Scriptural evidence for Once-saved-always-saved?

[Philthy]

PEPCIS;:

Irrelevant?? How could this possibly be “irrelevant”? It is how we are defined. We couldn’t possibly remain the same person, because if we did, then we would not be a “new creation in Christ Jesus.”

It is irrelevant because it is information that has no use to anyone. That, of course, is filtered through my understanding of what you are saying. Perhaps you could explain how it is useful information and not irrelevant?

“God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Notice that the “choice” given to us is to MAKE us sit with Christ Jesus in heavenly places.

Please notice that nowhere does the word permanent or irreversible or any other such notion appear in this text. You are correct that if we are in a state of grace that our orientation will be towards God, but there is nothing in anything that you have provided that says that we will be incapable of rejecting the gift of salvation; and nothing that says we cannot disinherit the kingdom of God; sin remains lurking and we must avail ourselves of the grace God provides to withstand its temptations (1 Cor 10:13) .
On the contrary there are explicit statements (not ambiguous ones such as you have provided) to those who are “saved” that they may not yet inherit the kingdom of God (Heaven) - 1Cor 6:9 directly addresses this issue, and it is not alone.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me “yes” or “no”. That’s not a “yes” or “no” type of question.

I consider this a dodge attempt. I can easily answer the question you posed: I have not stopped beating my wife. Now the answer requires a little explanation in order to fully understand, but that is easy. I havent stopped beating my wife because I never started beating her. Boy that was hard. Now, why dont you answer the question predicated with a yes or no, and then explain your yes or no.

The reason that we are commanded to follow God’s laws is because there is a contrast between law and grace being illustrated.

I have no idea what you mean by this. God doesnt require us to follow any Commandment “because” there is contrast between law and grace. but I will take a guess: You might say that the requirement of keeping the Commandments in the OT time was for the purposes of illustrating the New Covenant of grace to those under the NewC, but that doesnt explain why those of us under the New C are required or “commanded” to follow them now. That latter point is what you were supposed to be addressing! Also, please don’t switch back and forth from the term “laws” and “commandments” it is confusing for Catholics because we differentiate between the Deuteronomic “law” and the Commandments “Law of Moses”; the former are obsolete while the latter are still binding (again, see 1Cor 6:9)

That is why the rich, young ruler walked away saddened - because he had already done everything that was in the law, and it still was not enough to satisfy Jesus. Instead, Jesus told him he had to sell everything he had and follow Jesus. If the law could save, then THAT man would have (indeed, SHOULD HAVE) been saved.

This is actually a separate topic and your interpretation, while reasonable, is fallible, and cannot be used to validate - to me - your position on grace and the law in our original discussion. I happen to disagree with your interpretation of the exchange. IMHO, which is no less fallible than yours, the rich young man actually was in violation of the 2 Commandments which fulfil the whole law: loving God and loving neighbor. He simply didnt realize it. Christ was revealing to him that although the young man thought he had followed the law he really had not. That is why Christ challenged him to give up all he had and give it to the poor" his inability to do so stems from - and revealed - his having loved his posessions more than God (violation of love God portion); and his inability to “give it to the poor” revealed that he didnt actually love his neighbor as his self (violation of love neighbor portion).

I’ll have to try and pick this up later tomorrow…hope you have a great night everyone!!

thanks, you too.

blessings

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pepcis,

I think what was is being address is that you really have a circular argument: you are saved becasue you are saved, you are not saved because you have sinned. I admit, this drove Calvin off of the deep end - Predestination is a mystery - and our finite minds can not grasp God’s entire Plan. God knows who will be with Him in Heaven - and who won’t. It is unwise to try to figure out who is going where … all we can is judge as man judges - and not as God judges. If that were the case - Samuel would never have picked David!

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner.

A more accurate presentation would have read, “I believe that Catholics have distinguished between mortal and venial sins - and this is found in scripture and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers!” Remember, Christianity did not start with Luther or Calvin - there is a 1500 year prior history to be recognized. Here are some links you may enjoy reading:

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

catholic.com/library/Mortal_Sin.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/venial%20sin

Now, if someone sins, I believe that Catholics maintain (probably because of James 2:10), that the sinner has re-entered spiritual death and requires salvation all over again. But that is folly, because this would require that the re-lapsed sinner “put Christ on the cross to an open shame” all over again. (Hebrews 6:6) Clearly, the writer of Hebrews rejects such a proposition.

Don’t be too quick to accuse othrs of ‘folly’ - Christ gave men the delegated Power of God to forgive sin - and you can find this in your Bible at John 20:19-23 … in fact, here it is for you…

**19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22
15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23
16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

God recognized that man would fall into sin - and Christ gave us the Sacrament of Confession for the forgivness of all confessed sin: mortal and venial.

So, if ANY sin is death, then we must reconcile how it is that ANY person can ever enter the Kingdom of God. It is impossible. But there is nothing impossible with God.

For Christ, salvation is a one-time event. What He accomplished on the cross is finished, and nothing could ever be added to it to make it real. However, for man, we are commanded to work out that gift of salvation everyday that we live. Paul tells us to “examine ourselves whether we are in the faith.” I have likened salvation to a Rubik’s cube, where both are received as a gift, but neither one is “solved” when you receive it. You must spend your time solving the “puzzle” of salvation. But you cannot mistake that you OWN salvation.

I think you have carried that analogy of a Rubik’s Cube into your sentence structure - needless complex. Yes, Christ’s act of dying on the Cross for the salvation of all people (past, paresent and future) was a one-time event … but, that is not issue. Most people will admit that they have broken the law of God (sinned) and this took place after Christ rose from the dead. After Baptism removed Original Sin (and in the case of adult baptism) Actual Sin we have confession - give to us by Christ (John 20:20) - so that we may return to the Love of Christ through the Church Crist founded on Peter (and his disciples)

This is where Catholics (IMHO) get it wrong, because they insist that baptism removes sin, instead of the effectual work of Christ on the cross.

We have everything from the infinite merits of Christ - Who freely chose to suffer and die for each of our sins. And, as you will recall, Christ gave us some commands to follow - and, you ignore them at your eternal peril!

Being baptized is a good one to start with - here are three references, pay attention to the first, but don’t ignore the other two. Remember Christianity did not start off with Luther and Calvin!

**Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257). ** Here is the source: catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Additionally, you may like to read this link: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0204fea1.asp

 

[cazayoux]

Well, Hey, I also agree with the Catholic Church whenver she agrees with the Bible.

You mean when it agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

This makes YOU the final authority on Christian doctrine.
Nowhere in scripture do we see the early church functioning this way.
It is a new tradition of men that negates the Word of God.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

What He accomplished on the cross is finished, and nothing could ever be added to it to make it real.

When He said ‘it is finished’, what exactly was ‘it’?
What was He saying was finished?
I’ve read several thoughts on what ‘it’ is.

• debt payment
• His life
• His work
• His affliction
• the passover meal
• … i know there was at least one more I’ve read.

Your statement seems to have you saying that Jesus’ work was done.
Did Jesus need to rise from the dead?

michel

 

[steve_b]

Yes, that would be true. There are plenty of places in Scripture to support that. But not because this is “evidenced by his sin” but because it is evidenced by his heart. His sin may be an indicator of where he stands in relationship to God and his fellow saint, but it is not necessarily an indicator of where he stands in salvation.

Huh?
pep:

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner.

NIV translation (emphasis mine)

[1 Jn:5]

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death (not mortal, i.e. venial sin), he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (not mortal sin). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal sin). I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (not mortal).

RSV-CE translation (emphasis mine)

16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God * will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Any questions?
pep:

Now, if someone sins, I believe that Catholics maintain (probably because of James 2:10), that the sinner has re-entered spiritual death and requires salvation all over again. But that is folly, because this would require that the re-lapsed sinner “put Christ on the cross to an open shame” all over again. (Hebrews 6:6) Clearly, the writer of Hebrews rejects such a proposition.

Now you’ve been shown where John taught about mortal and venial sin. A thank you would be in order.
pep:

So, if ANY sin is death, then we must reconcile how it is that ANY person can ever enter the Kingdom of God. It is impossible. But there is nothing impossible with God.

TRUE,

• NO ONE will enter heaven with a mortal sin.
• mortal sin is not a sin recommended to pray about for forgiveness as John says, unlike non mortal sin.

God made it possible for mortal sin to be forgiven by sacramental confession to a priest who has the power to bind and loose ALL sins including mortal sins…
pep:

For Christ, salvation is a one-time event. What He accomplished on the cross is finished, and nothing could ever be added to it to make it real. However, for man, we are commanded to work out that gift of salvation everyday that we live.

And obey everything He commanded.
pep:

Paul tells us to “examine ourselves whether we are in the faith.”

Be careful there.

How do you know, as a Protestant, that you are in the faith?
pep:

I have likened salvation to a Rubik’s cube, where both are received as a gift, but neither one is “solved” when you receive it. You must spend your time solving the “puzzle” of salvation. But you cannot mistake that you OWN salvation.

Own salvation? Which scripture? And please, don’t quote a summary statement taken out of context.
pep:

The penalty of sin is death. Our Lord’s sacrifice is EFFICACIOUS. It is able to the utmost to remove the result of original sin - death. But that release from death is not given to the whole world, but to only those who receive it. “To as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become sons of God, to those that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)

John says

• not all sin leads to death. Obviously he’s talking about another kind of death than death of the body.
• Some sins you can pray about and God forgives you and gives you life. But John also said, Mortal sin one shouldn’t pray about for forgiveness.

You’ve got a problem to address. How do you get rid of mortal sin that you said didn’t even exist?
pep:

This is where Catholics (IMHO) get it wrong, because they insist that baptism removes sin, instead of the effectual work of Christ on the cross. There is nothing that man can perform that can effect his salvation, including baptism. Salvation is something that Christ performs, and man accepts, not the other way around. The way that Catholics state it, salvation is something that man performs, and then Christ graciously accepts man’s work.

You’ve stated it that way, but you have not proven it by any means.

Now you know where YOU’VE gotten things wrong regarding mortal and venial sin, I will get back to you on baptism. I’m Going to dinner .

 

[Carlan]

Yes, that would be true. There are plenty of places in Scripture to support that. But not because this is “evidenced by his sin” but because it is evidenced by his heart. His sin may be an indicator of where he stands in relationship to God and his fellow saint, but it is not necessarily an indicator of where he stands in salvation.

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner.

Now, if someone sins, I believe that Catholics maintain (probably because of James 2:10), that the sinner has re-entered spiritual death and requires salvation all over again. But that is folly, because this would require that the re-lapsed sinner “put Christ on the cross to an open shame” all over again. (Hebrews 6:6) Clearly, the writer of Hebrews rejects such a proposition.

So, if ANY sin is death, then we must reconcile how it is that ANY person can ever enter the Kingdom of God. It is impossible. But there is nothing impossible with God.

For Christ, salvation is a one-time event. What He accomplished on the cross is finished, and nothing could ever be added to it to make it real. However, for man, we are commanded to work out that gift of salvation everyday that we live. Paul tells us to “examine ourselves whether we are in the faith.” I have likened salvation to a Rubik’s cube, where both are received as a gift, but neither one is “solved” when you receive it. You must spend your time solving the “puzzle” of salvation. But you cannot mistake that you OWN salvation.

The penalty of sin is death. Our Lord’s sacrifice is EFFICACIOUS. It is able to the utmost to remove the result of original sin - death. But that release from death is not given to the whole world, but to only those who receive it. “To as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become sons of God, to those that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)

[SIGN][/SIGN]This is where Catholics (IMHO) get it wrong, because they insist that baptism removes sin, instead of the effectual work of Christ on the cross. There is nothing that man can perform that can effect his salvation, including baptism. Salvation is something that Christ performs, and man accepts, not the other way around. The way that Catholics state it, salvation is something that man performs, and then Christ graciously accepts man’s work.[SIGN][/SIGN]
I just had to comment. Christ through his death on the cross has provided abundantly for the salvation of all men and women, however that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals, obviously there is or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity. Carlan

 

[Carlan]

PEPCIS;5441870:

Yes, that would be true. There are plenty of places in Scripture to support that. But not because this is “evidenced by his sin” but because it is evidenced by his heart. His sin may be an indicator of where he stands in relationship to God and his fellow saint, but it is not necessarily an indicator of where he stands in salvation.

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner.

Now, if someone sins, I believe that Catholics maintain (probably because of James 2:10), that the sinner has re-entered spiritual death and requires salvation all over again. But that is folly, because this would require that the re-lapsed sinner “put Christ on the cross to an open shame” all over again. (Hebrews 6:6) Clearly, the writer of Hebrews rejects such a proposition.

So, if ANY sin is death, then we must reconcile how it is that ANY person can ever enter the Kingdom of God. It is impossible. But there is nothing impossible with God.

For Christ, salvation is a one-time event. What He accomplished on the cross is finished, and nothing could ever be added to it to make it real. However, for man, we are commanded to work out that gift of salvation everyday that we live. Paul tells us to “examine ourselves whether we are in the faith.” I have likened salvation to a Rubik’s cube, where both are received as a gift, but neither one is “solved” when you receive it. You must spend your time solving the “puzzle” of salvation. But you cannot mistake that you OWN salvation.

The penalty of sin is death. Our Lord’s sacrifice is EFFICACIOUS. It is able to the utmost to remove the result of original sin - death. But that release from death is not given to the whole world, but to only those who receive it. “To as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become sons of God, to those that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)

[SIGN][/SIGN]This is where Catholics (IMHO) get it wrong, because they insist that baptism removes sin, instead of the effectual work of Christ on the cross. There is nothing that man can perform that can effect his salvation, including baptism. Salvation is something that Christ performs, and man accepts, not the other way around. The way that Catholics state it, salvation is something that man performs, and then Christ graciously accepts man’s work.[SIGN][/SIGN]

I just had to comment.
Christ through his death on the cross has provided abundantly for the salvation of all men and women, however that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals, obviously there is or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity. Carlan

 

[Biggie]

Yes, that would be true. There are plenty of places in Scripture to support that. But not because this is “evidenced by his sin” but because it is evidenced by his heart. His sin may be an indicator of where he stands in relationship to God and his fellow saint, but it is not necessarily an indicator of where he stands in salvation.

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner.

Now, if someone sins, I believe that Catholics maintain (probably because of James 2:10), that the sinner has re-entered spiritual death and requires salvation all over again. But that is folly, because this would require that the re-lapsed sinner “put Christ on the cross to an open shame” all over again. (Hebrews 6:6) Clearly, the writer of Hebrews rejects such a proposition.

So, if ANY sin is death, then we must reconcile how it is that ANY person can ever enter the Kingdom of God. It is impossible. But there is nothing impossible with God.

Without meaning to be snippy, your response reveals what I can only interpret as a naivete toward sin or a complete misunderstanding of it. As a Catholic, I from time to time place myself before the Blessed Sacrament (the body and blood of Jesus), and there, after imploring the Holy Spirit to reveal to me my failings, engage in an examination of conscience. (The “fierce moral inventory”, one of the twelve steps, certainly not a strictly Catholic exercise, is similar.)

In the examination of conscience, familiar to any Catholic, some few examples of the questions I pose to myself are:

Have I …
Let someone or something influence my choices more than God?
Used the name of God in cursing or blasphemy?
Belittled others in my speech?
Set time aside each day for personal prayer to God?
Neglected the needs of my parents in their old age or in their time of need?
Lived in humble obedience to those who legitimately exercise authority over me?
Driven recklessly or under the influence of alcohol or other drugs?
Refused to control my temper?
Been mean to, quarreled with, or willfully hurt someone?
Been unforgiving to others, when mercy or pardon was requested?
Sought revenge or hoped something bad would happen to someone?
Delighted to see someone else get hurt or suffer?
Willfully entertained impure thoughts?
Listened to music or jokes that are harmful to purity?
Failed to make good on a debt?

The point is these are a few examples of venial sin. They would be matters for confession.

Now it is your point that you, having been “saved”, have never lost your temper? Cut someone off in traffic? Held a grudge? Had an impure thought? These would be sins, generally not serious matter, but sins nonetheless. Imperfections. But you know, of course, that no imperfection can present itself before God.

Now you will also note that there is a distinction in degree between these and abortion, adultery, fornication (examples of mortal sin). If you can notice there is a difference in degree between the two sins (cursing and killing) is it seriously your point of view that God does not recognize it?

And your point would be that since a person who had professed faith according to your formula, and then lost his temper was never really meant for salvation? That’s really quite absurd. Allow me to suggest that there are many formulations of Sola Fide within the Protestant world that at least offer a sensible response to the problem of sin.

 

[Carlan]

Originally Posted by pep

I believe that Catholics like to distinguish between mortal sins and venial sins, but the Bible makes no such distinguishment. As James says, if you have broken the law in one single point, you have broken the WHOLE law. (James 2:10) Breaking the law requires death of the sinner(.end Quote)

A teaching on sin and it’s affects.

Sin has a double consequence, every sin, even a venial sin entails an unhealthy attachment to us
which must be purified. Yes, we have been forgiven when we repent of our sin and are restored to

communion with God, but temporal punishment remains, and we must strive to accept temporal
punishment as a grace to do good and ‘put off the old man’ completely and put on the ‘new man’.
This is how we come to achieve holiness.

This unhealthy attachment to sin is either purified in this life on earth or after death in the state called purgatory.

This purification frees one from what is called ‘temporal punishment of sin.

These two punishments must not be conceived of as any kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

(This is deep stuff which calls for pondering what you now believe, and giving over to God for enlightenment.)

Again, temporal punishment due to sin, whose guilt has already been paid for by Jesus, Catholics believe is a grace from God to help us to become better Christians by purification so as to achieve the holiness needed to enter into the joy of heaven.

Beatitude; Happy the pure in heart, they shall see God.

Perhaps you will think this a very hard doctrine if you are coming from some Protestant theology which says

justification and sanctification is instantaneous and is a once- for- all happening and is all you
need for entry into heaven regardless of any attempt at growth in holiness.

Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is within us to help us on the way to sanctity and to convict us of our sinful nature and help us when we turn away and to persevere in the growth of holiness.

There is an old saying which I like to use: ”The Catholic Church is the hardest Church to live in and the easiest Church to die in”. But I love her and I defend her.

If the Protestant theology says instant Salvation and Justification (once and for all) and nothing else to do, well I can see why some enter.
We all need to be aware of presumption, very much aware, it is a tool of the evil one.

I know this is long and somewhat preachy and I am not sure if it is the right place for it, if it isn’t excuse me. Carlan

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cazayoux,

Nicely worded!

You mean when it agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

This makes YOU the final authority on Christian doctrine.
Nowhere in scripture do we see the early church functioning this way.
It is a new tradition of men that negates the Word of God.

michel

God bless

 

[PEPCIS]

"Philthy:

So you believe that we will be unable to sin against the Commandments of God?

PEPCIS:

Absolutely not. What I am trying to drive at is that our ORIENTATION is changed. Paul tells us that we are a new creation in Christ. If we are a different creature, then that means that we have a new character and identity. We are not like all the other people of the world.

Philthy:

While this is true, it is irrelevant as far as I can tell.

PEPCIS:

Irrelevant?? How could this possibly be “irrelevant”? It is how we are defined. We couldn’t possibly remain the same person, because if we did, then we would not be a “new creation in Christ Jesus.”

It is irrelevant because it is information that has no use to anyone. That, of course, is filtered through my understanding of what you are saying. Perhaps you could explain how it is useful information and not irrelevant?

Ok, let’s go back a bit: I stated that I could understand “. . . why it is that you believe that OSAS cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, because you also believe that OSAS means that you don’t have to follow God’s commandments. But that is false.”

This apparently led you to believe that I think if you are a Christian that you can’t sin against God’s commandments.

I then said “Absolutely not.” And then I followed up with an explanation of why I don’t believe that you are not free from sinning for the rest of your life, but that you WILL sin - but the difference being that you will not DESIRE sin - this is because you are a new creation in Christ.

You then said that my answer was irrelevant?? It is IMPOSSIBLE for my answer to be irrelevant to YOUR QUESTION, because it answers your question!! Maybe you are saying that the whole discussion is irrelevant to the subject of the thread?

Anyway, hope that clears it up.

 

[PEPCIS]

Please notice that nowhere does the word permanent or irreversible or any other such notion appear in this text.

[/quote]

Not sure if that is relevant.

Seriously though, the logic implies that if God MAKES us to sit in heavenly places with Christ, how is it that you can overpower God? That does not appear to be sound logic to me.

Philthy:

You are correct that if we are in a state of grace that our orientation will be towards God. . .

If we are “in a state of grace” it is only because God MADE us to sit in that grace.

Philthy:

. . . but there is nothing in [the Scripture] that you have provided that says that we will be incapable of rejecting the gift of salvation. . .

Except the concommittant logic which screams that we are not more powerful than God.

Philthy:

and nothing that says we cannot disinherit the kingdom of God. . .

Except the concommittant logic which screams that we are not more powerful than God.

Philthy:

. . . sin remains lurking and we must avail ourselves of the grace God provides to withstand its temptations (1 Cor 10:13).

Of course we must. No one is saying that we shouldn’t. But availing ourselves of God’s grace, as you point out in 1 Cor. 10:13, is a grace that God gives to all believers that prevents them from “disinheriting” the kingdom of God. Paul says that God will give us grace so that even when we are tempted, He “. . .will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Philthy:

On the contrary there are explicit statements (not ambiguous ones such as you have provided) to those who are “saved” that they may not yet inherit the kingdom of God (Heaven) - 1Cor 6:9 directly addresses this issue, and it is not alone.

I’ve already answered this elsewhere. This does not show that we can lose our salvation.

 

[PEPCIS]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me “yes” or “no”. That’s not a “yes” or “no” type of question.

I consider this a dodge attempt.

Well, YOU were the one that asked it, just in another form.

Philthy:

I can easily answer the question you posed: I have not stopped beating my wife.

That’s a bit disingenuous. The question, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” does NOT ALLOW A YES OR NO RESPONSE, because either response reveals the EXACT SAME ANSWER.

A question that LEADS to only one response is not a true question, because it does not allow the respondent to address mitigating factors, or to illustrate that he does not beat his wife - a legitimate and logically-acceptable answer.

By your asking a question in that format, you are disallowing any answer which is logical and legitimate.

Philthy:

Now the answer requires a little explanation in order to fully understand, but that is easy. I havent stopped beating my wife because I never started beating her.

Then you didn’t give a “yes or no” response. That was my complaint. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Philthy:

Boy that was hard. Now, why dont you answer the question predicated with a yes or no, and then explain your yes or no.

I did. My answer clearly showed that “no” was the appropriate answer, and I explained why, but it did not lead to the conclusion which your question presupposed with its “yes or no” format.

The reason that we are commanded to follow God’s laws is because there is a contrast between law and grace being illustrated.

Philthy:

I have no idea what you mean by this. God doesnt require us to follow any Commandment “because” there is contrast between law and grace. but I will take a guess: You might say that the requirement of keeping the Commandments in the OT time was for the purposes of illustrating the New Covenant of grace to those under the NewC, but that doesnt explain why those of us under the New C are required or “commanded” to follow them now. That latter point is what you were supposed to be addressing!

I didn’t mean to imply that we are commanded to follow God’s laws because there is a contrast between law and grace. The contrast between law and grace is highlighted several times by Paul to illustrate to us how it is that we cannot be saved by the works of the law (doing penance, etc). So when I sadi that it is because there is a contrast between law and grace being illustrated, I mean to say that that contrast illustrates that we CANNOT be saved by the law.

In other words, the commandment is not to “do this and you shall live” as if we were under the Old Testament Law, but “do this because we Love Him.”

Philthy:

Also, please don’t switch back and forth from the term “laws” and “commandments” it is confusing for Catholics because we differentiate between the Deuteronomic “law” and the Commandments “Law of Moses”; the former are obsolete while the latter are still binding (again, see 1Cor 6:9)

Well, that shouldn’t be confusing, because what you stated is the exact same thing that I hold to.

Philthy:

This [topic of the rich, young ruler] is actually a separate topic and your interpretation, while reasonable, is fallible, and cannot be used to validate - to me - your position on grace and the law in our original discussion. I happen to disagree with your interpretation of the exchange. IMHO, which is no less fallible than yours, the rich young man actually was in violation of the 2 Commandments which fulfil the whole law: loving God and loving neighbor. He simply didnt realize it. Christ was revealing to him that although the young man thought he had followed the law he really had not. That is why Christ challenged him to give up all he had and give it to the poor" his inability to do so stems from - and revealed - his having loved his posessions more than God (violation of love God portion); and his inability to “give it to the poor” revealed that he didnt actually love his neighbor as his self (violation of love neighbor portion).

I’m a bit puzzled, because I do not believe this to be a “separate topic” because it deals directly with OSAS, to illustrate that there is NOTHING that you can do to save yourself - no works of man are capable of salvation. Also, you state that you disagree with my interpretation, but your interpretation (unbeknownst to you) is actually the same as mine, because I agree that the rich young ruler had not really followed the law.

Hope you are having a fantastic day!! Blessings to you.

 

[ScotchIrish]

Just a couple of points that need to be cleared up. 1. When Christ said “It is finished” He was talking about His earthly ministry. 2. Baptism takes care of original sin only, and that is a Catholic (Universal) belief. You can spin things anyway you choose, but they still remain in truth in Christ and not in what man would like them to be.

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi, Pepcis,

I think what was is being address is that you really have a circular argument: you are saved becasue you are saved, you are not saved because you have sinned.

Hello, T,

I’m not so sure that I see this tautology as you do. I do not claim that “you are saved because you are saved”, I claim that you are saved BECAUSE God saves you, not because of anything that you can do, or contribute. It is precisely because we are filthy, rotten sinners that we do need salvation.

What I do claim is that we are saved, and then we live for Christ for two reasons:

1. 
   *]We live for Him because it is in our new nature to do so. Like a moth drawn to the flame, we are drawn to Christ.
   *]We live for Him because we WANT to. Like a man plucked out of the ocean from certain death, we desperately desire to show our benefactor some semblance of gratitude for what he has done for us.
   
   
   tqualey:
   

   Predestination is a mystery - and our finite minds can not grasp God’s entire Plan.

   Well, I’m not so sure what is such a “mystery.” The Bible defines for us what “predestination” means. It is that which God has pre-ordained to occur. For example, in Acts 2 it speaks of Jesus in this way:
   
   [SIGN]“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”[/SIGN]
   
   In this Scripture, you see a couple of things. Firstly, you see that Jesus was brought to Calvary by “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” God had predestinated that this moment would occur. If the whole population of earth were gathered on that hill in an effort to thwart God’s plan, Jesus would still have been crucified, because God had foreordained it to occur.
   
   Secondly, we see that even though this occured, that God was holding men responsible for it having taken place: “ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
   
   Thirdly, foreknowledge is clearly shown in these verses as being what God had planned to occur, not what he had “foreseen” to have occured. It was brought about by "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
   
   Sorry it took so long to respond. Hope this helps to understand the Protestant view!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pepcis,

Thank you for responding.

God bless

Hello, T,

I’m not so sure that I see this tautology as you do. I do not claim that “you are saved because you are saved”, I claim that you are saved BECAUSE God saves you, not because of anything that you can do, or contribute. It is precisely because we are filthy, rotten sinners that we do need salvation.

What I do claim is that we are saved, and then we live for Christ for two reasons:

1. 
   *]We live for Him because it is in our new nature to do so. Like a moth drawn to the flame, we are drawn to Christ.
   *]We live for Him because we WANT to. Like a man plucked out of the ocean from certain death, we desperately desire to show our benefactor some semblance of gratitude for what he has done for us.
   
   Well, I’m not so sure what is such a “mystery.” The Bible defines for us what “predestination” means. It is that which God has pre-ordained to occur. For example, in Acts 2 it speaks of Jesus in this way:
   
   [SIGN]“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”[/SIGN]
   
   In this Scripture, you see a couple of things. Firstly, you see that Jesus was brought to Calvary by “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” God had predestinated that this moment would occur. If the whole population of earth were gathered on that hill in an effort to thwart God’s plan, Jesus would still have been crucified, because God had foreordained it to occur.
   
   Secondly, we see that even though this occured, that God was holding men responsible for it having taken place: “ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
   
   Thirdly, foreknowledge is clearly shown in these verses as being what God had planned to occur, not what he had “foreseen” to have occured. It was brought about by "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
   
   Sorry it took so long to respond. Hope this helps to understand the Protestant view!

 

[ScotchIrish]

Pepcis, let me see if i’ve got your statement correct regarding predestination and Jesus. Are you saying that Jesus could not have said, no? If that is what you are saying, then that defeats the purpose of God and free will.
Scotchirish.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Not sure if that is relevant.

Seriously though, the logic implies that if God MAKES us to sit in heavenly places with Christ, how is it that you can overpower God? That does not appear to be sound logic to me.

Hebrews 6:4-6 states:
"For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the power of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are re-crucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

So it is possible to reject God’s grace. Keep in mind that all the souls in Hell chose to go to Hell. God sends no one to Hell on His own, we choose it by our actions. Revelation 20:12 states that the dead will be judged on their actions. James 2:24 states that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. God has pre-destined certain things to happen to us. He also has a plan for our lives. This pre-destination is not absolute; meaning we are free to reject or miss God’s plan for us. He forces nothing on us.

If we are “in a state of grace” it is only because God MADE us to sit in that grace.

That takes free will out of the equation. God picks and chooses who He wants to give grace to. We are free to reject His grace at any point, because God is a loving God who gave us the free will to do what we want.

Of course we must. No one is saying that we shouldn’t. But availing ourselves of God’s grace, as you point out in 1 Cor. 10:13, is a grace that God gives to all believers that prevents them from “disinheriting” the kingdom of God. Paul says that God will give us grace so that even when we are tempted, He “. . .will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I’ve already answered this elsewhere. This does not show that we can lose our salvation.

You aren’t taking into account the possibility of giving in to temptation. You also either left out or forgot that :
—The person(s) being tempted might not know what they are being tempted to do is wrong
—The people being tempted are blind to or unable to discern the way of escape that God has provided
—The people being tempted could just give in for the heck of it, like Adam did in the Garden of Eden

Also, how does 1 Cor. 10:13 mention any sort of “grace”? Unless you are equating grace with the way of escape provided by God, I fail to see any grace mentioned in the passage.

No offese, but are you a person who believes that the 1611 KJV A.V. is the only Bible we should use (aka KJV-onlyist)?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pepcis,

I think TheWhoFreak gave you a set of excellent answers.

Seriously though, the logic implies that if God MAKES us to sit in heavenly places with Christ, how is it that you can overpower God? That does not appear to be sound logic to me. .

How does this sound from a logical basis:

God knows exactly who will be with Him in Heaven for all Eternity. There are not surprises to God. The issue is ours - not God’s. It is us who get hung up on predestination in the sense of trying to say who and who is not going to be with Christ in Heaven. We are to (actually commanded to do) the very best we can (and, of course that means cooperating with the Grace of God) and then trust in God to take care of whatever is lacking.

We can not work our way to heaven in the sense that actions we do will amout ot having our ‘ticket punched’ and we get through the Pearly Gates. God gives us the Grace to want His Grace and then He gives us the Grace to carry out His Divine Will. Christ was quite explicit when he founed His cChurch on Peter: we love God with our whole heart AND our neighbor as ourselves. To love our neighbor means we do things - and James 2 understands this when he addressed clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and visiting the imprisoned. Notice we can clothe someone by saying, “Have a nice day.” We must do something (WORKS! )

Good bless

.

 

[PEPCIS]

Pepcis, let me see if i’ve got your statement correct regarding predestination and Jesus. Are you saying that Jesus could not have said, no? If that is what you are saying, then that defeats the purpose of God and free will.
Scotchirish.

1. 
   *]There is no such thing as “free” will.
   *]Jesus, because He is God, would not have said “no” to the Predestinated Will of God. As God, He was working out the plan of His Father.