to sin/unrighteousness) loses Grace (his/her relationship with God, through Christ). Yet, it never means ‘Christians do not sin’ or ‘Christians have no sin in them.’

And that’s the whole meaning of “apostasy” — losing grace, his/her relationship (fellowship!) with God.

These passages are understood in that light; if we are of Christ we must endeavor to remain/walk in the Spirit (Holy Spirit); we must crucify our flesh (that which compels us to follow the allure of temptations and forces us to surrender to sin).

And the converse applies — those who do not walk in the Spirit, but who walk in the flesh, are not — “of Christ”…

Correct! No way and no how would God enable us to sin; hence, there has to be another source/fountain: our frailty is in the flesh not the Spirit!

Here is the dynamic of our lives; it is by the SPIRIT’S power that we put to death the flesh — Rom8:13.

It’s the same in 2Tim1:12-14 — we guard by the Spirit the treasure (eternal life!) entrusted to us…

But it’s not really

forbidden? Back to 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21 — all say "Those who DO these things SHALL NOT INHERIT…"This too goes to vocabulary; St. Paul is saying that: ‘no way and no how would God cause us to sin.’ He is not suggesting that God forbids us to employ “freewill.”

We’re faced with a choice — you and I agree Scripture teaches “we cannot walk in sin and be considered Christ’s”. So then we have to decide, are verses like Rom8:12-13 (“if we walk in the flesh we must die”) absolute? Can we exert exceptions to Rom8:12-13, and then extend them to 1Cor3:1-3 (“carnal Christians who are filled with jealousy and strife”) and Gal5 (those who engage in jealousy and strife will not inherit)?

It would seem wiser to study Scripture first, and then form doctrines — than to cling to doctrines that impose exceptions and exemptions on what the Apostles wrote.

Wouldn’t it?

Correct! Nothing impure can enter into God’s Presence! Believers who sin must Repent (turn Back to God) and be holy (walk in the Light/Spirit): (citation Ezk18:30-32

Good citation. And – we “walk in repentance”, and do not walk in sin; yes we (the saved!) sin, but we do not practice sin.

“No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” 1Jn3:6-10