S
sonseeker
Guest
Thessalonian,
Forgive me my tone in posts 98, 99, 100. I am a bit tired.
Bill
Forgive me my tone in posts 98, 99, 100. I am a bit tired.
Bill
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
Bill,
Why do I feel the sudden need to ask you to read this?
catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php
Read this with the light heart with which it was written, but take the point seriously.
Your loving brother in Christ,
RyanL
p.s.,
Did you want to continue our Original Sin / Immaculate Conception discussion on a new thread?
Why do I feel the sudden need to ask you to read this?
catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php
Read this with the light heart with which it was written, but take the point seriously.
Your loving brother in Christ,
RyanL
p.s.,
Did you want to continue our Original Sin / Immaculate Conception discussion on a new thread?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I am glad that you agree that God is not a trickster. Do you still believe that God is the source and cause of evil?
Do you agree then, that at least one human being was freely able to make a choice to disobey God, and that God did NOT will Adam to be disobedient to his expressed will?
Good! Then you agree that Adam was in a state of grace when he exercised his free will to be disobedient.
Clarify what you mean. Do Calvinists think that a sinner is in the same state of grace (sanctification) as that of the redeemed in Christ?
Obviously Adam’s had at least some progeny that were alive and then physically died! You are quite right, a corpse is totally unresponsive. Obviously the scriptures that you cite do no state that all men are born stillborn corpses.
In the story of the prodigal son, the father says to the elder son that the prodigal son was dead, and that there is cause to rejoice because the prodigal son has returned to life. The prodigal son became spiritually dead through his sins, but because he repented of his sins, he returned to both life and to the father. Think about the meaning of that. A son can bring spiritual death upon himself by sinning. All OSAS fundamentalists miss the whole point of the story of the prodigal son.
S
sonseeker
Guest
You couldn’t have a worse understanding of that parable if you tried. The two preceding parables need to be read with it in context.
All of them deal with initial salvation. Not a return to deadness and then a return to life.
Your understanding is classically Arminian. You did not tell me the truth when you said that you were not Arminian. I have had enough discussions with Arminians to say that you are an Arminian. Your arguments and your theology.
Bill
R
RyanL
Guest
To be fair, I believe Matt16_18 would best be classified as a Molinist, not Arminian.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
RyanL
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
RyanL
M
Matt16_18
Guest
No, that is not a correct way to describe the heresy of semi-pelagianism. The Catholic Church also teaches that semi-pelagianism is heresy. You would know that if you knew your history.
We both agree that God is sovereign over his creation. And I am not a Deist. I do not believe that God is a watchmaker that is not involved in his creation. I do not deny that God is involved in his creation. God is certainly involved in his creation – God the Son became a man and dwelt among us! God is not, however, the cause and source of the evil that is in the world, and that is where we differ in our beliefs.
If you believe that it is ever God’s will for a man to commit sin, then you simply do not understand that scriptures that you are quoting.
It is not pride to believe that God’s grace has sanctified me! How can I be a Christian and deny that?
Yes, I was born in original sin. That is Catholic doctrine.
Adam was not born, he was created. Adam was created in a state of grace, and he became dis-graced by committing the original sin!
“In my mothers womb I was conceived in sin.” Yes, indeed. I was born a sinner in need of a savior. We should have no disagreement over that.
No, scripture does not teach that I have a “sin nature”. The phrase “sin nature” is one of those strange OSAS Protestant phrases such as “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation” that appear nowhere in scriptures.
Let us be real clear on this point. I have a human nature, not a sin nature, and my human nature is wounded because of the fall. Because I was born a child of the wrath, I am born in need of the grace of God to free me from my slavery to sin. This is what Romans 7:14 actually says:We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin.
Nowhere does Romans 7:14 use the phrase “sin nature”. Romans 7:14 is one of the foundational scriptures upon which the Catholic doctrine of original sin is built.
Adam NEVER had a sin nature. Not before the fall, and not after the fall. He had a *human nature * before the fall, and a *human nature * after the fall. The fall caused Adam to lose that which his human nature had no claim to, namely the preternatural gifts and the supernatural gifts. Adam didn’t exchange a human nature for a sin nature by the fall. Adam kept his human nature after the fall, but he no longer dwelt in a state of sanctifying grace, and he no longer had the preternatural gifts.
And I am one of the redeemed. I have been purchased by Christ from the bondage of slavery (that is what redemption means – to buy back). That is why I said that I am in a state of grace that is higher than what Adam was in before the Fall. You seem to agree with me now.
It is quite true that I am completely dependent upon God’s grace for my salvation. It is also true that, like Adam (and like the prodigal son), I can exercise my free will while I am in a state of grace and bring spiritual death to myself.
I have the assurance of hope - that is true. But it is heresy to say that a Christian cannot become an apostate.
Rubbish! My hope is the grace of God.For the grace of God has appeared, saving all and training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age, as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to deliver us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as his own, eager to do what is good.
Titus 2:11-14
S
sonseeker
Guest
I was going to leave you hanging, but I’m going to get you started on the road to a correct understanding of the parables of Lk 15.
First of all you must read all three to have the correct context.
The most important part are the first two verses. They identify the players of all three parables: Tax-collectors and sinners, who Christ came to seek and to save. And grumbling Scribes and Pharisees, the (self-)righteous in the parables who need no repentances, as they have the law. Take it from there.
The prodigal is not about the son coming to himself, by himself; neither is about mortal sin, a Catholic invention.
All three parables are about initial salvation. The truth of that is seen in each of the three parable punch-lines: The rejoicing of the heavens, the angels of God, and the Father over one sinner who repents; and a whole lot more is within them. From vv 1 & 2, which are the prodigal, and which are the other son?
(Neither is 1 Jn 5 about mortal sin. In fact, we are not told what the sin of Jn 5 is. I have had this discussion with Catholics before. Stop reasoning to the scriptures, and try reasoning ***from ***the scriptures for a change.)
I’ll be gone for at least a week. When I get back maybe I’ll continue this with you, and maybe I won’t.
God Bless you Matt,
Bill
M
Matt16_18
Guest
No, I understand that story of the prodigal son, and I do not need to butcher it to support the heresy of OSAS ( i.e. the heresy that a son of the father cannot ever become spiritually dead). The prodigal son was ALIVE when he left home, and he became spiritually DEAD by choosing to commit mortal sin. He became spiritually ALIVE again by his repentance of those sins.
Baptism makes us partakers of the divine nature – through the grace of baptism we become sons of God. Committing mortal sin causes us to become spiritually dead, because mortal sin destroys the sanctifying grace that is infused into the soul by the Sacrament of Baptism. Sincere repentance for mortal sin (which is what the prodigal SON had) restores the supernatural life in the soul through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
It is not my understanding of the story of the prodigal son that is defective, it is yours, because you are an OSAS Calvinist, and you don’t believe that unrepentant mortal sin can bring damnation to a Christian.
I read the article you linked. This quote from that article is what is germane to my disagreement with the defective soteriology of the OSAS Calvinists: The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. .
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Catholics wrote all the New Testament, and Catholics understand what they wrote! It is sheer lunacy to deny that Catholic scriptures do not speak about mortal sin: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. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
1John 5:16-17 Revised Standard Version
L
linus
Guest
You’re speaking from personal experience only. There’s no such thing as the “free gift of grace.” There is the free gift of salvation based on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 6:23). And the free gift of justification (Rom. 3:23-24), also based on His finished work on the cross, through personal faith. But there is no such thing as the “free gift of grace.” "Grace is not a “gift” but a “means” by which one is saved: “For BY grace you are saved through faith…”.
Paul wrote to the Galatians that they had “fallen from grace:” *“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law * (i.e., works); *you have fallen from grace” * (Gal. 5:4). Paul is not at all saying they “stepped outside of grace,” but that they adopted a totally different gospel, that of works (see Gal. 1:6-10).
On what theological (or Biblical) basis did you call yourself a OSAS Protestant? On what theological (or Biblical) basis do you now deny that salvation is based on sovereign grace through faith in Christ alone?
In the Bible I find the greatest danger presented by Paul is adopting a salvation based on works. The Protestant who understands that his salvation is assured in the Person and work of Christ and none of himself aligns himself with Paul’s gospel and the basic message of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. There’s really no danger in that. But there is GREAT danger in a “gospel” which introduces self-works as a requirement for one’s salvation.
T
thessalonian
Guest
Linus,
What I find is that Protestants don’t understand God working in us and they deny the power of God’s work in us. The works of the regenerate soul are not his own but “christ lives in me” according to Paul. Was Paul sleeping at the wheel when he wrote this?
Romans 2
4: Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
5: But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6: For he will render to** every man according to his works: **
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8: but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, **there will be wrath and fury.
**
This of course is very consistent with the sheep and the goats in Matt 25 and echo’s the words of Matt 16:27: For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
I simply do not see how they can say that we can get in to heaven without works.
We can not “get saved” by works is the Catholic position but after we are a new creation we better start working for Christ, acknowleding his power in us.
Eph 3
20: Now to him who by the** power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, **
21: to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.
As far as I prefer to call it “not falling from grace” rather than losing salvation, there are tons of verses that show that it is possible to “fall from grace”. This one is pretty explicit.
**Gal.5
What I find is that Protestants don’t understand God working in us and they deny the power of God’s work in us. The works of the regenerate soul are not his own but “christ lives in me” according to Paul. Was Paul sleeping at the wheel when he wrote this?
Romans 2
4: Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
5: But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6: For he will render to** every man according to his works: **
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8: but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, **there will be wrath and fury.
**
This of course is very consistent with the sheep and the goats in Matt 25 and echo’s the words of Matt 16:27: For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
I simply do not see how they can say that we can get in to heaven without works.
We can not “get saved” by works is the Catholic position but after we are a new creation we better start working for Christ, acknowleding his power in us.
Eph 3
20: Now to him who by the** power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, **
21: to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.
As far as I prefer to call it “not falling from grace” rather than losing salvation, there are tons of verses that show that it is possible to “fall from grace”. This one is pretty explicit.
**Gal.5
]4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have* fall**en away from grace.
You can’t be severed from what you weren’t attached to. You can’t fall from what you weren’t on.
Heb.6
]4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have* tasted** the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
]5] and have* tasted** the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
That’s pretty clear.
1Cor.15
1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.
Now if is a conditional. They believe but he says it might be in vain if they do not hold fast to the gospel.
Then there is the story in Luke 12 about the servant who when the Master comes he finds him doing right. But if the master delays and THAT SAME SERVANT begins to get drunk and beat the slaves then he is “treated with the UNBELIEVERS”. Now at one point he is saved. At another he is treated with unbelievers. Don’t see how you can get around that as well. Perseverence is a common theme in Paul’s writings. Take heed.
Blessings
**
S
sonseeker
Guest
Matt 16_18:
Scripture tells us that to the Jews are entrusted the oracles of God; they tells us that salvation is of God, and Jesus also says it is of the Jews. Where are we told within God’s word that the oracles of God are from any church, let alone the RCC; where are we told within God’s word that salvation is of any church, let alone the RCC? (No where). Semi-pelagian, Arminian, strange doctrine; they go hand in hand.
I leave you with an answer to one other question you had concerning God and Evil (also with respect to Trent’s statement above).
Is 45:7 is very clear. Do some study on the Hebrew word “RA.” Sinful men are loathe to extend to God the sovereignty He claims over all of His creation, thinking that they possess some piety which they do not possess.
You follow strange doctrine, and you never read a fact you couldn’t ignore.
Bill
Catholics wrote all the New Testament, and Catholics understand what they wrote!They were Jews, except for Luke. You cannot get even the simplest facts right.
Scripture tells us that to the Jews are entrusted the oracles of God; they tells us that salvation is of God, and Jesus also says it is of the Jews. Where are we told within God’s word that the oracles of God are from any church, let alone the RCC; where are we told within God’s word that salvation is of any church, let alone the RCC? (No where). Semi-pelagian, Arminian, strange doctrine; they go hand in hand.
I leave you with an answer to one other question you had concerning God and Evil (also with respect to Trent’s statement above).
Is 45:7 is very clear. Do some study on the Hebrew word “RA.” Sinful men are loathe to extend to God the sovereignty He claims over all of His creation, thinking that they possess some piety which they do not possess.
You follow strange doctrine, and you never read a fact you couldn’t ignore.
Bill
M
Matt16_18
Guest
RyanlL
The article you hyper-linked by James Akin, A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP, is a good article, but it is also somewhat misleading. James Akin presents “Calvinism” as if it is a theology that is unified in its beliefs (which he must do to write a brief article such as this). But this is far from the truth. Calvinism is a really a broad spectrum of contradictory beliefs that is composed of a pastiche of Protestant errors. The two main sources of error in “Calvinism” are the writings of John Calvin (of course) and the Protestant belief in the private interpretation of scriptures. When these two sources of error are mixed together, what results is a potent brew of heresy that runs across a broad spectrum. “Calvinism” encompasses beliefs that are not too far from the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, to beliefs that are on the far fringes of Christianity - beliefs that are more closely related to beliefs of Manichaeism and Docetism than they are to Christianity.
The Calvinism that Akin presents is the version that isn’t too distant from orthodox Christianity, as it the version that accepts that men have free will and can choose to commit sin, that irresistible grace isn’t really irresistible, that total depravity isn’t really total, that perseverance of the saints isn’t really a code for OSAS, etc.
I won’t say that there aren’t some Calvinists that actually believe in the flavor of Calvinism that Akin presents, but I know that his version of Calvinism is hardly the only version that exists. Some Calvinists really believe that the “total” in total depravity really means total, that perseverance of the saints is just another way of speaking about OSAS, and that no man has free will because we are all basically meat robots that God has either created for either damnation or salvation.
When one is dialoging with a Calvinist, one must accept that the “Calvinist” theology of that person is really a unique set of beliefs that the individual has pieced together for himself out the doctrines of orthodox Christianity and a very broad range of heresies. Calvinism has always been a constantly evolving mixture of truth and heresy, and it has never been a fixed set of beliefs.
The article you hyper-linked by James Akin, A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP, is a good article, but it is also somewhat misleading. James Akin presents “Calvinism” as if it is a theology that is unified in its beliefs (which he must do to write a brief article such as this). But this is far from the truth. Calvinism is a really a broad spectrum of contradictory beliefs that is composed of a pastiche of Protestant errors. The two main sources of error in “Calvinism” are the writings of John Calvin (of course) and the Protestant belief in the private interpretation of scriptures. When these two sources of error are mixed together, what results is a potent brew of heresy that runs across a broad spectrum. “Calvinism” encompasses beliefs that are not too far from the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, to beliefs that are on the far fringes of Christianity - beliefs that are more closely related to beliefs of Manichaeism and Docetism than they are to Christianity.
The Calvinism that Akin presents is the version that isn’t too distant from orthodox Christianity, as it the version that accepts that men have free will and can choose to commit sin, that irresistible grace isn’t really irresistible, that total depravity isn’t really total, that perseverance of the saints isn’t really a code for OSAS, etc.
I won’t say that there aren’t some Calvinists that actually believe in the flavor of Calvinism that Akin presents, but I know that his version of Calvinism is hardly the only version that exists. Some Calvinists really believe that the “total” in total depravity really means total, that perseverance of the saints is just another way of speaking about OSAS, and that no man has free will because we are all basically meat robots that God has either created for either damnation or salvation.
When one is dialoging with a Calvinist, one must accept that the “Calvinist” theology of that person is really a unique set of beliefs that the individual has pieced together for himself out the doctrines of orthodox Christianity and a very broad range of heresies. Calvinism has always been a constantly evolving mixture of truth and heresy, and it has never been a fixed set of beliefs.
R
RyanL
Guest
Bill,
Could you please tell me (by number) which word you are speaking of?
searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/browse.cgi?letter=r
Blessings of God be upon you,
RyanL
M
Matt16_18
Guest
All the writers of the NT were members of the church that Jesus founded – the Catholic Church - and some of these writers were Jewish converts to Catholicism (aka The Way).
R
RyanL
Guest
Matt,
Thanks for the clarification. I typically forget that even a specific doctrinal stance like TULIP has a Heinz-57 interpretation in the free-for-all that is Protestant theology. I wish someone would make a “Baptist Catechism” or an “Evangelical Catechism” so that I could know what the person with whome I’m speaking believes. Unfortunately, I think that the only Catechism that they will ever truly be able to accept is the Catechism of the Catholic Church - here’s to praying!
RyanL
Thanks for the clarification. I typically forget that even a specific doctrinal stance like TULIP has a Heinz-57 interpretation in the free-for-all that is Protestant theology. I wish someone would make a “Baptist Catechism” or an “Evangelical Catechism” so that I could know what the person with whome I’m speaking believes. Unfortunately, I think that the only Catechism that they will ever truly be able to accept is the Catechism of the Catholic Church - here’s to praying!
RyanL
C
ceasar
Guest
i believe you can lose your salvation…and i’m a non-denominational protestant…but its not as easy as most people think it is…i believe you have to consiously reject christ…and what i mean by that…is you have to reject is ways, reject his teachings…and only by a mature christian can this happen…reason being is baby christians don’t know better…they haven’t grown up…they are immature…otherwords they aren’t mature enough to make a decision like that and really fully understand it…thats why some people get saved then return to their life of sin and still go to heaven cause they are babies that don’t know any better…we can also go to another passage in the bible that explains about the man that was having an explicit sinful sexual relationship and paul ordered that that man be turned over for the destruction of the flesh so that his soul might be saved…but later recanted that statement. saying to restore the man…but, the fact remains even though this man was in serious sin…he was still saved…one area where you won’t lose your salvation is if your under emotional or mental disorder…for example someone close to you dies and in your emotional distress you curse god…i believe god is bigger than that…and understands the pain and suffering that goes on in traumatic situations like that…most people that curse god in those circumstances repent and regret it…but, it is my personal belief that only those that know god and have a personal relationship with him…and know and understand his ways…then reject him…are given a time to judge themselves…gods grace will avail for a period of time…then god ultimately has to judge him…and that person will lose his salvation…but, i hope i’m wrong…wouldn’t want anyone to end up in hell…its not something that should ever be wished upon any man…
Ceasar
Ceasar
C
ceasar
Guest
This of course is very consistent with the sheep and the goats in Matt 25 and echo’s the words of Matt 16:27: For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
I simply do not see how they can say that we can get in to heaven without works.
We can not “get saved” by works is the Catholic position but after we are a new creation we better start working for Christ, acknowleding his power in us.
you contradict yourself when you say you don’t get in heaven w/o works but you can get saved w/o works…how does one get saved but not able to go to heaven??? is that man not righteous???..any righteous man can enter into heaven…and man that is saved is a righteous man…unrighteous men are not saved…you are probably referring to purgatory if someone is saved but doesn’t enter heaven…which has no scriptural bases whatsoever…Paul refutes any salvation by works…and explicitely states that salvation is by faith…questions were asked of christ…how might i enter the kingdom of heaven…you must simply believe in christ…the works you do will be a result of your salvation your righteousness…god doesn’t burden his people with works unto fear that you won’t be able to get into heaven…but he says…its here…i have it all done for you…i’ve done all the work…so that you can do my work…don’t worry about salvation…don’t worry about getting here…its all done…just focus in on getting others saved and loving one another. Preach the gospel of the good news of christ…and all those that accept christ are saved…and are seated at the right hand of the father in heavenly places…christ has prepared a place for us…but the lord will reward us for the works that we do here…thats it…
Ceasar
I simply do not see how they can say that we can get in to heaven without works.
We can not “get saved” by works is the Catholic position but after we are a new creation we better start working for Christ, acknowleding his power in us.
you contradict yourself when you say you don’t get in heaven w/o works but you can get saved w/o works…how does one get saved but not able to go to heaven??? is that man not righteous???..any righteous man can enter into heaven…and man that is saved is a righteous man…unrighteous men are not saved…you are probably referring to purgatory if someone is saved but doesn’t enter heaven…which has no scriptural bases whatsoever…Paul refutes any salvation by works…and explicitely states that salvation is by faith…questions were asked of christ…how might i enter the kingdom of heaven…you must simply believe in christ…the works you do will be a result of your salvation your righteousness…god doesn’t burden his people with works unto fear that you won’t be able to get into heaven…but he says…its here…i have it all done for you…i’ve done all the work…so that you can do my work…don’t worry about salvation…don’t worry about getting here…its all done…just focus in on getting others saved and loving one another. Preach the gospel of the good news of christ…and all those that accept christ are saved…and are seated at the right hand of the father in heavenly places…christ has prepared a place for us…but the lord will reward us for the works that we do here…thats it…
Ceasar
L
linus
Guest
You take Scripture way out of context. In Romans 1 & 2 Paul is building his argument for justification by faith, which he presents in chapter three just after he writes in 3:10 (exposing the depraved condition of all mankind apart from Christ) “There is none righteous, not even one.”
In 3:19 he shows that through the example of the Law of Moses the world is accountable to God, but in verse 21 he states that "APART from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST for all those who BELIEVE, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God , BEING JUSTIFIED AS A GIFT BY HIS GRACE (that’s sovereign grace)* through the REDEMPTION WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS…"* In other words, there are no works involved in God declaring a man righteous (i.e., justified) through faith in Christ Jesus alone.
In 3:26 he goes on to say that God is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Faith excludes any boasting based on personal works, the glory goes to Christ alone because of His sacrificial work on the cross on our behalf (verse 27).
In verse 30 Paul states that God justifies the circumcised (Jews) BY FAITH and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) THROUGH FAITH.
When you read Paul in context your gospel of works cannot be found in the book of Romans.
Matt. 25 is in the context of Christ’s 2nd Advent when he sits on the Davidic throne and judges the Gentile nations at the beginning of His Messianic Kingdom rule on earth. There is no general resurrection at this time. You fail to understand the context and misapply it.
Paul does stress works for the saved believer in Ephesians. But it is all in the context of being saved not BY good works but FOR good works (see. Eph. 2:8-10).
In the 1 Cor. 15:1-2 passage Paul refers to the gospel he preached to them by which they were "saved," but qualifies it by saying, “unless you believed in vain.” That is, not a true faith. In 2 Cor. 13:5 he tell them to “test yourselves to see if you are in the faith,” if Jesus Christ truly is in them…unless indeed they fail the test. In other words, you can decieve yourself. There are many false brethren who have a false faith.
The Hebrew passages are warnings about Jews who have never fully believed in Christ alone but desire to go back to the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system to be justified. You fail to understand their context and misapply them.
Again, to “fall from grace” is to abandon Paul’s gospel of grace and adopt a works gospel.
You can prove anything when you take Scripture out of context. But the Scriptures are clear: salvation BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH alone. Yes, faith alone. James in chapter two is describing a false faith. A kind of faith that cannot save, based on a false gospel. Just as Paul says to the Corinthians, *“unless you fail the test.” *
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I agree, but that is, of course, asking for the impossible. Someone would have to write the “Baptist Catechism” and is where the problem lies. In order for the Baptist Catechism to be authoritative, that there would have to be a person (or group of persons) that all believing Baptists would acknowledge as being vested with the temporal authority from God to write a definitive catechism. But Baptist theology prevents that from happening, because Baptists believe in the papacy of the believer. As long as a Baptist is “saved”, he has as much authority to interpret scriptures as any other Baptist. And we all know how the Holy Spirit gives every single Baptist the exact same understanding of scriptures.
Trying to write an “Evangelical Catechism” is a hopeless pipe dream for exactly the same reason – every evangelical Protestant is his or her own pope.
- Status