T
Tommy999
Guest
From the outside looking in, it appears that both sides are saying that a Christian should have faith and good works.
Benny12 seems to be saying, if I understand correctly, that good works are the by-product or “fruit” of faith but not part of it, whereas FHansen and Julius Caesar, as I understand it, contend that good works are a part of the expression of faith and therefore part of the overall faith equation (faith without works is dead).
Scenario:
If a self-identifying Christian who had once publicly “accepted Christ” and dedicated his life to God at an altar call and was once enthusiastic and zealous for God now willfully sins (robbing banks, murder, adultery, etc) and doesn’t repent, Catholics (and others) would say the guy lost his salvation because he sinned seriously and didn’t repent, although God is his final judge.
If he sincerely repents and turns back to God, he is forgiven and can re-establish his relationship with God and the Church. His salvation depends on what he does from that point on.
On the other hand, folks who believe like Benny12 would probably maintain that the guy in question was never truly saved in the first place or else he wouldn’t have strayed so far. In other words, his fruits contradicted his faith declaration.
However, if the person repents and turns back to God, it shows that he is part of the ‘elect’ and that he was predestined to remain in Christ. He just “back slid” for a time because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.
Getting close to understanding the positions?
Benny12 seems to be saying, if I understand correctly, that good works are the by-product or “fruit” of faith but not part of it, whereas FHansen and Julius Caesar, as I understand it, contend that good works are a part of the expression of faith and therefore part of the overall faith equation (faith without works is dead).
Scenario:
If a self-identifying Christian who had once publicly “accepted Christ” and dedicated his life to God at an altar call and was once enthusiastic and zealous for God now willfully sins (robbing banks, murder, adultery, etc) and doesn’t repent, Catholics (and others) would say the guy lost his salvation because he sinned seriously and didn’t repent, although God is his final judge.
If he sincerely repents and turns back to God, he is forgiven and can re-establish his relationship with God and the Church. His salvation depends on what he does from that point on.
On the other hand, folks who believe like Benny12 would probably maintain that the guy in question was never truly saved in the first place or else he wouldn’t have strayed so far. In other words, his fruits contradicted his faith declaration.
However, if the person repents and turns back to God, it shows that he is part of the ‘elect’ and that he was predestined to remain in Christ. He just “back slid” for a time because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.
Getting close to understanding the positions?
Last edited: