Regeneration/Born-Again

[bene7]

Philthy:

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?

Yes, rather than trust in your own performance, trust in His. It’s what the message of the cross is about. THE true faith is not self-centered, its CHRIST-centered. It’s Christocentric. And this is where you fail in faith.

Endurance is not the cause of salvation it is the fruit of faith.

Yet you interpret that verse as endurance being the cause of their redemption. Those who faithfully stick it out to the end will be saved. Hence, their endurance is essentially the cause and salvation the “reward” based on that endurance. This, my dear misguided friend (and you will chose not to believe this), circumvents the cross. The clarion message of the N.T. is the cross of Christ, the divine cause, the only cause by which God GIFTS those who believe/trust in His Son’s work on their behalf, salvation, justification and eternal life. They cannot be GIFTS (which is what Scripture calls them) if given only at the end of one’s “enduring” life. Such an action would be defined as a “reward.” And that is the fundamental teaching of Catholicism.

You always try to “logic” your way out of it, but you can’t change the divine message. It’s in writing.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

What are you saying here, my friend? I would assume you are saying that I haven’t chosen Christ?I’m saying just what you said. You have chosen a path which you HOPE, at the end of it, will lead you to salvaton. That path is Catholicism.

Such judgemental blindness - it puts everything else you say into context.

And what do you think that “context” is?

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.

I don’t believe it is. I think your “faith” is in your choice of choosing what you consider the right “path.”

I believe he has brought me there, is bringing me there and will bring me there.

It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there. Your path is Catholicism, and your HOPE is that it’s leading you in the right direction for what you HOPE is the right Result at the end.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Yes, rather than trust in your own performance, trust in His. It’s what the message of the cross is about. THE true faith is not self-centered, its CHRIST-centered. It’s Christocentric. And this is where you fail in faith.Yet you interpret that verse as endurance being the cause of their redemption. Those who faithfully stick it out to the end will be saved. Hence, their endurance is essentially the cause and salvation the “reward” based on that endurance. This, my dear misguided friend (and you will chose not to believe this), circumvents the cross. The clarion message of the N.T. is the cross of Christ, the divine cause, the only cause by which God GIFTS those who believe/trust in His Son’s work on their behalf, salvation, justification and eternal life. They cannot be GIFTS (which is what Scripture calls them) if given only at the end of one’s “enduring” life. Such an action would be defined as a “reward.” And that is the fundamental teaching of Catholicism.

You always try to “logic” your way out of it, but you can’t change the divine message. It’s in writing.

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, I say this with all due respect, because I think you are a very intelligent person. It is evident in all your posts. I can tell you have spent a lot of time reading Scripture and books about Scripture. However, I believe that you are mixing terms here. The redemption is complete. EVERYONE on here will admit that. That is clear from Scripture. How the redemption is applied is the question. You assume that because we are redeemed, that perseverance is not necessary. However, we have shown Scripture after Scripture that says otherwise. Your whole interpretation of everything else comes from your misinterpretation of justification. You rightly state that our redemption and atonement are complete. But, again, that is not the question. That would indeed circumvent the cross. We could never “work” our way into God’s family. His adoption MUST come from the grace won by Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection. However, just as any adopted son knows, we must continue to make ourself part of that family. Family bonds can be extremely tight. However, I can choose to walk away, anytime I want. I can renounce my family. This does not mean that the redemption and atonement are not complete. This simply means that I choose to not have them applied to me.

Furthermore, to say he is trying to “logic” his way out of it is really unfair. Would you rather him “illogic” his way out of it? Faith and reason should not be and are not opposed. Ask C.S. Lewis. We should not believe in something that is contrary to reason. Above reason? Yes! Contrary to reason? No! What you are proposing is contrary to reason. It is also contrary to a canonical look at the Scriptures. You have isolated a few verses and derived your lens for the rest of the Scriptures from these few. Now you can say whatever you want. You can counter that “this is the clear message from Scripture”. However, we are looking at the same Scriptures as you and getting something totally different. So apparently, the Scriptures that you are posting aren’t as clearly stating in the minds of other folks as what you think they do. I guess you could say that’s because we “don’t know the Word of God”. But, that just begs the question. Left with that conclusion, we can never talk about anything. We could say the same thing about you, because you don’t reach the conclusions that seem so obvious to us. But where does that get us? Seek understanding.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

I’m saying just what you said. You have chosen a path which you HOPE, at the end of it, will lead you to salvaton. That path is Catholicism.And what do you think that “context” is?I don’t believe it is. I think your “faith” is in your choice of choosing what you consider the right "path."It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there. Your path is Catholicism, and your HOPE is that it’s leading you in the right direction for what you HOPE is the right Result at the end.

Blessings,
Bene

You don’t speak of hope as Paul does. It is a confident hope. Modern day usage of the word distorts what Catholics mean by this. Read Mere Christianity’s chapter on hope (or re-read it, as I am sure you have already read it).

And your path is Calvinism or dispensationalism or whatever systematic theology you espouse. What’s the difference.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there. Your path is Catholicism, and your HOPE is that it’s leading you in the right direction for what you HOPE is the right Result at the end.

Blessings,
Bene

And for the record, aren’t you the one who brought up Catholics and initial justification? If you are, I wonder how it is hard for you to understand why he would say that he has “already brought” him there. This would of course refer to his initial justification, which is indeed a past event.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

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

Repentance and penance are two completely different things, Dave.

You thought penance was when Catholics believed they received forgiveness!! So now you are telling me what repentence and penance are???

The Book of Acts speaks of repentence, and by “deeds of repentence.” Yes, they are different, but both are described in Scripture.

St. Paul, for example, says that we are to pommel our bodies in order to stay spriritual fit.

“I pommel (Gk hupopiazo) my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Cor 9:27)

According to the Protestant source, Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words,

hupopiazo lit., “to strike under the eye” (from hupopion, “the part of the face below the eye;” hupo, “under,” ops, “an eye”), hence, to beat the face black and blue (to give a black eye), is used metaphorically, and translated “buffet” in 1_Cor_9:27 (AV, “keep under”),*** of Paul’s suppressive treatment of his body, in order to keep himself spiritually fit*** (RV marg., “bruise”); so RV marg. in Luke_18:5, of the persistent widow, text, “wear out” (AV, “weary”).

Catholics perform “deeds of repentence” just as Scripture teaches, to keep ourselves spiritually fit. Yet acts of Penance are done after one is already justified, not before.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t believe it is. I think your “faith” is in your choice of choosing what you consider the right “path.”

I can see what the man is talking about now. Bene7 you condemn what you do not really understand, though you think you do and are very comfortable with your particular “path’s” interpretation because you feel that you have some greater assurance of salvation that we Catholics do (again: according to what you have been taught.) Yet to discount the passages that have been cited by my fellow Catholics as not meaning what they say is no more authoritative than any other teachings of men because they ignore the passages that are relevent and yet to do agree with the comfortable position from which they speak.

Catholicism does not in any way deny the completeness of the sacrifice of Christ nor is our salvation based on works. The whole context of the New Testament teaches the beliefs of the Catholic Church concerning salvation and if you take all that you and sandusky have cited and all that we Catholics have cited together then at last one begins to get a complete picture of biblical salvation teaching.

It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there. Your path is Catholicism, and your HOPE is that it’s leading you in the right direction for what you HOPE is the right Result at the end.

This whole quote is the best possible display that you have no real understanding of any of what these Catholics have sought to explain to you here. Is that because you are not listening? I don’t know, but you deny that we are saved by hope, in plain contradiction of the Word of God in Romans 8:24 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.

We are Catholics. Our path is New Testament Christianity, and our hope is in Christ.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito,

I don’t bother to refute things with you, because you do not seem to consider what I write, but seem to dismiss it out of hand. (Edited for charity)

But, I will give it another go.

Here is a brief outline of 1 Cor 4:1-13:

The faithful steward (4:1–5, 9–10a, 10c, 10f–13)

1. This person possesses a clear conscience (4:1–4).
2. This person does not judge others (4:5).
3. This person becomes a spectacle (4:9).
4. This person is written off as a fool (4:10a).
5. This person may be physically weak (4:10c).
6. This person is laughed at by the world (4:10f).
7. This person is often hungry, thirsty, and without warm clothes (4:11a).
8. This person is brutally treated and homeless (4:11b).
9. This person is acquainted with backbreaking labor (4:12a).
10. This person blesses his or her enemies (4:12b, 13a).
11. This person is looked upon as the world’s garbage (4:13b).

I will just say here, that Paul is saying he has no unconfessed sin, but in his limited understanding assumed that his was not the final verdict on that, and that his own sincere evaluation of his life did not acquit him of all failures to be faithful. Who hasn’t been there; and failures to be faithful do not jeopardize one’s salvation; God is forgiving.

1 Cor 9:1-27

I. Christian Liberty—Paul’s Approach (9:1–23): How the apostle views his liberty in Christ and his rights as a believer.

A. The basis of his rights (9:1–3)

1. He is an apostle of Christ (9:1a).
2. He has seen Christ (9:1b).
3. He has led many to Christ (9:1c–3).

B. The extent of his rights (9:4–12a, 13–14): Paul’s rights include:

1. The right of hospitality (9:4): Paul has earned the right to be entertained by other believers.
2. The right to travel with his family (9:5–6)
3. The right to enjoy financial support (9:7–12a, 13–14)a. A soldier is paid for his services (9:7a).
   b. A vineyard owner eats from the grapes he harvests (9:7b).
   c. A shepherd drinks from the milk of his flock (9:7c).
   d. A farmer shares in the fruit of his crops (9:8–12a).
   e. A priest partakes from the animal sacrifices he offers (9:13–14).
   C. The use of his rights (9:12b, 15–18, 20–22): How Paul employs his rights.
4. What he does not do (9:12b, 15–18): Paul chooses not to use his rights but supplies his own needs.
5. What he does (9:19–22a): He becomes a servant to everyone.
   a. To the Jews he becomes like a Jew (9:19–20).
   b. To the Gentiles he becomes like a Gentile (9:21).
   c. To the weak he becomes weak (9:22a).3. Why he does it (9:22b–23): He becomes all things to all people so that he might save some.

II. Christian Liberty (9:24–27): Paul makes an appeal.

A. The apostle’s challenge (9:24–26)

1. Run to win the race (9:24–25).
2. Fight to win the battle (9:26).

B. The apostle’s concern (9:27)

1. What he does (9:27a): He keeps his body in subjection by punishing it like an athlete would do.
2. Why he does it (9:27b): He does not want sin to creep in and disqualify him from the battle of winning souls.

The race analogy is used, because the Greeks could relate to it. They enjoyed two great athletic events, the Olympic games and the Isthmian games, and because the Isthmian events were held in Corinth, believers there were very familiar with this analogy of running to win.

So the race Paul is speaking of is the race of preaching the word to win souls. The “disqualification,” is another analogy drawn from the athletic games. A contestant who failed to meet basic training requirements could not participate at all, much less have an opportunity to win. Paul may be especially referring to such fleshly sins that disqualify a man from preaching and leading the church, particularly being blameless and above reproach in the sexual area since such sin is a disqualification.

IOW, Paul efforts to live well, so that he will not be disqualified from his appointed duty of preaching the word. That is the context of the passage; Paul’s salvation is nowhere in view.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #227)

Phil 2:12-18, following on the heels of speaking of Christ’s humility, Paul:

Exhorts the Philippians to humility (2:12–18)

1. Let God perfect in you his salvation (2:12–13).
2. Don’t complain (2:14).
3. Shine as beacons of light in a dark world (2:15).
4. Hold to the Word of life (2:16).
5. Rejoice with Paul in his sacrifice (2:17–18).

Paul exhorts one to work out, not work for his salvation. The Gk verb rendered work out means to continually work to bring something to fulfillment or completion. It cannot refer to salvation by works (cf Rom 3:21-24; Eph 2:8,9), but it does refer to the believer’s responsibility for active pursuit of obedience in the process of sanctification (cf 1 Cor 9:24-27; 15:58; 2 Cor 7:1; Gal 6:7-9; Eph 4:1; Col 3:1-17; Heb 6:10,11; 12:1,2; 2 Pet 1:5-11).

After all, as V13 says, it is God working in you producing fruit (cf Jn 15:5; 1 Cor 12:6; also Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 3:16, 17; 6:19,20; cf Gal 3:3).

Live an obedient life, according to the salvation God has given.

That is what Paul is saying.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Redbandito,

I don’t bother to refute things with you, because you do not seem to consider what I write, but seem to dismiss it out of hand. (Edited for charity)

But, I will give it another go.

Here is a brief outline of 1 Cor 4:1-13:

The faithful steward (4:1–5, 9–10a, 10c, 10f–13)

1. This person possesses a clear conscience (4:1–4).
2. This person does not judge others (4:5).
3. This person becomes a spectacle (4:9).
4. This person is written off as a fool (4:10a).
5. This person may be physically weak (4:10c).
6. This person is laughed at by the world (4:10f).
7. This person is often hungry, thirsty, and without warm clothes (4:11a).
8. This person is brutally treated and homeless (4:11b).
9. This person is acquainted with backbreaking labor (4:12a).
10. This person blesses his or her enemies (4:12b, 13a).
11. This person is looked upon as the world’s garbage (4:13b).

I will just say here, that Paul is saying he has no unconfessed sin, but in his limited understanding assumed that his was not the final verdict on that, and that his own sincere evaluation of his life did not acquit him of all failures to be faithful. Who hasn’t been there; and failures to be faithful do not jeopardize one’s salvation; God is forgiving.

You were correct all the way up until your final sentence. You followed the context correctly, all the way up until your final sentence. Then, you AGAIN COMPLETELY ignore all the context you have just built up and retreat to your thesis. Nothing you cited in here contradicts that. It is the most illogical and unreasonable conclusion to state that Paul is not talking about salvation after stating, “Paul is saying he has no unconfessed sin, but in his limited understanding assumed that his was not the FINAL VERDICT on that, and that his own sincere evaluation of his life did not acquit him of all failures to be faithful”. Final verdict on what? You get to the point and then you say, “But it can’t be that, because that contradicts my understanding. It must mean something else”. That is the exegetical style you are using. It’s just poor.

Furthermore, Paul says the Lord is his judge. Paul then states, we should not judge until the Lord comes. What is the Lord going to judge when He comes? Come on man. You are not being honest to the text or yourself.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Yes, rather than trust in your own performance, trust in His. It’s what the message of the cross is about. THE true faith is not self-centered, its CHRIST-centered. It’s Christocentric. And this is where you fail in faith.

But Bene God has proclaimed that we are his handiwork made to walk in the good works he has prepared in advance. In addition, worldly desires are said to wage war on our souls. I never once said that I “trust in my own performance”. Quite the contrary - I distrust my failure to perform. That is simply an acknowledgment of my failure to obey God. As you said, those who are saved WILL PERSEVERE in faith. Do you not believe that it follows that if you are not persevering that you need to consider the extent of your faith? If not, then you don’t actually believe that those who are saved WILL persevere. Take your pick, but you can’t have it both ways.
I believe obedience to God is an integral part of faith, EXACTLY like James does, without any fancy explanations. That obedience is not the source of my salvation, however - Christ remains the source. I can’t even have faith without God’s grace, so there’s no possibility for me to boast. In addition, it does not mean that I believe my disobedience cancels out what Christ has done on the cross. It is as simple as I believe salvation is by Grace through faith and chronic, unrepentant disobedience is incompatible with a saving faith.

bene7:
Yet you interpret that verse as endurance being the cause of their redemption. Those who faithfully stick it out to the end will be saved. Hence, their endurance is essentially the cause and salvation the “reward” based on that endurance.
No, No, No. This is not the first time that I have told you that this assumption of yours is wrong. It is the last, however. Here, from the last post:

Philthy:
"You reject the Catholic understanding of endurance playing any role in salvation because you assume it creates an element of a “wage earned” for the individual. But it does not: "
Endurance (of faith) is an element of salvation, not a cause of it. Even you say that those with saving faith will persevere to the end. Do you not? Does the fact that they WILL persevere(or that one HAS persevered) to the end CAUSE them to be saved in your theology? No. Neither does it in mine. Will you stop already with peddling this? Where there is smoke, there is fire. Smoke does not cause fire however. Where there is faith there is obedience. Obedience doesn’t cause faith, nor does it cause salvation. Let me ask you this: Does confessing a sin CAUSE you to be forgiven? If so, then is the forgiveness a wage earned? Why not?
If not, then what is confessing? A requirement to forgiveness or is it a) another thing in the bible that doesn’t apply to this age
b) figurative
c) a disputable part of the faith

bene7:

This, my dear misguided friend (and you will chose not to believe this), circumvents the cross.

I hear you, I believe you mean well, but I don’t trust you to make such claims.

bene7:
The clarion message of the N.T. is the cross of Christ, the divine cause, the only cause by which God GIFTS those who believe/trust in His Son’s work on their behalf, salvation, justification and eternal life.
I agree

bene7:
They cannot be GIFTS (which is what Scripture calls them) if given only at the end of one’s “enduring” life.
I disagree

bene7:
Such an action would be defined as a “reward.” And that is the fundamental teaching of Catholicism.
I disagree

bene7:
You always try to “logic” your way out of it,
Yes I am logical, but I do not try to logic my way out of anything.
It is mostly your arguments which fail to withstand the rigors of logic, that’s not my fault.

bene7:

but you can’t change the divine message. It’s in writing. Blessings, Bene

Well that pretty much settles it. Its in writing therefore there is no room for debate. What if I were of the opinion that it’s not I who’s changing the divine message, but you. What would we do then?

Peace,
Phil

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

You were correct all the way up until your final sentence. You followed the context correctly, all the way up until your final sentence. Then, you AGAIN COMPLETELY ignore all the context you have just built up and retreat to your thesis. Nothing you cited in here contradicts that. It is the most illogical and unreasonable conclusion to state that Paul is not talking about salvation after stating, “Paul is saying he has no unconfessed sin, but in his limited understanding assumed that his was not the FINAL VERDICT on that, and that his own sincere evaluation of his life did not acquit him of all failures to be faithful”. Final verdict on what? You get to the point and then you say, “But it can’t be that, because that contradicts my understanding. It must mean something else”. That is the exegetical style you are using. It’s just poor.

I don’t believe that I am reading anything into the text, but trying to get at what Paul is saying.

In the opening context of the chapter, v2, Paul says that it is a requirement of God’s stewards that they be found “trustworthy.” That is what Paul is talking about: his trustworthiness, about which he finds no “untrustworthiness,” but he realizes that he is not the final authority as to that judgment (his trustworthiness). He is not talking about his salvation, that is already his possession. Neither does he talk about salvation in 1 Cor 9, but his ministry of preaching the Gospel, and the potential for disqualification from that ministry because of sin; sin does not disqualify one from salvation; everyone sins; no one is perfect, not even Paul (cf Rom 7:14ff).

Redbandito:

Furthermore, Paul says the Lord is his judge. Paul then states, we should not judge until the Lord comes. What is the Lord going to judge when He comes? Come on man. You are not being honest to the text or yourself.

Red, the Lord is coming back to judge the unbeliever. Jesus says in Jn 5:24, that no judgment comes upon the one who believes. The one who believes will stand before the Lord, and his works will be weighed, but he, himself, does not come into judgment (cf Jn 5:24; 1 Cor 3:10-15), as the believer has been acquitted of guilt by his profession of faith in Christ, and God’s declaration of his righteous standing.

God does not rescind his declaration of a believer’s righteousness; it is the believer’s possession.

 

[bene7]

Redbandito:

And for the record, aren’t you the one who brought up Catholics and initial justification? If you are, I wonder how it is hard for you to understand why he would say that he has “already brought” him there. This would of course refer to his initial justification, which is indeed a past event.

Yes, “initial” implies that it is not final. Sorry, but the GIFT of justification not does not come with the instructons attached, “some assembly needed.” It is “gifted” based on Christ’s “finished” work of redemption on the cross (Rom. 3:24). Even the batteries are included: the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

I’m saying just what you said. You have chosen a path which you HOPE, at the end of it, will lead you to salvaton.

I don’t remember claiming to have chosen a “path” as opposed to Christ - could you please find a reference from my posts for this claim your making?

bene7:

And what do you think that “context” is?

The context is that certain comments of yours are not spoken by God’s chosen representatives IMHO. Judgemental comments which stem not from love and not towards love. That makes everything you say suspicious at best. For all I know you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

bene7:

I don’t believe it is. I think your “faith” is in your choice of choosing what you consider the right "path."It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there. Your path is Catholicism, and your HOPE is that it’s leading you in the right direction for what you HOPE is the right Result at the end.
Blessings,
Bene

Nope. You are dead wrong. I follow Jesus Christ and I proclaim him as Lord. You are making a bunch of baseless assumptions from a misunderstanding of a tangential point in a prior post which simply amount to nothing other than your opinion of the implications of those misunderstandings. And your application of the implications of those misunderstandings are wrong, BTW. In addition, you have chosen to ignore large portions of my posts which contain some difficult questions for you. I guess that means we are not really communicating and from my perspective that renders the exchanges useless. Thank you for you time.

Peace

Phil

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Yes, “initial” implies that it is not final. Sorry, but the GIFT of justification not does not come with the instructons attached, “some assembly needed.” It is “gifted” based on Christ’s “finished” work of redemption on the cross (Rom. 3:24). Even the batteries are included: the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, that has nothing to do with what I posted. My response was directed at your response. You stated, "It is impossible for a “path” you’re walking to have already brought you there. You can only HOPE it is leading you there." My point was that in the doctrine of initial justification (regardless of whether you believe it is right or not), we see that God has “brought” us there. Nothing more.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

I don’t believe that I am reading anything into the text, but trying to get at what Paul is saying.

Okay, that’s fair. At least you made that statement from a subjective point of view and not tried to claim that objectively. I can respect that you have a difference of opinion. We can just agree to disagree there.

sandusky:

In the opening context of the chapter, v2, Paul says that it is a requirement of God’s stewards that they be found “trustworthy.” That is what Paul is talking about: his trustworthiness, about which he finds no “untrustworthiness,” but he realizes that he is not the final authority as to that judgment (his trustworthiness). He is not talking about his salvation, that is already his possession. Neither does he talk about salvation in 1 Cor 9, but his ministry of preaching the Gospel, and the potential for disqualification from that ministry because of sin; sin does not disqualify one from salvation; everyone sins; no one is perfect, not even Paul (cf Rom 7:14ff).

I just disagree. I don’t believe the context supports that. You do. I am just glad I don’t have to rely on my own ability to interpret Scripture, because it really has seemed to cause a headache. It’s like Peter stated, "16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

sandusky:

Red, the Lord is coming back to judge the unbeliever. Jesus says in Jn 5:24, that no judgment comes upon the one who believes. The one who believes will stand before the Lord, and his works will be weighed, but he, himself, does not come into judgment (cf Jn 5:24; 1 Cor 3:10-15), as the believer has been acquitted of guilt by his profession of faith in Christ, and God’s declaration of his righteous standing.

And Paul says we will be “JUDGED according to what we have done” (Rom 2:6). I believe you are taking those verses out of context and trying to make them say more than they actually do. In those instances, judgment clearly speaks to Eternal punishment. I don’t think this is what Paul is talking about in Romans, as you see in verse 7. That’s why I don’t use isolated verses. I take the canonical approach to Scripture.

sandusky:

God does not rescind his declaration of a believer’s righteousness; it is the believer’s possession.

I have hear you say it, I just have not seen you prove it. I have found your explanation of the Scriptures you have given to be lacking. It’s all good. I believe what I believe is absolute and objective truth, but I can accept that God gave us all free will. And if God can give us the freedom of choice, who am I try and usurp that power from you? I still love you as a brother in Christ even if it is not reciprocal. God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

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

Errrrrrr…no.

“Penance” is English. It comes from the Latin. It is certainly not Greek, but neither is the English word “repentence.” The Greek is metanoia, which Catholics also use, and we described the works (ergon) worthy or meritorious (axios) of repentance (metanoia) as “penance.” Penance is done when in a state of forgiveness or grace, that is, already justified.

From the Biblical Greek…

Protestant source: Thayer’s Lexicon

axios: “congruous…of one who has merited anything worthy”

Protestant source: Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words:

Meet (Adjective and Verb) [Adjective]
axios has the meaning of being of “weight, value, worth;” also “befitting, becoming, right on the ground of fitness,” e.g., Matt 3:8, AV, “meet” (RV, “worthy”); so Acts 26:20, Luke 3:8 (“worthy”); Luke 23:41 (“due reward”).

Worthy, Worthily [Adjective]

axios “of weight, worth, worthy,” is said of persons and their deeds… e.g., Matt. 10:10,11,13 (twice),37 (twice),38; 22:8; Luke 7:4; 10:7; 15:19,21; John 1:27; Acts 13:25; 1 Tim. 5:18; 6:1; Heb. 11:38; Rev. 3:4; 4:11; 5:2,4,9,12

Merriam-Webster:

"Worthy…Function: adjective … MERITORIOUS"

Hmmm… worthy or meritorious (axios) works (ergon)

Luke 23:41 “we are receiving the due reward (axios) of our deeds (ergon)”

So, Scripture teaches that MERIT or DUE REWARD is given even in this life, and this “due reward” (axios) is for our works (ergon).

Acts 26:20 (RSV) "*they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds (ergon) worthy (axios) of their repentence (Grk metanoia Latin Vulgate: paenitentiae *Douay-Rheims: penance NAB repentance)

These deeds (ergon), what the KJV Bible translates as “WORKS” are also called elsewhere in Sacred Scritpure, “fruit (karpos) that befits (axios) repentance” (Matt 3:8; cf. Luke 3:8)

Again, from Vine’s

***karpos…***metaphorically, (a) of works or deeds

From the Biblical texts, what about the reward (misthos) given in this life and in the afterlife?

Protestant source: Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words:

Reward (Noun and Verb) [Noun]

misthos primarily “wages, hire,” and then, generally, “reward,”

(a) received in this life, Matt. 5:46; 6:2,5,16; Rom. 4:4; 1 Cor. 9:17,18 …

(b) to be received hereafter, Matt. 5:12; 10:41 (twice),42; Mark 9:41; Luke 6:23,35; 1 Cor. 3:8,14; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 11:18; 22:12

Sounds like meritorious (axios) works (ergon) is completely Biblical to me, whether it is said in English, Greek, or Latin. We are indeed given a REWARD (misthos) in this life and the afterlife, according to the Biblical texts.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Sounds like meritorious (axios) works (ergon) is completely Biblical to me, whether it is said in English, Greek, or Latin. We are indeed given a REWARD (misthos) in this life and the afterlife, according to the Biblical texts.

Again Dave, I have never denied that the believer will receive a reward in heaven; I just do not believe that the reward will be eternal life, as the believer has that already.

Nor have I denied that the believer should work for that reward; he should, as Paul encourages it. Again, though, what the believer is working for is not eternal life, but a reward in heaven.

Luke 17:7-10
*7 “Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’?

8 “But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink’?

9 “He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he?

10 “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’ ”*

Such is the graciousness of God. Rewarding us for doing that which we ought to have done.

Amen?

 

[wpr]

1. Why he does it (9:27b): He does not want sin to creep in and disqualify him from the battle of winning souls.

IOW, Paul efforts to live well, so that he will not be disqualified from his appointed duty of preaching the word. That is the context of the passage; Paul’s salvation is nowhere in view.

Sandusky, I’m sorry, but your explanation is absurd.

Vs 17 If I do so willingly I have recompense, but if unwillingly, then I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my recompense?" (for preaching the Gospel without accepting the payment he is entitled to as he explained in vs 8~11)

So whats the recompense? He offers it “free of charge”. He explains in vs 22…

“I have become all things to all, to save at least some.” [free of charge] “All this I do for the sake of the Gospel so that I too may have a share in it.”

He does not have to do it for free. But he does to honor God, “for the sake of the Gospel”. He knows “an obligation has been imposed on me” [by God] and there is “no reason for me to boast.”

What is a “share in” the Gospel other than salvation? This is made clear by his seeking to win an “imperishable” crown. How is it that you arrive at the conclusion that the imperishable crown he seeks is his right to preach the Gospel?

You think he meant "…that I may be disqualified “from preaching the Gospel”? Why would Paul be worried about this in your view? Was he not already “saved” irrevocably. Surely his faith was rock solid, afterall, the risen Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus.

Furthermore, this is totally out of context from the earlier reference to an “imperishable crown”. Rather the sentence would read “…that I myself should be disqualified” fom winning the imperishable crown.

It’s an analogy “similar in some ways” So don’t get all bent out of shape. We don’t take the verse as if it stands alone and therefore means we earn our way to heaven by training like an athlete. (The Pope would’nt have it)

You are compelled to twist the verse because you have a preconcieved notion that Paul could not possibly be speaking of his salvation as having anything to do with recompense in any way. Yet he has already told us he knows he is obligated to God and therefore, “this is no reason for me to boast”.

Why am I wrong?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bene7,

Catholics often quote 1 Cor. 1:18 and 2 Cor. 2:15 as “proof texts” for the idea of salvation/justification being a process

If justification is a one-time event, can you tell me when Abraham was justified?

You’ll find that instead of proof-texting, if you study when Abraham had faith according to Scripture, and was therefore justified, you’ll see that he must have been justified in Genesis ch. 12, and then later declared justified still in Genesis ch. 15, just as** Rev 22:11** states: “he that is just (dikaios), let him be justified (dikaioo) still”

From Vine’s:

Just, Justly [Adjective]
dikaios … "In the NT it denotes "righteous,"

Justification, Justifier, Justify [Verb]
dikaioo primarily, “to deem to be right,”… to declare to be righteous, to pronounce righteous

The just can indeed “be justified still” according to Sacred Scripture, and Abraham is a perfect example of that.

According to Hebrews 11…

… faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval (Gk martureo or “witnessed”)…

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

The men of old in Hebrews witnessed to genuine faith.

When was Abraham justified by faith? When he was first called out of his homeland by God. That was in Genesis ch. 12, right?

When the Protestant scholar C.H. Spurgeon taught in his sermon on Heb 11:8, he described that faith which Abraham had in Genesis ch. 12 as “genuine faith,” the kind of faith that Christians ought to have:

“By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”—Hebrews 11:8… "May the Holy Spirit work in us, so that, by faith—like Abraham—we may obey !.. In every case where [Abraham] the father of the faithful obeyed, it was the result of his faith; and in every case in which you and I shall render true obedience, it will be the product of our faith…Genuine faith in God creates a prompt obedience. “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed.” There was an immediate response to the command. " (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermon No. 2195, August 21, 1890)

Catholics understand that through this “genuine faith” which Abraham had in Ch. 12, he was justified. Catholics also understand that because Abraham “believed” in Ch. Genesis ch. 15, that the Lord “reckoned it to him as righteousness” Thus, the “just can be justified still” as Rev 22:11 states.

Although Abraham had genuine justifying faith in Genesis ch. 12, Genesis Ch. 15 says, “[Abraham] believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

Justification is NOT a one-time event according the Sacred Scripture.

So, in the Protestant view, when was Abraham justified, if indeed justification is a one-time event? Because either Abraham failed to be justified by genuine faith in Ch. 12, and wasn’t justified until Ch. 15, or he was justified more than once, right?