Is Confession of Sin Necessary for Salvation?

[packermann]

You claim that those who fall away were never believers to begin with. That in itself is a logical fallacy. As I pointed out to you that is like you claiming since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. Your illogical claim is that because some who fall away were never really believers, then all who fall away were never really believers. That is not logical, nor is it scriptural. Scripture makes it clear that there are those who apostatize from the faith. Explain how is it possible for an unbeliever to depart from the faith which he/she was never a part of to begin with? Your argument has been exposed as a weak one both logically and scripturally.

Well done! I would like to point out something in case you did not already say it. Forgive me if you did.

But eternal security is really eternal insecurity. It see it working like this.

1. Once we are saved we will never sin (at least not seriously and in a lifestyle of sin)

2. Lets suppose I do sin seriously and it is a lifestyle.

3. That means that I was never saved to begin with! I was self-deceived! I asked Christ into my heart but I must have not meant it. All this time I was living an illusion. How do I get out of this? Do ask Christ into my heart again? Do I become born again, again? Or do I just repent? But what if I did not REALLY accept Christ into my heart?

I used to be an Protestant evangelical. They put up a pretty bold face when they talk to Catholics. But when they are only among themselves they are haunted by guilt and introspection. They say to themselves "Did I really accept Christ?", "If so, why do I keep doing that same sin over and over again?", "Maybe this stuff does not work after all!". That is why many become so defensive on this issue. It opens up the wounds.

I actually have experienced more freedom as a Catholic than as a Protestant. True, I may have lost my salvation when I gravely sinned. But I can go to Confession, and when I left the Confessional my guilt was alleviated far more than I ever experienced as a Catholic. And as long as my conscience does not condemn me, I KNOW I will go to heaven if I should die right now. That may change tomorrow, I could commit a mortal sin. So I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. But I know that unless I am aware of a mortal sin that I refuse to confess, I am safe. God will not send me to hell if I am sincerely serving. This is the invincibility of ignorance.

The Protestant evangelical, however, does not believe in the invincibility of ignorance.He believes that you can be self-deceived. You could THINK you accepted Christ. But if you actually did not, and it will show itself that you will eventually fall away. How is that security?

 

[Neogaia777]

Well done! I would like to point out something in case you did not already say it. Forgive me if you did.

But eternal security is really eternal insecurity. It see it working like this.

1. Once we are saved we will never sin (at least not seriously and in a lifestyle of sin)

2. Lets suppose I do sin seriously and it is a lifestyle.

3. That means that I was never saved to begin with! I was self-deceived! I asked Christ into my heart but I must have not meant it. All this time I was living an illusion. How do I get out of this? Do ask Christ into my heart again? Do I become born again, again? Or do I just repent? But what if I did not REALLY accept Christ into my heart?

I used to be an Protestant evangelical. They put up a pretty bold face when they talk to Catholics. But when they are only among themselves they are haunted by guilt and introspection. They say to themselves "Did I really accept Christ?", "If so, why do I keep doing that same sin over and over again?", "Maybe this stuff does not work after all!". That is why many become so defensive on this issue. It opens up the wounds.

I actually have experienced more freedom as a Catholic than as a Protestant. True, I may have lost my salvation when I gravely sinned. But I can go to Confession, and when I left the Confessional my guilt was alleviated far more than I ever experienced as a Catholic. And as long as my conscience does not condemn me, I KNOW I will go to heaven if I should die right now. That may change tomorrow, I could commit a mortal sin. So I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. But I know that unless I am aware of a mortal sin that I refuse to confess, I am safe. God will not send me to hell if I am sincerely serving. This is the invincibility of ignorance.

The Protestant evangelical, however, does not believe in the invincibility of ignorance.He believes that you can be self-deceived. You could THINK you accepted Christ. But if you actually did not, and it will show itself that you will eventually fall away. How is that security?

Lets' suppose that none of you have lived another person's life, so how can you judge...?

God knows the timing, we do not...

And, do you think it is "your own being free or your own making yourself free of "serious sin", or sin as a lifestyle" that saves you, when you have not lived another person's life, but God has, and only God knows, and we do not, etc...

Or are you saying, and/or judging, that anyone who has committed or has serious sin in their life or serious sin as a lifestyle in their life, is never saved, ever...?

And how, or on what basis do you (or those like you) think you can make that kind of judgment...?

You are in error, for you do not know and should not judge...

For that is the most capital crime here, others thinking they can judge, when they cannot, or be God and set the standards for everyone, etc...

That is the main "sin" here...

God Bless!

 

[packermann]

You are in error, for you do not know and should not judge...

For that is the most capital crime here, others thinking they can judge, when they cannot, or be God and set the standards for everyone, etc...

That is the main "sin" here...

God Bless!

Judging is very tricky. As soon as you accuse someone else of judging are you not judging that person?

I can only judge myself. I know what I was as a Protestant and I know what I am now as a Catholic. When I was a Protestant evangelical, I took His admonition as a nice suggestion. Sure, its nice not to judge, but we all have our vices. It would not send me to hell! But now I am scared to death of judging others! Why? Because I take it very seriously what our Lord says to condemn not lest I be condemned. Now, I do not believe that I am saved by faith alone. So judging others could jeopardize my soul. Yikes!

 

[Neogaia777]

Judging is very tricky. As soon as you accuse someone else of judging are you not judging that person?

Judging someones eternal destiny or salvation, due to this or that, or "sin" or whatever, needs to be avoided lest you condemn your own self eternally...

Other types of judging is permissible, but not always wise, unless it is done right or 100% justly or rightly...

But/and/or/because judging things and matters "other than someone else's eternal destiny" does not affect your eternal destiny...

So, we should not... But matters in and of this life, and pertaining to this life, were actually commanded to, but not when it involves one's eternal destiny or salvation, especially with 100% absolute certainty...

And besides that, only God alone truly even knows anyway...

We are to "warn" people about some things that possibly could involve one's eternal destiny or salvation, make them aware of the "risks", but not judge them, so as to automatically exclude or condemn them, especially for sure, outright, for sure, etc... Because that will only condemn you really...

And were to "watch out" for these or those kind of people that do do that, and have nothing to do with them, especially after you have tried to rebuke or correct them or "warn them" multiple times over (and over and over), and they have not or do not listen, and continue to choose to walk in their pride, egotism, and arrogance, etc...

Etc, etc, etc...

I could go on and on about those types, but I won't...

And I'm not saying, or am I going to say they are eternally condemned either, just that they are taking a great risk, and are gambling, maybe greatly, with their own salvation...

While we are warning, or are trying to warn someone else, we are to look out for our own selves, lest we be condemned, if we condemn, (for sure) etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Judging is very tricky. As soon as you accuse someone else of judging are you not judging that person?

I can only judge myself. I know what I was as a Protestant and I know what I am now as a Catholic. When I was a Protestant evangelical, I took His admonition as a nice suggestion. Sure, its nice not to judge, but we all have our vices. It would not send me to hell! But now I am scared to death of judging others! Why? Because I take it very seriously what our Lord says to condemn not lest I be condemned. Now, I do not believe that I am saved by faith alone. So judging others could jeopardize my soul. Yikes!

Yes, it's "tricky" sometimes... but as a general rule of thumb, just don't judge peoples eternal destinations for sure, or with 100% absolute certainty, and/or most especially be doing it just to condemn, etc...

That will save you from a lot of trouble...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Now, I do not believe that I am saved by faith alone.

What else do you think saves you...?

 

[Neogaia777]

What else do you think saves you...?

Maybe not committing this sin I just talked about maybe...? (if it keeps you from being condemned)...?

Or is there "more"...?

Or "something else" (more) maybe...?

God Bless!

 

[Danthemailman]

You claim that those who fall away were never believers to begin with. That in itself is a logical fallacy. As I pointed out to you that is like you claiming since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs. Your illogical claim is that because some who fall away were never really believers, then all who fall away were never really believers. That is not logical, nor is it scriptural. Scripture makes it clear that there are those who apostatize from the faith. Explain how is it possible for an unbeliever to depart from the faith which he/she was never a part of to begin with? Your argument has been exposed as a weak one both logically and scripturally.

Those who permanently fall away from the faith demonstrate that their faith was never firmly rooted and established from the start and that they were never genuine believers. We find an example in 1 Timothy 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Of course, you would presume here that "depart from the faith" means that born again believers depart from saving faith in Christ and lose their salvation. The words "the faith" (Greek tês pisteôs) in this context means the apostolic faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

Some "nominal" Christians will abandon the faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines for false religions and cults. That does not prove they were previously born again. In 1 John 2:19, we read - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

I believe the beginning of such a major departing from the apostolic faith was evidenced as the Roman Catholic church began to come into existence in the early 4th century. The Roman Catholic church forbids it's clergy to marry. This same church has other demonic doctrines such as transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, Mary's perpetual virginity etc..

Can you show me just one verse in the Bible that "unequivocally" says that a really "saved" person really "lost their salvation?" I didn't think so. There are plenty of "nominal" Christians who are full of emotion and religion that have experienced moral self reformation, but not regeneration and end up falling away. (I've seen this myself!) In John 6:37, Jesus said - All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. In John 10:27-28, Jesus also said His sheep hear His voice, He knows them and they follow Him, He gives them eternal life and they shall never perish or be snatched from His hand. In verse 26, Jesus said - But you do not believe you are not of My sheep. So it's your argument that has been exposed as a weak one both logically and scripturally. *Salvation is not probation/eternal life is not temporary life/Jesus is the door/ He is not a revolving door. So much for your logical fallacy.

In Romans 8:30, we read - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. *ALL of them. Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event to stress it's certainty.

Believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto/for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

Yes, those who are born of God do not practice sin. If they do, they are of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). What do you suppose that means? Is someone who is of the devil still saved? I will believe John who states the opposite of what you believe.

Pure eisegesis on your part. No one who is born of God practices sin.. (1 John 3:9) Not some of them do and some of them don't. The one who practices sin is of the devil. (1 John 3:8) John is drawing a clear CONTRAST between children of God and children of the devil in 1 John 3:7-10. Put away your bias and accept the truth.

So if a genuine believer chooses to practice sin, evidencing an unrepentant lifestyle, is he/she still saved?

John did not say that those who are born of God/genuine believers choose to practice sin. He said NO ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD PRACTICES SIN. Let go of your bias and accept what John clearly said! Also, stop implying that OSAS = license to sin.

Your fall back excuse is that he/she was never saved in the first place. So given your position, you being a genuine Christian (I assume) can never fall into sin and habitually sin/practice sin because then that would entail that you were never, ever a Christian to being with, correct?

The idea of "practice" sin is to perform repeatedly or habitually and thus describes repetition or continuous action. This describes the practice as habitual, as one's lifestyle or bent of life with no goal or effort to stop. Those who practice sin demonstrate that they have not been born of God/were never a Christian.

In the passage being discussed the context indicates you are eisegeting the text as I pointed out. Care to wrestle with the text based on my pointing that out to you?

That is exactly what you have done with 1 John 3:9.

The clause in v.1 refers to those "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." These are the ones for whom is promised "no condemnation." You have a choice don't you as to whether to walk in the flesh or Spirit? Yes or No? If you choose to walk in the flesh evidencing no repentance, are you still not condemned? Yes or No?

Eternal IN-securists are always trying to accuse those in the OSAS camp of teaching a license to sin/live like the devil, no repentance, but still saved. That is not what I teach. If "do not walk according to the flesh" means to never sin, then everyone is guilty of walking according to the flesh and will not be saved, according to your logic. So where do you draw the line in the sand on walking according to the flesh and walking according to the Spirit? Walking according to the Spirit is descriptive of children of God. Those who are habitually dominated by the sinful nature (unbelievers) put their minds on the things of the sinful nature, but those who are habitually dominated by the Spirit (believers) put their minds on the things of the Spirit. You also need to stop ignoring Romans 8:8-11.

Nope as you and I know, no such thing a sinless perfection as we all sin per 1 Jn 1:8,10.

Amen! Yet whenever we do sin are we walking according to the flesh or according to the Spirit? Or do you only consider "practicing sin" to be walking according to the flesh?

However there is a marked difference between occasional sin which all believers still commit and the practice of sin which not all believers commit.

Amen! Hey, at least we agree on some things. So only those who practice sin walk according to the flesh according to you? Now go back and read 1 John 3:9.

Notice that 1 Jn 1:7 states that IF we are walking in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses our sin. The word "if" indicates a condition (walking in the light) that must be met in order for the cleansing blood of Jesus to be efficacious. "If" indicates possibility, maybe even probability, but never certainty. It is therefore possible that a genuine believer can choose to walk in darkness by practicing sin and not walking in the light. If that is the case then the cleansing blood of Jesus is not assured of since the believer lives an unrepentant lifestyle. Thus John and Paul are in perfect agreement as not walking in the light and not living according to the Spirit for the believer results in spiritual death.

Now you are back to contradicting 1 John 3:9. I already thoroughly explained 1 John 1:7 in post #84 and properly harmonized scripture with scripture.

Is Confession of Sin Necessary for Salvation?

Nope. Only believers have the CHOICE to walk according to the flesh OR according to the Spirit. You have ignored the little word "IF." Unbelievers have no such choice as being unregenerated they cannot help but walk according to the flesh. That being the case, Paul would have used the word "since" if he were addressing unbelievers since unbelievers can only choose to live according to the flesh. Moreover, Rom 8:13 is a first class condition sentence which for the sake of argument assumes that the protasis is true and consequently the apodosis is also true. I suggest you look it up and inform yourself accordingly.

I have not ignored the word "IF" which is confirmation that those who do not walk according to the flesh are those who are IN Christ. Romans 8:8 - So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Paul is drawing a "contrast" between believers and unbelievers. IF confirms this. It's one or the other. I don't need to look up a biased commentary to convince me otherwise. Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. *In contrast, those who are not led by the Spirit of God are not sons of God. Simple!

I thought that you brought up Colossians 1:23 to me in one of your posts. In Colossians 1:23, we read - ..if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. As Wuest explains "The word “if” here is not ean, an unfulfilled, hypothetical condition used with the subjunctive mode, presenting the possibility of a future realization, but ei with the indicative, having here the idea of "assuming that you continue in the faith." That is, continuance in the gospel as it was preached by Paul would show that the person was saved (Ed: Same thought in 1 Cor 15:2 = "by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.") That is, continuance would show that the person's faith was firmly rooted and established in the hope of the gospel and they really HAVE BEEN reconciled. The form of this phrase in Greek (using the Gk. particle ei and the indicative mood of the verb epimenō) indicates that Paul fully expects that the Colossian believers will continue in the faith; no doubt is expressed, yet what about "nominal" Christians who believe in vain/without cause or without effect, to no purpose? (1 Corinthians 15:2).

*It's only natural that Paul would speak this way, for he is addressing groups of people who profess to be Christians along with genuine Christians, without being able to know the actual state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance here that they will be eternally saved when in fact they may not? Paul knows that faith which is firmly grounded and established in the gospel from the start will continue. Those who continue in the faith show thereby that they are genuine believers. But those who do not continue show that their shallow, vain faith was not rooted and established in the gospel to begin with.

Quite the contrary. Any author of a book, letter, etc. can specify who his specific audience is. Paul specified that his audience is "little children" which can only mean true believers. The child of God who practices sin is of the devil. You are free to believe otherwise.

Just because a letter is addressed to "little children" does not mean that everyone being discussed in the letter is a child of God. 1 John 2:19 immediately comes to mind. It's not hard to find "nominal" Christians mixed in with genuine Christians. If the Pastor of a church (especially a very large church) greeted the congregation on Sunday morning with, "good morning brothers and sisters in Christ," does that mean that EVERYONE in the congregation on that Sunday morning MUST be a genuine brother or sister in Christ? Of course not.

Same applies to you.

Nope. I first showed you that "among" is not universally included in all translations which automatically weakens your argument. Then I proceeded to totally discredit your argument when pointing out to you that "among" in the preceding verses plainly refers to believers. You however claim that the meaning of "among" somehow changes from believers to unbelievers from v. 13-14 to v. 19-20. How exactly does that work? You play fast and loose with "among" in order to cling to your doctrine.

Nope. Everyone physically dies whether or not they wander from the truth. The verse therefore warns against death of the soul which is spiritual death from which a believer can be saved from if he/she turns back to the truth.

Funny...it takes one to know one.

You are sounding more and more like a lawyer. Once again, I already throughly explained this in posts #26 and #81. The wanderer in James 5:19,20 is either a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine, or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored. For the former, the death spoken of in verse 20 is the "second death" (Revelation 21:8); for the latter, it is physical death (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

 

[packermann]

Judging someones eternal destiny or salvation, due to this or that, or "sin" or whatever, needs to be avoided lest you condemn your own self eternally...

I kind of agree. Judging is serious, and can send you to hell. The Catholic Church teaches that three elements need to be present in order to send you to hell,and these are supported from the Bible.

1. It is serious matter - Judging qualifies.

2. It is done deliberately - "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10:26, 27

3. It is done knowingly - The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:47, 48

#2 and #3 are in the heart. Only God can see the person's heart, and that includes the one who judges. For instance, a mother may be wrongly fearful that her child is going to hell. She prays with tears before God. On judgment day she finds out that she was wrong. She is filled with joy that she was wrong. I do not think she will then go to hell. The Bible says that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Although she judged her child, it did was not out of disdain but compassion. She sincerely worried for her child's soul.

Other types of judging is permissible, but not always wise, unless it is done right or 100% justly or rightly...

I have to disagree. Racism is a form of judging. A racist looks at another person of a different race as inferior, but he does not necessary think that person is going to hell.

Also, an atheist does not even believe in hell. That does not mean that he can judge others.

But/and/or/because judging things and matters "other than someone else's eternal destiny" does not affect your eternal destiny...

Sorry, I disagree. It is more important that it is not done out of hatred or disdain. I am sure that some here think I am going to hell because I am Catholic. I would not have that they are going to hell. If that moves them to compassion and pray to the Lord to have mercy me then that would be great! I would be happy that they pray for me. I could sure use them.

And besides that, only God alone truly even knows anyway...

That is true. But again, suppose a mentally unstable person think that God appeared to him and said a certain person is going to hell. So he tells him so. I think you would agree that this mentally unstable would not go to hell. He THINKS that God appeared to him. God judges the sincerity of heart. In the same way, a person who THINKS that God has revealed to him that any person who does not accept Christ as Savior and Lord is going to hell is also judged by his sincerity of heart.

We are to "warn" people about some things that possibly could involve one's eternal destiny or salvation, make them aware of the "risks", but not judge them, so as to automatically exclude or condemn them, especially for sure, outright, for sure, etc... Because that will only condemn you really...

I agree.

And were to "watch out" for these or those kind of people that do do that, and have nothing to do with them, especially after you have tried to rebuke or correct them or "warn them" multiple times over (and over and over), and they have not or do not listen, and continue to choose to walk in their pride, egotism, and arrogance, etc...

Wow! Don't you see how you are doing the very same thing that you are accusing them of doing? You are saying that we are to "watch out" for people who do the certain type of sin (in this case judging) and have nothing to do with them! How is that not judging?

 

[packermann]

What else do you think saves you...?

Now I think you being REALLY confused! Or maybe it is just me. But I think I understand. Correct me if I am wrong here.

1. You believe that we are saved only by faith, which means that there is NO SIN that can take away your salvation.

2. But you also believe that the sin of judging others can take away your salvation.

Don't you see the contradiction here? Either #1 is true or #2 is true. You cannot say the no sin will send you to hell if you believe in Christ but then say that the sin of judging others will send to hell even if you believe in Christ.

I think I know where you are coming from. I think you have been saying that I myself am going to hell because you think I am judging others! Yikes! I though we were just talking about a hypothetical situation. Now I think you are talking about my own soul.

Well then, I hope you are keeping me in your prayers. Even though I disagree with you, I can take all the prayers for me that I can. And I will pray for you.

 

[packermann]

We find an example in 1 Timothy 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Of course, you would presume here that "depart from the faith" means that born again believers depart from saving faith in Christ and lose their salvation. The words "the faith" (Greek tês pisteôs) in this context means the apostolic faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

You find a verse that is easy to explain. But there are some very other verses that very difficult to explain.

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Galatians 5:4

If they have fallen away from grace then that means that at one time they were in grace.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15:5, 6

Remaining in Christ means that the person has already been in Christ. And if that does not remain in Christ then he will be thrown into the fire (hell) and be burned.

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
Hebrews 6:4 - 6

These people have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partakers of the heaven gift, and tasted the good word of God. Obviously, they were Christians. They were not nominal Christians. But they have fallen way and it is impossible to bring them back.

Some "nominal" Christians will abandon the faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines for false religions and cults. That does not prove they were previously born again. In 1 John 2:19, we read - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

So on the surface, it seems that I John contradicts Hebrews. But there is always an explanation. John is writing about blatant apostasy and heresy. They went out from them. Hebrews is talking about other sins - adultery, fornication, etc. They did not go out from them.

I believe the beginning of such a major departing from the apostolic faith was evidenced as the Roman Catholic church began to come into existence in the early 4th century. The Roman Catholic church forbids it's clergy to marry. This same church has other demonic doctrines such as transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, Mary's perpetual virginity etc..

Please study the Early Church Fathers. These were the disciples of the apostles in the second century. They would hold to to these "demonic" doctrines. So these doctrines did not start to exist in the fourth century. They existed way before them. And it is highly unlikely that these disciples abandoned the teachings of the apostles so quickly. Also, each one of these "demonic" doctrine are supported in the Bible.

For instance, all the scripture references concerning the Eucharist support transubstantiation and there is no verse in the Bible that teaches that it is only symbolic. I challenge you to find just one that hints that it is just symbolic. But Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body". He did not say "This symbolizes my body". He could have said it. There was a Greek word for it. But He did not. He said "This is my body". Jesus said it; I believe it; that settles it. I accept the words of Christ with childlike faith. I do not understand it. But there are many things I do not understand and yet believe. I do not understand how He could hold His own body in His hands. But with God, all things are possible! I cannot understand how the God who never changes could become a man. I cannot understand how the Infinite can become finite. I cannot understand that with God there is three and yet there is one. I cannot understand any of these. But I still accept them by faith. If you can totally understand God then it is not God. The only argument I ever heard from Protestants against transubstantiation is that they do not understand how that is possible. Jesus could not have meant it literally so they say. They do not point to any verse. All they show is their lack of faith. How ironic that most Protestants say that we are saved by faith alone but they do not take our Lord at His word when He says "This is my body"!

Celibacy for the clergy did not start until 1139 AD. But celibacy in general started in the Old Testament. The prophets, except for Hosea, were celibates who lived in caves. In the NT, John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus were celibates. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7 that it is better to be a celibate than married; but if a person is burning with passion then he should get married. Jesus said that there are "eunichs" for the sake of the kingdom of God. And the Book of Revelation talked about there being men dedicated to God who have never known a woman.

Our earliest documents say that Mary Magalene spent the rest of her life in a cave praying. Obviously she was a celibate then. More and more men decided to give up everything to become hermits. Soon they developed communities, which were called monasteries. In order to belong to the religious order you had to be a celibate. It was not that they were forbidden to marry. They can choose not be part of the order. But in order to be part of the order they had to remain celibates. Its like belonging to a singles club. No one is forbidding you to marry. But if you want to be part of that singles club you must be single.

Just before 1139 AD, there was corruption in the Catholic Church. Let's face it, being a priest is a cushy job! You have a job for life. The Church will always take care of you. This attracted men into the priesthood who had no business of being priests. They were just in it for the easy life. So the Church decided to make it a bit tougher. What's wrong with that? The Church saw how monks and nuns were so dedicated to God that gave up being married. So they thought: why not make celibacy a requirement? Mind you, this is not what that passage you cited was talking about. It was taking about forbidding all people to marry. This was done by Albengians in the Middle Ages - they forbade all to marry and the Church condemned them as heretics. But being a priest is not a right, it is a calling. A man is not required to be a priest.

Besides, if a man is married and wants to be member of a clergy then he can be a deacon. A deacon can give sermons, baptize people, and marry people. A deacon is the counterpart to the Protestant minister. A priest is something that most Protestant denominations do not have. Along with what a deacon can do, a priest can offer the sacrifice of the Mass and hear confessions. This is something that you, as a Protestant, do not believe that anyone can or should do anyway. So you are condemning the Catholic Church for not having married priests while your church does not have priests at all!

Can you show me just one verse in the Bible that "unequivocally" says that a really "saved" person really "lost their salvation?" I didn't think so.

I just did. I gave three verses. See above.

There are plenty of "nominal" Christians who are full of emotion and religion that have experienced moral self reformation, but not regeneration and end up falling away. (I've seen this myself!)

How do you fall that your conversion was not just emotions and moral self-reformation? According to what you wrote here, you cannot! You can only only be sure that your conversion is genuine IF you never fall away in the future. But that means that right now you cannot be sure that you are saved. You can only know that your conversion was genuine when you are on your deathbed. According to what you just wrote, only then can you know for sure that you are saved.

I, as a Catholic, KNOW I am currently saved. I may fall away, out of my own free will, but I know that God is my Father now. But you cannot be sure that God is your Father now.

 

[Oldmantook]

Well done! I would like to point out something in case you did not already say it. Forgive me if you did.

But eternal security is really eternal insecurity. It see it working like this.

1. Once we are saved we will never sin (at least not seriously and in a lifestyle of sin)

2. Lets suppose I do sin seriously and it is a lifestyle.

3. That means that I was never saved to begin with! I was self-deceived! I asked Christ into my heart but I must have not meant it. All this time I was living an illusion. How do I get out of this? Do ask Christ into my heart again? Do I become born again, again? Or do I just repent? But what if I did not REALLY accept Christ into my heart?

I used to be an Protestant evangelical. They put up a pretty bold face when they talk to Catholics. But when they are only among themselves they are haunted by guilt and introspection. They say to themselves "Did I really accept Christ?", "If so, why do I keep doing that same sin over and over again?", "Maybe this stuff does not work after all!". That is why many become so defensive on this issue. It opens up the wounds.

I actually have experienced more freedom as a Catholic than as a Protestant. True, I may have lost my salvation when I gravely sinned. But I can go to Confession, and when I left the Confessional my guilt was alleviated far more than I ever experienced as a Catholic. And as long as my conscience does not condemn me, I KNOW I will go to heaven if I should die right now. That may change tomorrow, I could commit a mortal sin. So I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. But I know that unless I am aware of a mortal sin that I refuse to confess, I am safe. God will not send me to hell if I am sincerely serving. This is the invincibility of ignorance.

The Protestant evangelical, however, does not believe in the invincibility of ignorance.He believes that you can be self-deceived. You could THINK you accepted Christ. But if you actually did not, and it will show itself that you will eventually fall away. How is that security?

I do not agree many things Roman Catholic however I agree that one is not eternally secure until he/she overcomes/perseveres as salvation is a process; not just a one-time event. It is true that Reformed Protestants teach that the elect are the ones who overcome/persevere but then as you pointed out, how does one know whether one is elect if the criteria is persevering and overcoming? One does not really know that one has persevered in the faith until one dies. That is why we are admonished to fight the good fight and to finish the race set before us. Ironically instead of teaching to persevere and finish the race, today's gospel message teaches that the starting line of the race is the finish line.

 

[packermann]

I do not agree many things Roman Catholic however I agree that one is not eternally secure until he/she overcomes/perseveres as salvation is a process; not just a one-time event. It is true that Reformed Protestants teach that the elect are the ones who overcome/persevere but then as you pointed out, how does one know whether one is elect if the criteria is persevering and overcoming? One does not really know that one has persevered in the faith until one dies. That is why we are admonished to fight the good fight and to finish the race set before us. Ironically instead of teaching to persevere and finish the race, today's gospel message teaches that the starting line of the race is the finish line.

Amen to that. But if I were a Protestant, I would be a Wesleyan Methodist. John Wesley had a doctrine called "present assurance", which a very Catholic position. He taught that I can be currently assured that if I die today I would go to heaven. I do not know what tomorrow holds but I take it one day at a time (just like what they teach in Alcoholics Anonymous. Instead of being a recovering alcoholic I am a recovering sinner). As long as I am having Jesus as Savior and Lord today I know that I am saved.

 

[Oldmantook]

Some "nominal" Christians will abandon the faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines for false religions and cults. That does not prove they were previously born again. In 1 John 2:19, we read - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

"Nominal Christian?" Where is that term found in all of Scripture? Manufactured terms are utilized in order to support false doctrine as they have no basis whatsoever in Scripture. Basically you have failed to address my point that is is impossible for an unbeliever who was never in the faith to begin with, to depart from the faith - apostolic or otherwise. Only someone who possesses genuine faith can apostatize from it. You wrote "some nominal Christians will abandon the faith. So does that also mean that not all nominal Christians will abandon the faith? In that case, a nominal Christian can either choose to abandon the faith of keep the faith - which in either case still makes the person a Christian - not a fake Christian. The more you try to explain yourself the more questions arise.

Can you show me just one verse in the Bible that "unequivocally" says that a really "saved" person really "lost their salvation?" I didn't think so. There are plenty of "nominal" Christians who are full of emotion and religion that have experienced moral self reformation, but not regeneration and end up falling away. (I've seen this myself!) In John 6:37, Jesus said - All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. In John 10:27-28, Jesus also said His sheep hear His voice, He knows them and they follow Him, He gives them eternal life and they shall never perish or be snatched from His hand. In verse 26, Jesus said - But you do not believe you are not of My sheep. So it's your argument that has been exposed as a weak one both logically and scripturally. *Salvation is not probation/eternal life is not temporary life/Jesus is the door/ He is not a revolving door. So much for your logical fallacy.

It's a simple matter to turn your argument on its head using the very verses that you supply. You neglect to notice that Jesus specifies in Jn 10:27 that the sheep who listen to his voice and follow him are those that never perish or be snatched from his hand. You and I agree that sheep can choose to sin/disobey or to not sin/obey. Sheep who choose to not listen and follow are not assured of the promieses in v.28.
Moreover, you misread Jn 6:37. Jesus won't cast out those who come to him. Do you think this is a one -time event when someone came to Christ and was saved? Hardly, as the Greek verb tenses indicate otherwise. The word "come" in the second half of this verse is ἐρχόμενον/erchomenon which is a present tense participle - accurately translated as "coming." Only the one is is continuously coming to Jesus, is the one whom Jesus does not cast out. One must continuously abide in Christ in order not be cast out. The verb tense clearly indicates this verse does not refer to a one-time event in the past when one came to salvation.

In Romans 8:30, we read - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. *ALL of them. Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event to stress it's certainty.

No certainty at all. This is probably the strongest verse that eternal security folks are fond of quoting sometimes referred to as the golden chain of salvation but again ironically, one of the weakest. Their supposition is that each link in this chain of terms forms an unbreakable chain ultimately demonstrating the glorification of every saved person who is predestined, called and justified. However, if it can be demonstrated that just one of these links is breakable, then the whole chain of salvation falls apart and salvation is not "a done deal." The word for "called" in this verse is from the Greek "kaleo." This is the same word that appears in Gal 1:6. In that verse, Paul himself testifies that these Galatians who despite being called/kaleo are deserting Christ and turning to a different gospel. Paul's own witness demonstrates that someone can be "called" and of the elect but fail to persevere and turn away from Christ. Thus Rom 8:30 is not so iron-clad after all and does not support your claim.

Believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto/for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

Where in all of Scripture does it imply that the seal of the Holy Spirit cannot be broken? Seals in the NT can be broken. It can be broken by the one whom it was intended for example a sealed scroll can be opened by the one whom it is addressed to. Moreover Eph 1:14-16 reads: "The Holy Spirit is the down payment on our inheritance, which is applied toward our redemption as God’s own people, resulting in the honor of God’s glory." What is a down payment? It is a pledge that in the future, full payment will be received toward our inheritance much like a down payment on a house. However, further mortgage payments will have to be made in order to take full ownership and possession of the house. In the same way, the Holy Spirit is given as a pledge toward our redemption - we do not yet possess our redemption until the end. If we break our covenant with God through either no longer believing and/or obeying, then we break the Spirit's seal and the promise of our redemption is no longer assured of.

Pure eisegesis on your part. No one who is born of God practices sin.. (1 John 3:9) Not some of them do and some of them don't. The one who practices sin is of the devil. (1 John 3:8) John is drawing a clear CONTRAST between children of God and children of the devil in 1 John 3:7-10. Put away your bias and accept the truth.

I suggest you put away your biases and accept the truth instead of falsehood. Do you affirm or deny that a child of God can choose to practice sin or choose to refrain from such a practice?

John did not say that those who are born of God/genuine believers choose to practice sin. He said NO ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD PRACTICES SIN. Let go of your bias and accept what John clearly said! Also, stop implying that OSAS = license to sin.

Again, same question to you as above. Simple question to answer isn't it?

The idea of "practice" sin is to perform repeatedly or habitually and thus describes repetition or continuous action. This describes the practice as habitual, as one's lifestyle or bent of life with no goal or effort to stop. Those who practice sin demonstrate that they have not been born of God/were never a Christian.

Why should Paul even bother to warn unbelievers? He wrote his letters to the churches/brethren - never an unbeliever. Name me one unbeliever or group of unbelievers Paul specifically addressed?? While they may be unsaved in the church, the content of his letters were never meant for them. Since you believe that the person who practices sin was never a Christian in the first place, then how do you explain 1 Jn 1:7? It states "If you are walking the light...." IF indicates possibility - not certainty. Therefore it is not at all certain that all Christians will choose to walk in the light thus the other possibility is that some will instead choose to walk in darkness. To walk in darkness is to eschew to walk in the light. Thus it is indeed possible that Christians can walk in darkness by the practice of sin instead of walking in the light.

Eternal IN-securists are always trying to accuse those in the OSAS camp of teaching a license to sin/live like the devil, no repentance, but still saved. That is not what I teach. If "do not walk according to the flesh" means to never sin, then everyone is guilty of walking according to the flesh and will not be saved, according to your logic. So where do you draw the line in the sand on walking according to the flesh and walking according to the Spirit? Walking according to the Spirit is descriptive of children of God. Those who are habitually dominated by the sinful nature (unbelievers) put their minds on the things of the sinful nature, but those who are habitually dominated by the Spirit (believers) put their minds on the things of the Spirit. You also need to stop ignoring Romans 8:8-11.

Amen! Yet whenever we do sin are we walking according to the flesh or according to the Spirit? Or do you only consider "practicing sin" to be walking according to the flesh?

Whenever we choose to sin, we choose to walk according to the flesh. If I choose to take a second glance at an attractive woman, I have made the choice at that time to walk according to my flesh instead of walking according to the Spirit. However, if my life can be characterized as walking according to the light/Spirit, then when I do lust on occasion, if I confess it, the blood of Jesus cleanses (1 Jn 1:7). On the other hand, if I walk in darkness, practice sin, for example a inappropriate contentography addiction then it's quite evident that I'm walking in darkness and do not have the assurance of Jesus' cleansing blood.

Amen! Hey, at least we agree on some things. So only those who practice sin walk according to the flesh according to you? Now go back and read 1 John 3:9.

No. As I wrote above, anytime we sin we walk according to the flesh instead of the Spirit. All believers have the choice whether to sow to the flesh or sow to the Spirit. Footholds of sin can become strongholds of sin when we practice sin. 1 Jn 3:9 states no one born of God will continue to sin. "Born of God" clearly references the saved person. The saved person cannot continue/practice sinning. And it does not say that the saved person is incapable of sinning because you and I know that no one is without sin. Thus 1 Jn 3:9 references the believer who is born of God - not the unbeliever. The believer born of God, cannot go on sinning because that would then make him a child of the devil. Since you do not believe that a child of God can lose his salvation and become a child of the devil, I suggest you read the parable of the prodigal son. Please explain to me how the son was made "alive again" in Lk 15:24, 32.

Now you are back to contradicting 1 John 3:9. I already thoroughly explained 1 John 1:7 in post #84 and properly harmonized scripture with scripture.

1 Jn 1:7 is a conditional sentence as dictated by the word IF. Thus the cleansing of Jesus' blood is not efficacious for those who choose to walk in darkness. Only believers have the choice IF they should choose to walk in the light or IF they should choose to walk in darkness. Unbelievers have no such choice as they being unregenerate can only choose to walk in darkness. Therefore, the IF clause applies exclusively for believers only.

I have not ignored the word "IF" which is confirmation that those who do not walk according to the flesh are those who are IN Christ. Romans 8:8 - So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Paul is drawing a "contrast" between believers and unbelievers. IF confirms this. It's one or the other. I don't need to look up a biased commentary to convince me otherwise. Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. *In contrast, those who are not led by the Spirit of God are not sons of God. Simple!

Simple indeed! The contrast is between believers who have the choice of either walking in the flesh or walking in the Spirit. I repeat - IF confirms that unbelievers have no such choice. You totally ignored the fact that Rom 8:13 is a sentence of the first class condition in Greek. Care to address that fact?

 

[Oldmantook]

I thought that you brought up Colossians 1:23 to me in one of your posts. In Colossians 1:23, we read - ..if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. As Wuest explains "The word “if” here is not ean, an unfulfilled, hypothetical condition used with the subjunctive mode, presenting the possibility of a future realization, but ei with the indicative, having here the idea of "assuming that you continue in the faith." That is, continuance in the gospel as it was preached by Paul would show that the person was saved (Ed: Same thought in 1 Cor 15:2 = "by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.") That is, continuance would show that the person's faith was firmly rooted and established in the hope of the gospel and they really HAVE BEEN reconciled. The form of this phrase in Greek (using the Gk. particle ei and the indicative mood of the verb epimenō) indicates that Paul fully expects that the Colossian believers will continue in the faith; no doubt is expressed, yet what about "nominal" Christians who believe in vain/without cause or without effect, to no purpose? (1 Corinthians 15:2).

I didn't bring up Col 1:23 as that may have been someone else but I'll address it since you brought it up. There is good reason that Paul fully expected that the Colossian believers would continue in the faith as he had no reason to believe otherwise! Unlike the Church at Corinth which was plagued by strife and sin thus earning Paul's rebuke, the Church at Colosse had no such problems. Paul characterized this church as:
“To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Col 1:2
“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,” – Col 1:4
“Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:” – Col 1:6
“Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.” – Col 1:8

This fully explains the use of ei coupled with the indicative mood of the verb. Conversely, if Paul were writing to the Corinthian church he most certainly would have not used ei and the indicative as doubts about the integrity of that church abounded.

Just because a letter is addressed to "little children" does not mean that everyone being discussed in the letter is a child of God. 1 John 2:19 immediately comes to mind. It's not hard to find "nominal" Christians mixed in with genuine Christians. If the Pastor of a church (especially a very large church) greeted the congregation on Sunday morning with, "good morning brothers and sisters in Christ," does that mean that EVERYONE in the congregation on that Sunday morning MUST be a genuine brother or sister in Christ? Of course not.

Incorrect. It is the author's intent which is the primary determinant as to whom he is addressing unlike speakers who may be speaking to a mixed audience. Unlike a speaker, the writer of a letter is able to specifically identify who his audience is. You conflate the two as being one and the same thus resulting in your logical fallacy.

You are sounding more and more like a lawyer. Once again, I already throughly explained this in posts #26 and #81. The wanderer in James 5:19,20 is either a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine, or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored. For the former, the death spoken of in verse 20 is the "second death" (Revelation 21:8); for the latter, it is physical death (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

You argued for the word "among" to indicate that an unsaved person was being addressed in Js 5:19-20. I then pointed out to you that "among" is also used in vs. 13-14 indicating that these were genuine believers being referred to here so your claim of someone whose faith is not genuine fails to hold up to the context of this passage. Furthermore, explain to me exactly just how someone can stray from the truth if he/she was never in the truth to begin with? How does that work in your world? You also failed to address my point that this verse cannot refer to physical death as that would be nonsensical as everyone dies a physical death - no matter if they stayed in the truth, or strayed from it.

 

[Oldmantook]

Amen to that. But if I were a Protestant, I would be a Wesleyan Methodist. John Wesley had a doctrine called "present assurance", which a very Catholic position. He taught that I can be currently assured that if I die today I would go to heaven. I do not know what tomorrow holds but I take it one day at a time (just like what they teach in Alcoholics Anonymous. Instead of being a recovering alcoholic I am a recovering sinner). As long as I am having Jesus as Savior and Lord today I know that I am saved.

I agree with you. The book of 1 John has several verses which describe true assurance for the believer. None of this OSAS nonsense.

 

[Neogaia777]

Now I think you being REALLY confused! Or maybe it is just me. But I think I understand. Correct me if I am wrong here.

1. You believe that we are saved only by faith, which means that there is NO SIN that can take away your salvation.

2. But you also believe that the sin of judging others can take away your salvation.

Don't you see the contradiction here? Either #1 is true or #2 is true. You cannot say the no sin will send you to hell if you believe in Christ but then say that the sin of judging others will send to hell even if you believe in Christ.

I think I know where you are coming from. I think you have been saying that I myself am going to hell because you think I am judging others! Yikes! I though we were just talking about a hypothetical situation. Now I think you are talking about my own soul.

Well then, I hope you are keeping me in your prayers. Even though I disagree with you, I can take all the prayers for me that I can. And I will pray for you.

I asked the question seriously, not because I'm not claiming to know for sure, wanted to hear what you had to say about it, etc...?

Faith and right believing, some right doing or being or acting or believing or behaving maybe, your conduct or how you conduct yourself, might seem to be a requirement also maybe...?

What do you think...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I kind of agree. Judging is serious, and can send you to hell. The Catholic Church teaches that three elements need to be present in order to send you to hell,and these are supported from the Bible.

1. It is serious matter - Judging qualifies.

2. It is done deliberately - "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10:26, 27

3. It is done knowingly - The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:47, 48

#2 and #3 are in the heart. Only God can see the person's heart, and that includes the one who judges. For instance, a mother may be wrongly fearful that her child is going to hell. She prays with tears before God. On judgment day she finds out that she was wrong. She is filled with joy that she was wrong. I do not think she will then go to hell. The Bible says that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Although she judged her child, it did was not out of disdain but compassion. She sincerely worried for her child's soul.

Did I ever say that anyone was ever going to hell for sure, cause I don't think I did...?

Of course it is going to a matter of the heart, and there are exceptions to every rule and all and any kinds of judging or judgments as well...

I don't believe in absolutes...

I have to disagree. Racism is a form of judging. A racist looks at another person of a different race as inferior, but he does not necessary think that person is going to hell.

Also, an atheist does not even believe in hell. That does not mean that he can judge others.

Sorry, I disagree. It is more important that it is not done out of hatred or disdain. I am sure that some here think I am going to hell because I am Catholic. I would not have that they are going to hell. If that moves them to compassion and pray to the Lord to have mercy me then that would be great! I would be happy that they pray for me. I could sure use them.

Ok, some "normal kinds or forms of judging then", the kinds of judging it talks about for us to do or be doing or exercising in the Bible, is more of what I was speaking of, matters where we have to or must judge a thing, etc..

Wow! Don't you see how you are doing the very same thing that you are accusing them of doing? You are saying that we are to "watch out" for people who do the certain type of sin (in this case judging) and have nothing to do with them! How is that not judging?

I was talking about judging a persons eternal destination or salvation for 100% surety, etc... I thought I made that pretty clear... Dealing in "absolutes", in that area, etc...

Other types of judging, "some" other types of judging have to be done sometimes, and are actually commanded for us to do so, etc...

I'm not talking about "all" judging or all judging in general, but more a specific kind, that I explained and thought I had made clear...?

And, again, Did I ever say that anyone was ever going to hell for sure, cause I don't think I did...?

And, again, I don't believe in absolutes...

God Bless!

 

[packermann]

We find an example in 1 Timothy 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Of course, you would presume here that "depart from the faith" means that born again believers depart from saving faith in Christ and lose their salvation. The words "the faith" (Greek tês pisteôs) in this context means the apostolic faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

You find a verse that is easy to explain. But there are some very other verses that very difficult to explain.

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Galatians 5:4

If they have fallen away from grace then that means that at one time they were in grace.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
John 15:5, 6

Remaining in Christ means that the person has already been in Christ. And if that does not remain in Christ then he will be thrown into the fire (hell) and be burned.

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
Hebrews 6:4 - 6

These people have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partakers of the heaven gift, and tasted the good word of God. Obviously, they were Christians. They were not nominal Christians. But they have fallen way and it is impossible to bring them back.

Some "nominal" Christians will abandon the faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines for false religions and cults. That does not prove they were previously born again. In 1 John 2:19, we read - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

So on the surface, it seems that I John contradicts Hebrews. But there is always an explanation. John is writing about blatant apostasy and heresy. They went out from them. Hebrews is talking about other sins - adultery, fornication, etc. They did not go out from them.

I believe the beginning of such a major departing from the apostolic faith was evidenced as the Roman Catholic church began to come into existence in the early 4th century. The Roman Catholic church forbids it's clergy to marry. This same church has other demonic doctrines such as transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, Mary's perpetual virginity etc..

Please study the Early Church Fathers. These were the disciples of the apostles in the second century. They would hold to to these "demonic" doctrines. So these doctrines did not start to exist in the fourth century. They existed way before them. And it is highly unlikely that these disciples abandoned the teachings of the apostles so quickly.

Celibacy for the clergy did not start until 1139 AD. But celibacy in general start in the Old Testament. The prophets, except for Hosea, were celibates who lived in caves. In the NT, John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus were celibates. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7 that it is better to be a celibate than married; but if a person is burning with passion then he should get married. Jesus said that there are "eunichs" for the sake of the kingdom of God. And the Book of Revelation talked about there being men dedicated to God who have never known a woman.

Our earliest documents say that Mary Magalene spent the rest of her life in ab cave praying. Obviously she was a celibate then. More and more decided to give up everything to become hermits. Soon they developed communities, which were called monasteries. In order to belong to the religious order you have to be a celibate. It was not that they were forbidden to marry. They can choose not be part of the order. But in order to be part of the order they had to remain celibates. Its like belonging to a singles club. No one is forbidding you to marry. But if you want to be part of that singles club you must be single.

Just before 1139 AD, there was corruption in the Catholic Church. Let's face it, being a priest is a cushy job! You have a job for life. The Church will always take care of you. This attracted men into the priesthood who had no business of being priests. They were just in it for the easy life. The Celibacy separated those who were really committed to God and those who just saw an easy life. Sure, it does not work all the time. But it did help to clean up the Church back then.

In Romans 8:30, we read - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. *ALL of them. Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event to stress it's certainty.

God is outside of time. He is in the eternal now. From His perspective, everything is a done deal. His return is a done deal. Satan being cast into hell is a done. He saw these things already happening. He see who my great children married as if that is a done deal. But from my perspective it is still not certain that I will even have grandchildren.

Believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession/unto/for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

Pontius Pilate ordered a seal be placed on the entrance of Jesus' tomb. This was nothing but clay with the Roman insignia stamped on it. It was human possible for anyone to break this seal. It was just clay! But if anyone broke the seal it would mean DEATH. In the same way, it is possible for us to break the seal with the Holy Spirit. But it would mean eternal death for us.

In Revelation there were seven seals. Only the Lamb of God was worthy to break the seals. Point is that a seal can be broken. The guarantee is not absolute. The seal can still be broken.

Pure eisegesis on your part. No one who is born of God practices sin.. (1 John 3:9) Not some of them do and some of them don't. The one who practices sin is of the devil. (1 John 3:8) John is drawing a clear CONTRAST between children of God and children of the devil in 1 John 3:7-10. Put away your bias and accept the truth.

1 John 3:9 has "is born" in the present, continuous tense. It does not say "No one who WAS born of God practices sin. It says "No one who CONTINUES to be born of God would CONTINUE to sin". We think of being born of God and a past, one-time act. But John 3:16 calls Jesus the only-begotten Son of God. If being born is always a one-time past act, then that would mean the onde a one poit in time Jesus came into existence. This heresy is called Arianism. But as I wrote above, God is outside of time. He is in the eternal now. Jesus is eternall begotten of the Father. So spritual birth is different from physical birth. For Jesus wasw eternally begotten of the Father. And we are presently born from God. So once we commit a sin we are no longer presently born of God.

John did not say that those who are born of God/genuine believers choose to practice sin. He said NO ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD PRACTICES SIN. Let go of your bias and accept what John clearly said! Also, stop implying that OSAS = license to sin.

The idea of "practice" sin is to perform repeatedly or habitually and thus describes repetition or continuous action. This describes the practice as habitual, as one's lifestyle or bent of life with no goal or effort to stop. Those who practice sin demonstrate that they have not been born of God/were never a Christian.

A repeated, habitual lifestyle is so subjective and is easy for someone to rationalize his behavior. How frequent must be the sin be done to prove that the the person is a nominal Christian? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Suppose some one is a serial killer, but he only kills someone once a year. Would he still be born again? Can a man who cheats his wife once a month still be born God? How about if he cheats on his wife once a day for an hour? That would mean that for 23 hours of each day he is faithful to his wife. Since most of the time each day he is faithful to his wife, could he still be born of God?

 

[Neogaia777]

I asked the question seriously, not because I'm not claiming to know for sure, wanted to hear what you had to say about it, etc...?

Faith and right believing, some right doing or being or acting or believing or behaving maybe, your conduct or how you conduct yourself, might seem to be a requirement also maybe...?

What do you think...?

God Bless!

I think the requirements, if they are more than just faith alone, will be different for every individual person, and God will let them know each individually personally as well...

I think this is expressed by the scripture, "To whom much is given, much more is required" and subsequently, to whom less is given, less might be required, or not required, etc...

And I think it will also be different in different areas, based on each unique individual person, according to each one's abilities or inabilities in one area or another area...

But there is the problem that if more is required, then, if you did it or made it happen, then in some small measure, you had a part in saving your own self...

What do you think...?

God Bless!