What must one do to be saved?

[apophasis]

The ability to persevere in love to the end is gifted to us by God’s grace. It is no less a gift than the initial gift of justification when we are first washed and cleansed. The two are not to be separated from each other. ** Salvation starts, continues, and ends with the grace of God**.

Well then G., either you believe in eternal security (OSAS) or you must believe that the grace of God can fail. Which is it?

Please don’t respond with “we can fail,” because you claim that the ability to persevere is “gifted” by God’s grace. If, as you claim, “it starts, continues and ends with the grace of God,” then either one is eternally secure because of that continuous, divine gift, or it’s the grace of God fails men.

 

[apophasis]

So do you follow Paul or Christ?

I follow the Word of God. Does Paul preach Christ? So do I.

 

[apophasis]

Apo is a strict Paulist. He takes his soteriology primarily.from Paul. In fact, he once posted his belief that Jesus did not have much of anything pertinent to say about salvation, since He had not yet been crucified.

G., will you quote me where I said "Jesus did not have much of anything pertinent to say about salvation?? I think if you go back and check out the posts you’ll see those words were said to me as a response to what I had posted.

I am not a “Paulist,” I am a Biblicist.

And the gospel message concerning Christ, delivered to the world by the Apostles, did not begin until AFTER Christ’s sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection. Because the “good news” (gospel) of man’s redemption, justification and reconciliation to God are all based on Christ’s substitutionary, sacrificial work on the cross. They could not be applied to the believer (through faith) until Christ procured (secured) them through the cross.

Prior to His death and bodily resurrection Jesus constantly pointed to Himself as the source of eternal life through belief in Him (example: Jn. 3:14-18), but He did not preach on the doctrines of redemption or justification, nor the propitiation of God’s offended holiness because of sins - all results of Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross.

You may disagree with me all you want, G., but please don’t miss quote me or, like others, put their words into my mouth.

 

[guanophore]

Well then G., either you believe in eternal security (OSAS) or you must believe that the grace of God can fail. Which is it?

No, I don’t think that Catholic soteriology falls into either.

Please don’t respond with “we can fail,” because you claim that the ability to persevere is “gifted” by God’s grace.

Absolutely. How can anyone persevere in faith without grace? It is humanely impossible. However, mankind has free will, and can reject God’s grace at any point.

If, as you claim, “it starts, continues and ends with the grace of God,” then either one is eternally secure because of that continuous, divine gift, or it’s the grace of God fails men.

Neither is true. One can be eternally secure if one perseveres, but one may choose not to do so. The Grace of God does not violate the free will of man.

 

[guanophore]

Well then G., either you believe in eternal security (OSAS) or you must believe that the grace of God can fail. Which is it?

No, I don’t think that Catholic soteriology falls into either.

Please don’t respond with “we can fail,” because you claim that the ability to persevere is “gifted” by God’s grace.

Absolutely. How can anyone persevere in faith without grace? It is humanely impossible. However, mankind has free will, and can reject God’s grace at any point.

If, as you claim, “it starts, continues and ends with the grace of God,” then either one is eternally secure because of that continuous, divine gift, or it’s the grace of God fails men.

Neither is true. One can be eternally secure if one perseveres, but one may choose not to do so. The Grace of God does not violate the free will of man.

I am not a “Paulist,” I am a Biblicist.

This is the main difference. Catholics preach the gospel that Jesus committed to the Apostles. Reformed traditions, being separated from that Apostolic Tradition, preach out of the only part retained, which is scripture. It leads to a truncated understanding of the Teachings.

Catholics do not separate the coming of the Kingdom, and the preaching of that Kingdom, from the good news that was preached after the death of Christ. It is true that the post-pentecostal understanding of the Apostles was much better, but they started preaching the gospel long before HIs death.

Because the “good news” (gospel) of man’s redemption, justification and reconciliation to God are all based on Christ’s substitutionary, sacrificial work on the cross.

While all these things are true, the Jews to whom Jesus preached were well versed in the feasts that prefigured the Christ. They also understood the paschal sacrifice. All this was preached before Paul.

lt could not be applied to the believer (through faith) until Christ procured (secured) them through the cross.

How do you account for the people that were saved by grace, through faith, prior to the death of Jesus?

Prior to His death and bodily resurrection Jesus constantly pointed to Himself as the source of eternal life through belief in Him (example: Jn. 3:14-18), but He did not preach on the doctrines of redemption or justification, nor the propitiation of God’s offended holiness because of sins - all results of Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross.

Catholics can see that Jesus did preach on these things. He used different language and methods than Paul, but the message is the same.

 

[guanophore]

G., will you quote me where I said "Jesus did not have much of anything pertinent to say about salvation?? I think if you go back and check out the posts you’ll see those words were said to me as a response to what I had posted.

The doctrines of salvation are not found in, or built upon, parables - not even Christ’s. They’re found in the post-cross teachings of the Epistles. The parables Christ presented to the Jews, prior to His sacrificial death and bodily resurrection, did not necessarily take His atoning work on the cross into consideration. His parables taught, in a limited way, a specific lesson by example, but they are not salvation doctrines based on and rooted in His atoning work on the cross. For these you must go to the Epistles.

Catholics note that the Apostles were teaching the “doctrines of salvation” for many years before Paul came on the scene.
"apophasis:

But Jesus did not teach salvation in the context of the crosss, since that event was yet future when He taught the parables. For this reason, if you want to truly understand salvation, this side of the cross, and in light of it, you must turn to the Epistles - especially Pauline. By divine revelation Paul was given great insight into this “mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-5).

I find this an absurd assertion. Jesus knew that he was going to the cross. For the joy that was set before Him, he was focused on it continually. EVERYTHING He taught was in the context of the cross.

apophasis:

The doctrines of salvation, in light of the historical, finished work of Christ on the cross, are presented and fully explained in the Epistles, not Christ’s parables.

Fortunately, the HS has preserved both for us. But Paul understood these principles from the OT, and the Revelation of God. That means it was all there prior to the epistles being written. Paul even tells Timothy that the OT has the power to instruct him unto salvation.

Can you show me where Jesus teaches specifically about justification, redemption, propitiation, identification, sanctification, etc. in the parables?

If folks don’t mind doing this within this thread. Personally, I think it is on topic.
"apophasis:

Why would Jesus give Paul insight into the mystery of Himself if He’d already disclosed it all to Israel? And why would he teach these post-cross mysteries to unbelievers? Truths that are addressed to faith and concern only believers.

Because He intended to send Paul to the Gentiles, and they had no frame of reference as did the Jews.

apophasis:

I'm not saying Jesus didn't teach about salvation.  In fact He spoke a lot about eternal life through faith in Him alone. And He specifically presented Himself as the *object* of salvation faith.  But He did not disclose to them the "*doctrines of salvation*" which could only be presented and fully understood AFTER His sacrificial, substitutionary death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension.  ALL on which the "*doctrines of salvation*" are based.

I disagree with you about Him not teaching doctrine. However, I do agree that the understanding of it was much more clear to the Apostles after the cross.

You may disagree with me all you want, G., but please don’t miss quote me or, like others, put their words into my mouth.

If I have done so, I sincerely apologize. I understand the reasoning behind your arguement, though I disagree with your conclusions.

 

[guanophore]

But if one, as you say, pulls the plug" on himself, then he is no longer a believer, but has reverted back to an unbelieving state.

I don’t think it is that black and white. There are many “states” between full belief, and unbelief. Can anyone say that Peter never previously believed when he reverted to an “unbelieving state” at the moment he tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem?

He is again “dead in trespasses and sins.” He is no longer “in Christ” but again a sinner in Adam and in a totally unjustified state.

This statement represents a flaw in Reformed soteriology. This who have been sealed by the HS cannot ever return to an unregenerated state. They are changed forever, just as tabcom has shown on another thread about baptism. A cucumber can never go back to being a pickle. In fact, scripture says that their last state is WORSE than the first!

Now according to RC’ism, how does an adult unbeliever enter into “initial” justification?

Through baptism. But you already knw that, right?

 

[apophasis]

If I have done so, I sincerely apologize. I understand the reasoning behind your arguement, though I disagree with your conclusions.

You posted a lot of what I said and nowhere did I say that Jesus had nothing pertinent to say about salvation. So it’s not “if I have done so,” you did. You misquoted me and put another person’s words into my mouth.

Also, you and I have had a fairly long history of dialogue and you know that I’ve quoted from ALL parts of the Scriptures. If I was a “strict Paulist” (as you say) then I would have quoted only the writings of Paul. But you know that’s not the case. However, no N.T. writer is as theologically versed on the doctrines of salvation based on the cross of Christ as Paul. Any Biblical scholar of value would agree.

I don’t mind you posting my old posts, G., but I don’t think anyone here is able to understand the context in which they were written. Nor am I going to rehash everything I said there. You can tell them where the thread is and they can follow the dialogue themselves. :tiphat:

 

[apophasis]

This statement represents a flaw in Reformed soteriology. This who have been sealed by the HS cannot ever return to an unregenerated state. They are changed forever

Here again, G., either you’re preaching eternal security (OSAS) or you’re saying there’ll be H.S. regenerated persons in hell.

 

[runandsew]

I am not a “Paulist,” I am a Biblicist.

I think the latin phrase for this is called - “selfinterpretius biblicist”

Can a man be unborn?

Maybe by suicide.
Think of unrepented sins as spiritual suicide.

 

[apophasis]

I think the latin phrase for this is called - “selfinterpretius biblicist”

Nothing wrong with that.

Maybe by suicide.
Think of unrepented sins as spiritual suicide.

Not even suicide can cause a person to be unborn.

Salvation through “repenting for sins” is not Biblical. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of direction. Turning from unbelief to belief. It’s related to turning to Christ by faith. The One who dealt with ALL our sins, once for all, through the sacrifice of Himself.John 20:27 “Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.””

John 20:31 "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Rev 21:8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part {will be} in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

 

[apophasis]

So once you turned to Christ you never returned to sin? You have never sinned since coming to faith? Or, are you still in sin, but telling yourself it is acceptable as long as you have faith? Do you believe it is possible to get victory over sin or are you doomed to remain in your sins, a slave, and tell yourself that it is ok as long as you have faith that they all will be overlooked?

Christ is the One who had victory over sin. How is it you who claim to believe in Christ fail to believe what He accomplished, sacrificially, on our behalf? Jesus said:John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am {He,} you will die in your sins."It’s the unbeliever who dies in his sins, not the believer. No such risk exists for the one who has turned from unbelief (repented) and has truly believed in Christ.

God does not deal with believers as “sinners” but as “sons.” A sinner has yet to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. A son, however, is disciplined by his Father for his own good:Heb. 12:5-7 "…and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or faint when you are reproved by Him, for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and scourges every son whom He receives.” It is for discipline that you endure (not salvation); God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline?

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

When Jesus says He will reward those who overcome, what does He mean?

This is answered by knowing who the overcomers are:1 John 5:4-5 "For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Do you need to repent or is it ok for you to remain in sin as long as you believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for sinners?

I did “repent” when I turned from unbelief to belief in Christ. And now I am no longer “in sin” but “in Christ,” clothed in His righteousness. I am in the resurrected, living Christ who 2000 years ago took upon Himself ALL my sins and died in my stead. There He died to (my) sins, once for all, and was raised to new life (Rom. 6:10), and me with Him.

GF, as long as I’m in this yet unredeemed, earthly body I’ll never achieve a perfect, sinless life. Does that mean I should sin? No. Paul exclaims

Rom 6:2 "May it never be! How shall we who died to sin (i.e., with Christ) still live in it? But sin is not a salvation deal-breaker. By divine identity I am no longer a sinner, but a saint (even a son). My sins (past, present and future) were eternally dealt with by God’s sin-bearer.

How is it you can’t understand these things? Or is it you refuse to believe them?​

 

[MarcoPolo]

I follow the Word of God. Does Paul preach Christ? So do I.

We agree. :dancing:

Congratulations on taking your first step in understanding the Church is where you become part of the body (Col 1:18) of Christ and on your way to salvation!

 

[grandfather]

But sin is not a salvation deal-breaker. By divine identity I am no longer a sinner, but a saint (even a son). My sins (past, present and future) were eternally dealt with by God’s sin-bearer.

How is it you can’t understand these things? Or is it you refuse to believe them?

I see what you say. Scripture says there is sin and there is sin. There are some sins that are unto death (mortal) and some that are not. It says our WORKS will all be tried. Those that are unworthy will be burned up. Those whose works are burned up will not be lost, but they would be put through fire (purified). What the earliest Church taught on this, the one’s who canonized scripture, was that there were sveral ways to lose salvation, commit mortal sin. These sins were apostacy, adultery and murder. The Church continued to teach this about the nature and effect of sin consistently, based on scripture, for 1500 years until the reformers came up with their novel doctrine.

Peter the first pope was an apostate. He denied Christ to save himself from possible arrest. He repented in tears, by grace.

Suppose the Church were wrong about the understanding of mortal sin, sin that separates us from God all this time. Or suppose the Church erred on the teaching of what is necessary for salvation until Luther figured out that faith alone saves. Or, on the doctrines about the Eucharist. The historical record, the writings of the early fathers reveals what the early Church believed on these matters. In scripture Jesus makes certain promises to us through the apostles. He says He will not leave us orphans. He will send the Holy Spirit and be with us until the end of time. He says to His apsotles that there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not bear it yet. The Holy Spirit would come and lead them into ALL truth. The promise is made for all time.

Is it possible that the Church can teach error. lies about matters of faith and morals? If the Church was wrong from the beginning about many of her doctrines, if all Christians believed false doctrine for 1500 years then Jesus’s promises are false. The Church in the year 200 and 2000 either believes truth or Jesus’s promises have failed.

Is it possible that the Church could teach infants are to be baptized, for example, as recorded from records that go back to the first century, the second, tenth, etc., and someone come along in 1700 or so and say this is false practice, and the novel idea be correct? If Luther who baptized infants was right about sola fide, then every other Christian theologian, saint, pope, for all time is wrong. Arguments like what we see here all claim scripture backs them up which is not entirely false. There is some reference behind the different claims. So who is right? Could it be that Jesus’s promises are right and the Church’s consistent teaching is right? Could it be that He meant it when He says in scripture that whatever His apostles bind on earth He will bind in heaven, that He backs their teaching up and protects it by The Holy Spirit He promises to send to lead into truth in ALL ages? All novel ideas that contradict the constant teaching and mind of the Church whether it is on the meaning of scripture, salvation, sacraments prove Jesus’s promises are wrong.

 

[guanophore]

You posted a lot of what I said and nowhere did I say that Jesus had nothing pertinent to say about salvation. So it’s not “if I have done so,” you did. You misquoted me and put another person’s words into my mouth.

Also, you and I have had a fairly long history of dialogue and you know that I’ve quoted from ALL parts of the Scriptures. If I was a “strict Paulist” (as you say) then I would have quoted only the writings of Paul. But you know that’s not the case. However, no N.T. writer is as theologically versed on the doctrines of salvation based on the cross of Christ as Paul. Any Biblical scholar of value would agree.

I don’t mind you posting my old posts, G., but I don’t think anyone here is able to understand the context in which they were written. Nor am I going to rehash everything I said there. You can tell them where the thread is and they can follow the dialogue themselves. :tiphat:

Ok, let me try again. Would it be more correct to say that you don’t believe Jesus taught the doctrine of salvation, since He was not yet crucified?

You seem to look primarily (if not exclusively) to the writings of Paul for the doctrines of salvation, where Paul looked to the OT, and the the teaching of Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

You posted a lot of what I said and nowhere did I say that Jesus had nothing pertinent to say about salvation.

Ok, here is one of the statements that I took that way:

So you disregard the post-cross, Apostolic message concerning the forgiveness of sins which I quoted and you believe instead that your forgiveness does not come through the cross but is contingent upon your forgiving others.

Just as an aside, since this is also in the post, why can’t both these be true? Why would a person think that God would forgive him, if he did not forgive his brother from his heart?

Jesus taught many things to the Jews who were under the Law or as His subjects of the Kingdom prior to the cross that do not directly apply to the believer (this side of the cross) who has been forever cleansed by His sacrificial blood - through faith.

Maybe I am still misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are saying that, when Jesus taught about salvation, he was directing HIs message to Jews under the Law (not Christians), and that His teachings on salvation are not relevant for us, because we have been saved by His blood.

To me, that equates to saying that His Teaching/Doctrine is not relevant to Christians.)

 

[apophasis]

I see what you say. Scripture says there is sin and there is sin. There are some sins that are unto death (mortal) and some that are not.

.1 Jn. 5:16 is a VERY obscure verse. He doesn’t even tell us what “a sin to death” is (yet men born years later do - go figure). Nor does he explain if he means physical death or condemnation. Yet men have foolishly built their doctrines of salvation and condemnation on that one obscure verse. Even ignoring verse 18 where John goes on to state:"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."One who is “born of God” is now “in Christ,” and Paul writes:Rom 8:1-2 "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
And Jesus said:Matt 26:28 "…for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.And both Peter and Paul clearly proclaimed:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,Nothing obscure about these, GF.

It says our WORKS will all be tried.

Yes, “works,” not “sins.”

Those that are unworthy will be burned up. Those whose works are burned up will not be lost, but they would be put through fire (purified).

It says nothing of the sort. It is the believer’s WORKS that are being tested and rewarded here. The fire purifies nothing but reveals the value of the works: “…for each man’s work will be become evident…the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s WORK” (1 Cor. 3:13).

The believer receives reward for those works that are revealed to be valuable, that which cannot burn: gold, silver, precious stones. Sorry GF, but this passage does not teach “purgatory.”

What the earliest Church taught on this, the one’s who canonized scripture, was that there were sveral ways to lose salvation, commit mortal sin. These sins were apostacy, adultery and murder.

And yet John himself who WROTE the passage never names a single sin.

The Church continued to teach this about the nature and effect of sin consistently, based on scripture, for 1500 years until the reformers came up with their novel doctrine.

Hardly based on Scripture since that Scripture does not name any particular sin.

Peter the first pope was an apostate. He denied Christ to save himself from possible arrest. He repented in tears, by grace.

It doesn’t say he “repented.” It just says he wept bitterly.

Suppose the Church were wrong about the understanding of mortal sin, sin that separates us from God all this time. Or suppose the Church erred on the teaching of what is necessary for salvation until Luther figured out that faith alone saves. Or, on the doctrines about the Eucharist. The historical record, the writings of the early fathers reveals what the early Church believed on these matters.

It matters not what men “believed” on the matters of salvation, but what God’s Word reveals.

In scripture Jesus makes certain promises to us through the apostles. He says He will not leave us orphans. He will send the Holy Spirit and be with us until the end of time. He says to His apsotles that there was much He wanted to tell them, but they could not bear it yet. The Holy Spirit would come and lead them into ALL truth. The promise is made for all time.

No it’s not. It was made to those whom He chose to take His gospel to the world. The H.S would bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them.John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.Those things were then preserved in Scripture for subsequent generations. And by these Scriptures we can even test the teachings of men - even the teachings of Popes and other high officials in church organizations.

Is it possible that the Church can teach error.

Men can error. But the Scriptures are *theopneustos *(God-breathed). Hence, without error.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Ok, let me try again. Would it be more correct to say that you don’t believe Jesus taught the doctrine of salvation, since He was not yet crucified?

Let me say it again. He didn’t teach certain doctrines of salvation. Those directly related to or based on the cross:

Redemption****Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Heb 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.Reconciliation****Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

2 Cor 5:18 Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

Col 1:22 "…yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–

Eph 2:16 "…and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.Propitiation****Rom 3:25 “…whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.”

1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins."Justification****Rom 3:24 “…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (which is through His blood) which is in Christ Jesus;”

Rom 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him."Can you show me where Jesus ever taught on these cross based, cross related doctrines? As I said, Jesus often pointed to Himself as the object of salvation faith and the only source of eternal life (through faith in Him), but He did not preach the “word of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18), nor the power of it to save, through faith. This “word” was entrusted to His Apostles after His substitutionary, sacrificial death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension back into heaven. That’s why we must look to the writings of the Epistles (especially Paul’s) to learn and understand what the cross of Christ actually accomplished on the believer’s behalf.

Whether you accept it or not, the truth is, the four gospel accounts must be understood in light of what is revealed to us in the Epistles regarding the cross and the believer’s salvation - not the other way around.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Whether you accept it or not, the truth is, the four gospel accounts must be understood in light of what is revealed to us in the Epistles regarding the cross and the believer’s salvation - not the other way around.

Actually…

Whether you accept it or not, the truth is, the four gospel accounts, the epistles, and the rest of the New Testament must be understood in light of what is revealed to us by the apostles through both the oral traditions of the apostles and the whole of the written traditions, and with the God given gift of reason all together.

No one part of either the oral or written tradition is more important then another.

 

[MariaG]

Again, sorry for the lateness of the reply.

But those works are not the basis for a believer’s salvation.

Correct. And this is the Catholic teaching. We do not disagree here. The biggest lie that Satan has been able to succeed in since the Garden of Eden are the lies about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has never taught that works are the basis for a believer’s salvation.

Only Christ’s sacrificial work on our behalf and in our stead, since only His work alone deals with sin(s) which separated us from God in the first place.

Yes. Again, we agree.

For this reason it’s “by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works.” ANY works (other than Christ’s).Then on what basis is catholic justification “initial?” What finally causes it to become permanent?Is it? On what grounds?

Exactly as you state it. By grace through faith. This is the basis. Again, we do not disagree here, at least as applies to adults.

The difference is the following. You believe it is permanent from your first moment, until you die. We believe that there is more to the story and believe scripture reflects what we believe to be the apostolic teachings on this.

Scripture talks about salvation being a past event.

Eph 2:5, 8 - by grace you have been saved through faith
2Tim 1;9 - He saved us, called us according to his grace

But scripture also talks of salvation as being a current event, a process that has yet to be achieved.

hil 2;12 - work out your salvation with fear and trembling
1Pet 1:9 - as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation

And scripture further tells us that salvation has a future aspect to it.

Rom 5:9-10 - since we are justified, we shall be saved
Cor 3:15 - he shall be saved, but only as through fire

We both believe that Christ died once for all.

The blood of Christ was poured out and applied to all who needed it. It is a timeless sacrifice. But we are finite creatures who live “in” time. We each MUST choose to accept or reject the gift of His sacrifice and His redeeming blood is applied to us individually.

But the grace of God never overrides our free will. We always have the choice to reject the gift, even after our initial salvation.

It is not that God’s grace is lacking, it is that we always have the gift of free will. God never compels us to do anything against our free will, including rejecting Him, even after our initial salvation.

True. But “fruit” does not produce salvation.Personally, I wasn’t called to be a “fruit inspector.”

Again, we agree.

And one is not saved through perseverence, but “by grace through faith.” According to God’s Word, it’s GIFTED at the time of true belief in Christ, not rewarded at the end of one’s life because of perseverance. If it was then it is not “by grace” at all, and God is found to be a liar.

I believe G. replied to this most specifically. Perseverence is a gift of the Holy Spirit. We cannot persevere without the gift of grace from God.

But again, at anytime, we can choose to reject the gift of salvation through free will.

We do not think we persevere with our own will, the will to persevere comes from the grace of God. But again, we can accept that grace or reject it and fall.

Curious: At the bottom of your posts you write that you’re “blood bought.” What does that mean to you

No problem

Blood bought means to me that my salvation has been bought and paid for by the redeeming blood of Christ and His sacrifice.

God Bless,
Maria