Does willful sin separate the elect from God?

[Grip Docility]

How does that manifest our love of God?


A seed can only bring forth after it's progenitor.
If you "sense" pride, or self anything, be assured, my pride was killed with the rest of my condemnable self when I was crucified with Christ, buried with Him and then raised with Him to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-7)
A life without pride in anything but in God and His Son Christ Jesus.


Aren't you glad we can walk in the Spirit now, instead of in the flesh?
Rom 8:1 addresses it..."There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Nope. Not buying this doctrinal shift. Yup, it’s either perpetually repentant or other.

I’m sensing other in this doctrine.

 

[Phil W]

Duplicity is clear... in this doctrine.

This doctrine is missing honesty.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Phil W]

Nope. Not buying this doctrinal shift. Yes me is either perpetually repentant or other.

I’m sensing other in this doctrine.

If one "turns from sin", isn't he a non-sinner?

 

[Grip Docility]

If one "turns from sin", isn't he a non-sinner?

This seems to be a knowing speak to total dependence on Jesus Christ... but I see more under the surface.

Answer clear... do you declare your works Skubala?

 

[Phil W]

This seems to be a knowing speak to total dependence on Jesus Christ... but I see more under the surface.

Care to reword that?

Answer clear... do you declare your works Skubala?

Yes...if you mean the things I did before my death with our Lord.

 

[Grip Docility]

Care to reword that?


Yes...if you mean the things I did before my death with our Lord.

There it is... it’s ambiguous. Paul had the Spiritual noogies (noogies is a completely neutral word and if anyone associates something questionable in its place, that’s just upsetting)... to admit His works of the flesh... Even After Salvation... were Skubala.

If this doctrine were a dive, I’d give it 1.5 Paul’s out of 10.

No Soup for this Doctrine!

Spoiler

 

[fhansen]

There’s no such thing as you describe. What is faith without the object it relies in? Hebrews 11:1. Faith isn’t meritorious. Faith is the means by which one rest in what’s meritorious (Christ). The object I rest in, is Christ and He alone as my assurance of salvation and righteousness. Christ’s righteousness is my justification. This is the opposite of what you believe. You seem to believe infused righteousness justifies you.. which is nothing more than you working for your salvation.

How so? Pretty hard to infuse myself with righteousness, isn't it? That's one of the major differences between the old and new covenants, in fact, God doing what we cannot, when the time was/is ripe, when I finally come to realize my abject helplessness at achieving righteousness on my own.
Infused:
"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

This becoming His people is a new thing; it speaks of an intimate communion with God, which man was made for. It's to know Him, not merely know about Him, but know Him as Jesus reveals Him to us and reconciles us with Him. This is the "Knowledge of God", lost to man at the Fall. Jer 31:34:
"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD."
And John 17:3:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

[The Righterzpen]

Oh dear! I hope I didn't put my foot in it!
If you are trusting in Christ's finished work alone for salvation, and agree that sanctification is a progressive work that you do with the strength of the Holy Spirit (without which you can't), then maybe you have put the bit of Catholic theology that is based on faith and works on the back burner!

I have been reading JC Ryle's book on Holiness, and he says that if we have Jesus, then it matters not which church we go to, whether we use the liturgy, or not, because the church is just the scaffolding to support our faith in Christ. I like that.

My wife was educated Catholic, and she has a very good and strong character, and very faithful and supportive. She has really helped me to understand how Catholic-educated people think.

I think @Grip Docility is saying that he's part of the universal church; not specifically Roman Catholic. "Catholic" means universal. The term is used in the older versions of the apostle's creed. "I believe in the holy catholic church...."

Also, in principle I agree with what you are saying about regardless of what denomination people are a part of - if their faith ultimately is in Christ than they are redeemed.

The thing I question though, is if someone is confronted with Scripture and won't consider Scriptures that go against what their particular church teaches (and this goes for any denomination) than I scratch my head. We all should be willing to learn. I mean I can tell you what I've learned. I can tell you what denominations I've attended teach. But nowhere, unless I've studied something pretty throughly myself; will I say "this is what i've been taught and it's true (because I've been taught it)". I learned that lesson fairly early on in my journey. Don't take everything a teacher, church or denomination states as truth without question.

I've been around the block a few years now and most mainline teachings I've at least heard of. Once in a while someone will say something that I've never heard before; and than I have to go research it. But I'll never say "Yes that's truth because it sounds good to me; or no that's not truth because I wasn't taught that.

Be a Berean!

 

[fhansen]

After having studied Catholic theology concerning salvation, I can say that he will never agree with you. If he did, he would have to leave, or be excommunicated from the Catholic church.

No one's going to give a rat's butt about being excommunicated from something they don't even believe in. I've studied Catholic, EO, and Protestant theologies and find the ancient churches understanding to be much deeper, sounder, and consistent with the early Church. Took me awhile tho-had to get over my own biases.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I’m the opposite of a Calvinist... and I don’t mean ... “Armenian”... either... and I know we won’t be Sinless in the actual tent of death until Death takes us. What was intended by Satan to be our enslavement, becomes our freedom... thanks be to Jesus Christ!

Hebrews 2:14 ; 2 Corinthians 5:4

They say we will die, that these bodies are not immortal, and must put on immortality, but nothing about sin. Paul tells us we are dead to sin. What do you think he meant by that. John says that Jesus came to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. Is he saying Now, or after we die?

 

[Grip Docility]

No one's going to give a rat's butt about being excommunicated from something they don't even believe in. I've studied Catholic, EO, and Protestant theologies and find the ancient churches understanding to be much deeper, sounder, and consistent with the early Church. Took me awhile tho-had to get over my own biases.

Surprise! We all see things slightly differently! Same Jesus!

You all are filling my heart full of Joy!

All blessings in Jesus Christ, the Head of the Invisible, Universal Body!

And... Yup (Acts of the Apostles 17:11)

Might as well mix a little Ephesians 2 in There as well.

 

[Grip Docility]

They say we will die, that these bodies are not immortal, and must put on immortality, but nothing about sin. Paul tells us we are dead to sin. What do you think he meant by that. John says that Jesus came to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. Is he saying Now, or after we die?

Binary shift... Spirit taught... In or Out of HIM. One says hooray Me! The Other says Hooray God, OH NO, me!

One of these went home “Justified”.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think @Grip Docility is saying that he's part of the universal church; not specifically Roman Catholic. "Catholic" means universal. The term is used in the older versions of the apostle's creed. "I believe in the holy catholic church...."

Also, in principle I agree with what you are saying about regardless of what denomination people are a part of - if their faith ultimately is in Christ than they are redeemed.

The thing I question though, is if someone is confronted with Scripture and won't consider Scriptures that go against what their particular church teaches (and this goes for any denomination) than I scratch my head. We all should be willing to learn. I mean I can tell you what I've learned. I can tell you what denominations I've attended teach. But nowhere, unless I've studied something pretty throughly myself; will I say "this is what i've been taught and it's true (because I've been taught it)". I learned that lesson fairly early on in my journey. Don't take everything a teacher, church or denomination states as truth without question.

I've been around the block a few years now and most mainline teachings I've at least heard of. Once in a while someone will say something that I've never heard before; and than I have to go research it. But I'll never say "Yes that's truth because it sounds good to me; or no that's not truth because I wasn't taught that.

Be a Berean!

@Oscarr ... Righterzpen, nailed it.

 

[Wordkeeper]

There is is... it’s ambiguous. Paul had the Spiritual noogies (noogies is a completely neutral word and if anyone associates something questionable in its place, that’s just upsetting)... to admit His works of the flesh... Even After Salvation... were Skubala.

If this doctrine were a dive, I’d give it 1.5 Paul’s out of 10.

No Soup for this Doctrine!

Spoiler

I'll post my reverse 2½ somersault with 2½ twists video clip for your judgment.

 

[Grip Docility]

I'll post my reverse 2½ somersault with 2½ twists video clip for your judgment.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Word Keeper.

 

[The Righterzpen]

If they have no choice but to sin then they've earned nothing. Accountability/ cupability is based on freedom to choose or the terms are meaningless.

Not so sure it's a matter of "choice" as much as a matter of willingness. If someone was really willing to be sinless, could they pull it off? Probably not, but we'll never know because Adam has made all that water under the bridge.

On the same token though; if you suffer from greed of material gain and work 80 hours a week to obtain what you want; that's a very different sin than robbing a bank and killing 1/2 a dozen people in the process. So in that sense, absolutely people can "choose not to sin". What is wages earned from manifest action is different though from what sin (which drives motivation) is in the heart.

Ok, that works; man's will, independent of God's, directly affects his eternal destiny. According to what they "want".

It only affects their eternal destiny as to what degree of punishment they've earned. They still don't have the "want" to obey God, outside of God intervening.

It's about knowledge, revealed by Christ and made believable by grace. Either way it's not a one time event nor is it strictly done to us. We respond, or not, we can resist; we can say yes; we can say no.

Being born again / raised from spiritual death isn't a matter of knowledge (or at least most of the time it does not start out as such). I believe I was raised from spiritual death before I ever really understood much about Jesus. Also, I know a lot of people who know Bible passages better than I do; but still have no faith. I also know people with a lot of faith and not the intellectual capacity to articulate theologically sound thoughts.

So no, it's not about "knowledge revealed by Christ and made believable by grace". It's about grace revealed by Christ, believed by faith and evidenced by obedience.

I admit I didn't quite understand this last part. Either way the more we know God the more we love Him, along with neighbor; this cannot be helped. And the more we love God and neighbor the less we sin, and, BTW, the more we do- for "the least of these"-acts which Jesus just happens to mention as criteria for judgment in Matt 25.

I partially agree with this statement. To "know God" though has more to do with revelation of grace that causes us to love Him more than it has anything to do with knowing about God. One can know a lot about Jesus and still not "know Jesus". When Paul talked about "knowing Christ" and the power of the resurrection, fellowship of sufferings being made conformable to His death; he was speaking of pursuit of that which becomes the object of one's affections based on the intrinsic value of that entity.

The power (being raised from death), the fellowship (understanding the price paid) which makes one conformable to his death. The outcome (what we do for the sake of the Kingdom) is the consequence of all these other things being in place, not a prerequisite to them.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Not so sure it's a matter of "choice" as much as a matter of willingness. If someone was really willing to be sinless, could they pull it off? Probably not, but we'll never know because Adam has made all that water under the bridge.

On the same token though; if you suffer from greed of material gain and work 80 hours a week to obtain what you want; that's a very different sin than robbing a bank and killing 1/2 a dozen people in the process. So in that sense, absolutely people can "choose not to sin". What is wages earned from manifest action is different though from what sin (which drives motivation) is in the heart.



It only affects their eternal destiny as to what degree of punishment they've earned. They still don't have the "want" to obey God, outside of God intervening.



Being born again / raised from spiritual death isn't a matter of knowledge (or at least most of the time it does not start out as such). I believe I was raised from spiritual death before I ever really understood much about Jesus. Also, I know a lot of people who know Bible passages better than I do; but still have no faith. I also know people with a lot of faith and not the intellectual capacity to articulate theologically sound thoughts.

So no, it's not about "knowledge revealed by Christ and made believable by grace". It's about grace revealed by Christ, believed by faith and evidenced by obedience.



I partially agree with this statement. To "know God" though has more to do with revelation of grace that causes us to love Him more than it has anything to do with knowing about God. One can know a lot about Jesus and still not "know Jesus". When Paul talked about "knowing Christ" and the power of the resurrection, fellowship of sufferings being made conformable to His death; he was speaking of pursuit of that which becomes the object of one's affections based on the intrinsic value of that entity.

The power (being raised from death), the fellowship (understanding the price paid) which makes one conformable to his death. The outcome (what we do for the sake of the Kingdom) is the consequence of all these other things being in place, not a prerequisite to them.

Again, the Gospel is not about going to heaven because of the cross, but being able to live a meaningful life because of the cross. How is it that a nomad like Abraham worried about this issue, when highly educated 21st century denizens do not. Prolly coz they had less distractions, then, distraction like cable TV and Starbucks. Note how Paul targets the Stoics and the Epicureans of the Areopagus on Mars Hill.

 

[Grip Docility]

Again, the Gospel is not about going to heaven because of the cross, but living a meaningful life. How is it that a nomad like Abraham worried about this, when highly educated 21st century denizens do not. Prolly coz they had less distractions, then, distraction like cable TV and Starbucks. Note how Paul targets the Stoics and the Epicureans of the Areopagus on Mars Hill.

Mark 8:36?

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Oscarr ... Righterzpen, nailed it.

 

[fhansen]

Not so sure it's a matter of "choice" as much as a matter of willingness. If someone was really willing to be sinless, could they pull it off? Probably not, but we'll never know because Adam has made all that water under the bridge..

There's a difference between willing and choosing? Or one can exist without the other?

It only affects their eternal destiny as to what degree of punishment they've earned. They still don't have the "want" to obey God, outside of God intervening.

They can say no to His intervention. That's the role man's will can play; man is not passive in justification and salvation.

Being born again / raised from spiritual death isn't a matter of knowledge (or at least most of the time it does not start out as such). I believe I was raised from spiritual death before I ever really understood much about Jesus. Also, I know a lot of people who know Bible passages better than I do; but still have no faith. I also know people with a lot of faith and not the intellectual capacity to articulate theologically sound thoughts.

So no, it's not about "knowledge revealed by Christ and made believable by grace". It's about grace revealed by Christ, believed by faith and evidenced by obedience. .

Ok? And what does "grace evealed by Christ" mean? And I'd submit that knowledge is what it's all about. We hear first. We respond by believing and being justified secondly.

I partially agree with this statement. To "know God" though has more to do with revelation of grace that causes us to love Him more than it has anything to do with knowing about God. One can know a lot about Jesus and still not "know Jesus". When Paul talked about "knowing Christ" and the power of the resurrection, fellowship of sufferings being made conformable to His death; he was speaking of pursuit of that which becomes the object of one's affections based on the intrinsic value of that entity.

Yes, I'm not speaking of merely knowing about God.

The power (being raised from death), the fellowship (understanding the price paid) which makes one conformable to his death. The outcome (what we do for the sake of the Kingdom) is the consequence of all these other things being in place, not a prerequisite to them.

It's not either/or; it's both/and.