Regeneration/Born-Again

[itsjustdave1988]

Ch. 15 states,

“… it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith be not lost”

This is to refute that weird teaching of Martin Luther which he wrote in a letter to his friend Philip Melanchthon on August 1, 1521, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

Errrrr…no. :nope: Is it a surprise to any that Luther had trouble with antinomianism???

Jesus taught, “Go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11)

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

Ch. 15 states,

This is to refute that weird teaching of Martin Luther which he wrote in a letter to his friend Philip Melanchthon on August 1, 1521, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

Errrrr…no. :nope: Is it a surprise to any that Luther had trouble with antinomianism???

Jesus taught, “Go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11)

As I have pointed out over and over and will point out yet again, antinomianism is incompatible with Luther’s teaching as a whole. Luther explicitly says in the Lectures on Galatians that if we do not resist the desires of the flesh we will lose our faith in Christ and ultimately (if we do not repent) be damned.

Anyone who uses that letter to Melanchthon as the main source for their understanding of Luther’s soteriology has no real interest in understanding Luther.

I’ll grant you that Luther thought a believer could sin gravely and remain in sin for some time without breaking his saving relationship with Christ (David and Bathsheba being an example). I don’t think Luther guarded sufficiently against antinomianism. But the fact is that he believed that in the end either the believer would repent and abandon his life of sin or would abandon faith in Christ and be damned. Grave sin might be compatible with true faith in the short term, but not in the long term. And elsewhere (in the sermons on the Sermon on the Mount) Luther endorses (as a matter of practical application) the traditional understanding of mortal and venial sin with regard to lustful thoughts (if you don’t deliberately dwell on the thoughts, you have not committed a mortal sin). Consistency was not Luther’s strong point. Which makes an attempt to characterize Luther in terms of one exaggerated statement all the more reprehensible.

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Faith is faith.

You would think so.

bene7:

The difference lies in who/what one puts his faith in.

Typically it is not a good idea to use the word which one is defining to clarify its meaning.

bene7:

Scripture is clear in that putting ones faith/trust in the Person and work of Jesus Christ

Putting it how exactly? How is that trust “placed” in Him? It should be ones entire life that is placed into His care, no? Anything less than that is not fully trusting Him, it’s only mostly trusting Him. Does it matter, in your opinion, how much that trust is actually placed in him? Is it all or nothing? I think you would say its all or nothing. Yet if I fail to live a life that reveals full trust by failing to follow his commands, can I still have confidence to know that I “fully” trust in Him, or is there some other measure by which I may know that I fully trust Him? I know you don’t like to nitpick on such stuff, but it is confusing to the mind which God gave me.

bene7:
And that is exactly why I don’t interpret Matt. 24:13 in a soteriological sense, by the mere fact of you’ve astutely pointed out - “will be saved.”
I know. Its valid, but it is based upon the presupposition that your understanding of soteriology is correct. Such an approach is reading INTO the text what you EXPECT it to say. You reject it as referring to salvation because it contradicts your notion of salvation, whereas someone who has a different notion of salvation wouldn’t necessarily “need” to interpret it the way that you do. You have to admit that is a backwards way of interpreting…

bene7:
I don’t know if I said it in this thread or another, but no where is a man ever said to be saved through/by self-endurance.

I don’t think anyone has made that claim. I think the point is that when you start saying salvation is by “faith alone” it raises some confusion on how all the other times saving/salvation is brought up with respect to other things - you and Pax had a lengthy discussion on this. Endurance is not the cause of salvation it is the fruit of faith. When you are not enduring, you need to question why your faith is not bearing fruit, rather than saying to yourself, "Oh well, thank God that Jesus has done it all so that I don’t need to worry that my faith is barren and fruitless - I am saved because I believe in Him and I don’t need to change my behaviour.

bene7:
That verse, IN CONTEXT, is in reference to those who are living and going through the events/signs that take place at “the end of the age” (see vs. 3). Jesus Himself describes that time as a “great tribulation such has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (i.e., occur again). Context always defines the meaning of a word. And in this context, “saved” cannot be meant in its soteriological sense of redemption of one’s soul, but the one who endures (to the end) through those horrific times on earth will be spared his physical life.
I don’t quite see that. If we interpret the passage as you say, then the sentence becomes redundant: He who physically endures will physically endure - doesn’t it? You can dress it up with different terms like “He who survives will live”, but that is still redundant IMHO.
In addition, the verse (13) is in contrast to verse 12 where…“and because of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold… but he who endures will be saved.” I don’t see any reason to assume that the reward for enduring (in love) will be the sparing of your physical life. There are plenty of reasons to believe he is referring to eternal life. Saving one’s physical life is not the gospel message and I can’t think of one good reason for it to be in Scripture.

Con’d

 

[bene7]

1. Another sense of salvation is when one is “advancing from virtue to virtue” [Ps. 83:8], or “they are renewed from day to day” [2 Cor 4:16] (“being saved” present tense)

In 2 Cor. 4:16 Paul is not talking about “being saved” as “renewing” his salvation day by day. Or even increasing his justification. It is said in the context of Paul having to endure the hardships of his commission of taking the Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. In in the presence of those difficulties he’s always aware that even physical death could be his at any moment (see vs. 14). But he gives thanks that through his physical hardships the grace of God is spreading to more and more people, therefore he does not lose heart (vs. 14-16). And though his “outer man” (body) is decaying, at the same time his “inner man,” is being renewed daily. In other words, as his earthly faculties fade through hardships, the things of the Spirit become more and more real to him. This is the process of experiential sanctification for believers who “walk by faith and not by sight.”

Catholics often quote 1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 Cor. 2:15 as “proof texts” for the idea of salvation/justification being a process, finished only at the end of one’s life of endurance:

1CO 1:18 “For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

2CO 2:15 “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing;”

It’s true saved is expressed in a present, continuous tense, but this, in context, must be understood not in a “durative” sense (in the Catholic sense that one is continually “being” saved through self-endurance, obedience and love), but in a “frequentative” sense. “Those who are perishing” (also in the present tense) portrays a constant stream of the lost toppling into eternity without Christ. While at the same time there is a constant steam (but fewer) of the saved entering the door of eternal fellowship with Christ through faith. Men are constantly coming to Christ by faith while others are constantly dying without Him.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Yes, Phil, I fully understand there is a “big difference” between us: you’ve chosen “a path,” whereas I’ve chosen Christ.

What are you saying here, my friend? I would assume you are saying that I haven’t chosen Christ? Such judgemental blindness - it puts everything else you say into context. Please be a little more considerate - it would be better to say that you are concerned for me that my faith is not in Christ.

bene7:
You believe that by enduring that “path” it will get you there, whereas I believe that God, through Christ, via the cross, has already brought me there.
Actually that is simply what you believe I believe. I believe he has brought me there, is bringing me there and will bring me there.

bene7:
P.S. You misrepresented me in another thread stating that I believed that Jesus was not raised with the same body in which He died. Yet the point I was emphatically making throughout that thread was that He WAS raised in the SAME physical body in which He died. Just thought I’d clear that up.

Im sorry if I misrepresented you - forgive me. Part of the reason for the confusion stems from the fact that when you say that Christ rose in “exactly the same physical body” that implies, as I repeatedly tried to convey, that you are referring to the atomic/molecular complex of his body, right? Once you do that then we need to understand where these atoms are. I know that is a ridiculous thought, but it is also an accurate one once you get into such a discussion. Are they in heaven outside of time? Christ multiplied loaves and fish - ie, matter. You felt the concept of the Eucharist contradicted the nature of his resurrection body, ie matter. I simply didn’t see why the master of creation could not multiply his own body the way he multiplied other matter and thereby be present in the Eucharist.

Peace,
Phil

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky:

If you read Dave’s response to my post, he himself admits the truth of what I say.

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmmm…let me help you exegete my post…

I admitted that only the justfied will be rewarded in heaven. One must be made just by God before merit (in the positive sense) can occur.

I too, have stated that only the justified, or saved, will be rewarded in heaven; that is not the issue.

You simply cannot provide any scripture in response to bene’s question; the reason for that is quite simple: you have just spent the better part of a day denying that justification is meritorious, unless you are now changing your mind. Are you?

So your reponse should be, that you cannot provide any scripture that speaks to justification/salvation as being a reward, because there is none; justification/salvation is a GIFT.

itsjustdave1988:

Yet you implied Catholicism teaches one can merit their justification after they have fallen into mortal sin. Either you simply made that up or you are poorly exegeting Catholic teaching again.

Dave, what is penance? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Catholic understanding is that it is something that you must do, after confession, to regain your justification. In other words, do the penance, merit re-justification.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Antinomian: one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation (Merriam-Webster)

Antinomianism was all the rage after Luther proclaimed justification to be based upon faith alone. Luther struggled to refute it, but when one hears “faith alone,” antinomianism can easily result, and it still persists today.

Dave, this is a red-herring. I am not antinomian, nor do I know any antinomians. Your point is moot, and you would do well to consider Edwin’s post #201.

I am not interested in the errors of Luther, but in the errors of Dave.

except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen for Himself.

itsjustdave1988:

This is counter to the Protestant claim that one can know with absolute certainty that they are among the elect. Calvinists often fall into this error. I knew a Presbyterian Pastor who claimed that he knew he was among the elect because of the conviction in him given to him by God. He was more than hopeful, but said he was absolutely certain he was among the elect, since he was “once saved, always saved.” Sadly, something happened (political or regarding money raising, its hard to get him to say), and he quit being a Pastor, and he now claims to be an atheist, and despite many discussions with him, he is still unconvinced that God even exists.

My other Calvinist friends insist he must not have really been among the elect. If that’s the case, it appears “eternal security” has no real meaning in Calvinist theology, as he surely thought he was “once saved always saved” all through his years before and during seminary and his years as a Presbyterian Pastor. It seems merely “thinking” you’re saved doesn’t quite suffice, which begs the question, how does a Calvinist really know?

Catholics too cannot know with absolute assurance that they have been given the gift of final perseverance. That would be presumptuous in our view. Instead, we are called to pray for such a gift, and to hope for it. Hope is set squarely in the middle of the two sinful extremes of presumption and despair.

I know many Catholics, priests, and nuns, who have fallen away from the Catholic faith as well; in fact, there are many books written by many of them, Dave. What is your point?

To attempt to argue that because someone falls from a “said faith,” as James talks about, into atheism, that all of scripture is wrong, and that eternal security cannot be known, is sophomoric.

Scripture speaks, in no uncertain terms, to the security of the believer.

I know that I am saved, and that my eternal destiny is secure, because of James statements as to the fruits of true faith in James 2. That is how I know.

I also know, that God promises security to the believer, and that His promises in Christ are yes. I know that you think that it is presumptuous, but I think it is presumptuous to think that one can lose something that is given as a gift. Again, the God of the bible is not an Indian giver.

The hope the biblical writers speak of is not a “hope so,” but a confident hope, in the promises of God. It is all of God, divine accomplishment, in which my faith rests.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

As I have pointed out over and over and will point out yet again, antinomianism is incompatible with Luther’s teaching as a whole.

I agree, and if you read my prior posts, I assert that Luther attempted to refute antinomianism. However, Luther’s lack of clarity and “faith alone” is what I believe advanced antinomianism in Protestant sects, despite his effort to refute it.

If you speak to antinomians today, they will tell you that they are taking “faith alone” literally. You and I may think that is absurd, but that’s their story and their stickin’ to it.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

The hope the biblical writers speak of is not a “hope so,” but a confident hope, in the promises of God. It is all of God, divine accomplishment, in which my faith rests.

It is a confident hope, but not an absolute certain one. Paul, himself, states, “3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed,** I do not even judge myself**. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” It just cracks me up that you continue to try to teach this false doctrine and explain away the overwhelming Scriptural evidence. Paul teaches we can have a moral certainty, but NOT an absolute one. If anyone could have had an ABSOLUTE certainty, it was Paul. He states that he doesn’t even “judge” himself, because he is not “innocent”.

What is Paul talking about in 1 Cor 9:22-27? Paul states, “22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” Now I realize that the only reason I ask these questions is because I “don’t know Scripture”, but seriously what is the race? What is the prize? This verse is clearly in the context of salvation, but I know you will spin it anyway. I’m just intently waiting to hear this attempt at explaining the “plain meaning” of Scripture away.

What is Paul talking about in Phil 2:12-13 when he states, “12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your SALVATION with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” What is this other than God’s grace making our works meritorious? Are they meritorious apart from grace? No! But, in a state of grace, the Scripture is clear that they are. Your position goes against Scripture, 2000 years of Church history, and good common sense.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

It is a confident hope, but not an absolute certain one.

You are absolutely wrong. In biblical lingo, it is an assured confidence, and not a “hope so,” which is the hope you have.

Redbandito:

Paul, himself, states, “3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” It just cracks me up that you continue to try to teach this false doctrine and explain away the overwhelming Scriptural evidence. Paul teaches we can have a moral certainty, but NOT an absolute one. If anyone could have had an ABSOLUTE certainty, it was Paul. He states that doesn’t even “judge” himself, because he is not innocent.

You miss everything; Paul is not talking about his salvation.

Redbandito:

What is Paul talking about in 1 Cor 9:22-27? Paul states, “22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” Now I realize that the only reason I ask these questions is because I “don’t know Scripture”, but seriously what is the race? What is the prize?

His work, living his life. Paul is not at all worried about his salvation. Salvation is not a race, it is a possession.

Redbandito:

What is Paul talking about in Phil 2:12-13 when he states, “12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your SALVATION with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” What is this other than God’s grace making our works meritorious?

Again, you miss the whole point. None of those verses speak to “meritorious works,” you talk that into them.

Notice who is doing the work in v13. There is no merit on your part.

Let me ask you:

John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Redbandito, are you saying that Jesus is wrong in the statement above, as to the present possession of eternal life by the believer, or do you believe that “eternal life” is “temporary” and can be lost? I submit that if the eternal life that Christ has given to the believer can be lost, then Jesus has lied.

John 6:39
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Does Jesus have the power and authority to lose nothing, as the Father has charged Him? You realize here, that Jesus is taking absolute responsibility for the believer’s eternal security, don’t you? Do you believe that He can do that, Redbandito?

John 10:26-29
26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Do you notice where eternal life comes from? Do you notice the consequence of that—that those who possess it will never perish?

Do you believe Jesus teaching? Do you believe that He has the power to keep His from perishing, Redbandito? Or do you think that He is mistaken.

Jeremiah 32:40
40 “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Do you think that God has the power to put a fear/respect into the heart of those who are His, so much so, that they will never turn away from Him? Or, Redbandito, do you think that God is just full of hot air concerning His promises to those who are His?

(Edited uncharitable remark)

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You are absolutely wrong. In biblical lingo, it is an assured confidence, and not a “hope so,” which is the hope you have.

You miss everything; Paul is not talking about his salvation.

By all means Sandusky, do enlighten us to what he is speaking about then.

sandusky:

His work, living his life. Paul is not at all worried about his salvation.

What? Not a good rebuttal. You’re going to have to do better.

sandusky:

Again, you miss the whole point. None of those verses speak to “meritorious works,” you talk that into them.

Notice who is doing the work in v13. There is no merit on your part.

Again? You have done nothing but restate your thesis without addressing the context. Good try, but you seem to be the one who doesn’t understand “biblical lingo”. When confronted with irrefutable Biblical evidence, you retreat to your thesis. This is both a dishonest and just plain poor attempt at apologetics on your part. Furthermore, you ignored the sentence that addressed your last statement. You just ignore the parts you can’t refute. It may help you sleep at night, but you aren’t convincing anyone else. Just for a reminder on what I stated, **“Are they meritorious apart from grace? No! But, in a state of grace, the Scripture is clear that they are.” **I think that this states very clearly that it is grace that allows my works to be meritorious. Grace comes from God. I acknowledge He is doing the work. You “are not paying attention”.

sandusky:

Let me ask you:

John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Redbandito, are you saying that Jesus is wrong in the statement above, as to the present possession of eternal life by the believer, or do you believe that “eternal life” is “temporary” and can be lost? I submit that if the eternal life that Christ has given to the believer can be lost, then Jesus has lied.

No, I agree completely with what Jesus said. I just don’t read my theology back into the text as you do. What Jesus did not say here was that this was a one time belief. That is an assumption on your part, and an unacknowledged one. Secondly, it does not say that it is by this ALONE that we will receive “life”. If I wanted to take 1 pet 3:20-21 out of context, I could say we are only saved by baptism (20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgee] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ). I don’t do that though. I take the canonical approach to Scripture. You should try it some time.

John 6:39
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Does Jesus have the power and authority to lose nothing, as the Father has charged Him? You realize here, that Jesus is taking absolute responsibility for the believer’s eternal security, don’t you? Do you believe that He can do that, Redbandito?.

This begs the question. You are reading into the text what is not there. This does not specify who he is speaking of, other than what “He has given Me”. I believe this to be speaking of the person who has received the grace of final perserverance- the true elect. It begs the question, because this is one of the very issues we are at odds on. Can we know if we are OSAS? Thus, you continue to assume what you are trying to prove. You’re caught in one big circular argument, and you can’t even see it. Furthermore, Jesus does not state here that it is solely the “believer’s eternal security”, at least not as you define believer. But yes, I do believe Jesus will take absolute responsibility for the elect He is speaking of here.

 

[Redbandito]

Continued…

John 10:26-29
*26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. *
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Do you notice where eternal life comes from? Do you notice the consequence of that—that those who possess it will never perish?

Do you believe Jesus teaching? Do you believe that He has the power to keep His from perishing, Redbandito? Or do you think that He is mistaken.

You are the master of Eisagesis. Again, He does not specify who His sheep are. Yes, this is true for the one who receives the grace of final perserverance. It just doesn’t give us any way of absolutely know who those are. Nice attempt though. Furthermore, while it says nobody can “snatch them out of the Father’s hand”, it does not say that I “cannot willfully choose to walk away myself”. Come on Sandusky. These are the typical Evangelical proof texts, and they prove nothing except that you are as guilty as Catholics of viewing Scripture through the eyes of tradition. The difference is your’s is man-made and the Catholic Tradition is of Apostolic origin.

Jeremiah 32:40
40 “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Do you think that God has the power to put a fear/respect into the heart of those who are His, so much so, that they will never turn away from Him? Or, Redbandito, do you think that God is just full of hot air concerning His promises to those who are His?

You know what cracks me up, is how hard you kick against the goads of scriptural truth.

Same issue Sandusky. See the above replies. And just as a side note, your questions are so elementary. Are you Mormon? These are the types of questions they ask the people they evangelize. “Do I really believe God has the power to put fear/respect into the heart…?” Yes, I believe that, as if it were the issue we disagreed on. The question is who those people are. You are sidestepping the issue, and doing a poor job at that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

Dave, what is penance? Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Catholic understanding is that it is something that you must do, after confession, to regain your justification. In other words, do the penance, merit re-justification.

You are wrong.

Penance comes from the he Latin word *poenitentia, *which means “repentance.” It the context you are using it, it is a deed of repentance prescribed the Church AFTER one is forgiven of their sins and already in a state of justification. According to Acts 20:26, we are to “*repent and turn to God and perform *deeds worthy of their repentance.”That’s what an act of penance is. But it occurs in every instance AFTER one is already forgiven and justified. In fact, if you accidentally forget to do your penance, you are still forgiven and justified.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I know many … priests, and nuns, who have fallen away from the Catholic faith as well; in fact, there are many books written by many of them…

Id like a list of those books if you don’t mind. I asked for such a list before and never got any responses. There are tons of books where solid - often seminary trained - Protestant pastors or laypeople have converted to Catholicism at great cost, but I cant find the books of solid, educated, faithful Catholics who converted to Protestantism. I find this odd - or telling, Im not sure which yet.

Thanks

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

You are the master of Eisagesis. Again, He does not specify who His sheep are. Yes, this is true for the one who receives the grace of final perserverance. It just doesn’t give us any way of absolutely know who those are. Nice attempt though. Furthermore, while it says nobody can “snatch them out of the Father’s hand”, it does not say that I “cannot willfully choose to walk away myself”.

You are a screamer.

No one is a universal negative. It means, no one, not even the believer; if the believer walked away, he would be “snatching” himself out of the Father’s hand. The language does not allow for your error; nice try, though.

Redbandito:

Come on Sandusky. These are the typical Evangelical proof texts, and they prove nothing except that you are as guilty as Catholics of viewing Scripture through the eyes of tradition. The difference is your’s is man-made and the Catholic Tradition is of Apostolic origin.

Interesting that you assume guilt for your tradition (open mouth, insert foot). Remember that.

Your gravest error is, that you will not acknowledge that the ground of the believer’s justification is the vicarious work of Christ for us, not the gracious work of the Spirit in us.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Penance comes from the he Latin word poenitentia, which means “repentance.” It the context you are using it, it is a deed of repentance prescribed the Church AFTER one is forgiven of their sins and already in a state of justification. According to Acts 20:26, we are to “repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.”That’s what an act of penance is. But it occurs in every instance AFTER one is already forgiven and justified. In fact, if you accidentally forget to do your penance, you are still forgiven and justified.

Yes, Dave, penance is Latin, and is not from the Greek texts at all.

Repentance and penance are two completely different things, Dave.

 

[wpr]

You are absolutely wrong. In biblical lingo, it is an assured confidence, and not a “hope so,” which is the hope you have.

You miss everything; Paul is not talking about his salvation.

His work, living his life. Paul is not at all worried about his salvation. Salvation is not a race, it is a possession.

Again, you miss the whole point. None of those verses speak to “meritorious works,” you talk that into them.

I’m not buying your argument here Sandusky. Paul clearly means his salvation. That salvation is a possession is your opinion. In fact, I thought salvation was God’s to give, not yours to assume. He’s in charge right?

Furthermore, I sincerely do not appreciate the “back door” you leave open for yourself by insisting that OSAS is true because only “beleivers” are saved and among the elect. Yet, one cannot be sure one is of the elect by your own admission.

You act as though Paul spoke in code to “believers” among those he was writing to. Again, your notion is absurd. He was writing a Pastoral letter, not a secret code for salvation.

You are twisted like a pretzel. I’m sure glad its clear in your mind though.

 

[wpr]

b]John 5:24

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

I submit that if the eternal life that Christ has given to the believer can be lost, then Jesus has lied.

Sandusky,

First, what about “hears My word”. What were His words? Also, he’s not done yet. Look to the end of Christs speech and take note of vs 28~29. Why does He continue as he did? What about those pesky Jews? Any idea?

Second, how do you arrive at the conclusion that justification is imputed and irrevocable through “faith alone” from this Scripture. I don’t see it.

You accuse us of making Christ a liar? That’s a pretty serious charge. On that note, I have a few questions for you.

At what point do we know that our faith will persavere such that we can undoubtedly declare ourselves irrevocably saved?

when you bring someone into your faith do you instruct him immediately if he “beleives” that the Bible teaches he is irrevocably saved? Do you let him know that if he rejects Christ falling back to his old ways that you will reconcile that he was never a true believer and thus never really one of the elect?

You may say, “not I, but the Lord”. But who do you present yourself as? Do you not represent yourself as one knowlegeable in interpretting God’s Word? The believer takes his confidence from you. You told the guy he was irrevocably saved by your interpretation of Scripture. It’s God’s Word, but your human interpretation!

In my view it makes you at best disingenuous.

Dave’s Pastor friend is an example. How many did he lead astray? He was wrong about his own status!

b]John 6:39

39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Nothing can take away those whom the Father gave to Christ. So what’s the problem? It says nothing of those that, of their free will, reject the Spirit. Or does God not wish all to be saved? (think it through, is the Spirit stingy?)

Where’s the irrevocable imputed salvation? I don;t see it. Your assumption must lie in that the words “all that He has given” may be substituted with “all who received one time imputed irrevocable justification.” How do you get there?

Does Jesus have the power and authority to lose nothing, as the Father has charged Him? You realize here, that Jesus is taking absolute responsibility for the believer’s eternal security, don’t you?

Not at all. “Those He has given me” is past tense. You have no way of telling me what that past tense time refers to. Making a leap to it had to be the “one time imputed irrevocable salvation” is your own interpretation.

John 10:26-29
26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Do you notice where eternal life comes from? Do you notice the consequence of that—that those who possess it will never perish?

Do you believe Jesus teaching? Do you believe that He has the power to keep His from perishing, Redbandito? Or do you think that He is mistaken.

Again, I don’t see your point. Jesus just told the Jews that “they are not among His sheep.” and then “My Sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me.”

So how do you leap from “I know them and they follow me” to “I imputed them with irrevocable justification?” How did you do that?

Jeremiah 32:40
40 “I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.

Do you think that God has the power to put a fear/respect into the heart of those who are His, so much so, that they will never turn away from Him? Or, Redbandito, do you think that God is just full of hot air concerning His promises to those who are His?

(Edited uncharitable remark)

I’ll speak for myself. (By the way, I did appreciate the diverse Scriptural reference. I was serious when I said I do learn from you)

Are you trying to tell me as soon as I feel “fear of God” thats the point I can be sure I’ve been imputed with irrevocable justification? Seems a big leap to me. I thought I was supposed to be comforted by this OSAS business?

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You are a screamer.

No one is a universal negative. It means, no one, not even the believer; if the believer walked away, he would be “snatching” himself out of the Father’s hand. The language does not allow for your error; nice try, though.

Whatever. We aren’t going to get anywhere on this if you won’t at least admit the obvious.

sandusky:

Interesting that you assume guilt for your tradition (open mouth, insert foot). Remember that.

Yes, we are “guilty”. I believe that I have stated that in no uncertain terms. Guilt is not always a bad thing. As in, “Who brought this wonderful dessert?” “Guilty as charged.” Again, you read your assumptions into what is written. It really is a bad habit and a poor way of exegeting. You should know very well that Catholics view the Scripture through Tradition. If you were “paying attention”, you would see that the issue lies not with this, but with whether the tradition is man-made or of Apostolic origin. That’s the difference, but a difference for another thread. However, I couldn’t let you get away with ignoring the facts there. You try that a lot.

sandusky:

Your gravest error is, that you will not acknowledge that the ground of the believer’s justification is the vicarious work of Christ for us, not the gracious work of the Spirit in us.

Wrong. You don’t understand my position, nor the “Word of God”. See, I can do it too.

Finally, what about the rest of the post? I see that you choose to ignore the things you cannot answer as usual. That’s alright, I’ll just call you on it and continue to let you expose yourself as a dishonest apologist.

 

[wpr]

Originally Posted by sandusky
Your gravest error is, that you will not acknowledge that the ground of the believer’s justification is the vicarious work of Christ for us, not the gracious work of the Spirit in us.

Hey Sandusky,
Where in Scripture does Paul or any Apostle explain the concept of “the ground of the beleivers justification”. Do you care to enlighten us with your source for such terminology? It’s not an original thought is it? I’d like to understand what you mean by “the ground of a beleivers justification”.

Where has any Catholic Apologist on this thread ever said “the vicarious work of Jesus is not the ground of our salvation”?

Are you constructing straw men again?