SALVATION

[Clare73]

One thing apparent in this SALVATION thread is that one member, in particular, desires to debate for the "sake of debating."

Is that possible without continued response to that member?

And the responses to that member are not for the sake of debating?

Tunnel vision?

As if that is his "calling" to present his denominational theology as the correct theology. Even to the extent that
he believes Paul's order is "wrong" and yet he believes in the inerrancy of scripture ...

Misrepresentation. . .not a good look.

1 Corinthians 6:11​

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

Perhaps out of all the translations there is one that agrees with his theological order with justification preceding sanctification. See post #169 ...

"faith --> salvation --> justification --> sanctification --> death --> resurrection --> glorification (immortal, sinless, glorious body like Christ's)"​

Assumes what is to be proven. . .

Religious pride can get the better of us IF one thinks their "calling" is to promote their denominational theology as thee true God-given theology ...

Pot calling the kettle black?

So is his "calling" to instruct others in the correct order for SALVATION ... being different from that of Paul's order (1 Cor. 6:11)?

Assumes what was to be proven and was demonstrated otherwise.

Sour grapes?

 

[BNR32FAN]

One thing apparent in this SALVATION thread is that one member, in particular, desires to debate for the "sake of debating." As if that is his "calling" to present his denominational theology as the correct theology. Even to the extent that he believes Paul's order is "wrong" and yet he believes in the inerrancy of scripture ...

1 Corinthians 6:11​

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

Perhaps out of all the translations there is one that agrees with his theological order with justification preceding sanctification. See post #169 ...

"faith --> salvation --> justification --> sanctification --> death --> resurrection --> glorification (immortal, sinless, glorious body like Christ's)"​

Religious pride can get the better of us IF one thinks their "calling" is to promote their denominational theology as thee true God-given theology ...

So is his "calling" to instruct others in the correct order for SALVATION ... being different from that of Paul's order (1 Cor. 6:11)? Or is his objective to debate for the sake of debate what he believes is God's preferred order (not Paul's order) for SALVATION ?

We have to take all scripture into consideration in order to formulate our doctrines. For example we see many passages that say we are saved when we believe, yet we see other passages that say we must abide in Christ and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life. We can’t pick one passage and ignore the other when formulating our doctrines because both are true. We have to reconcile both passages together and come to an understanding that doesn’t contradict either one of them.

 

[Clare73]

John 6:37 says if they continue to come to Him they will not be cast out and John 6:39 says it is the Father’s desire that Jesus lose none, it doesn’t say that Jesus will lose none

Jn 10:28 - "I give them (my sheep) eternal life and they shall never perish."

because that would directly contradict John 15:6. So you still haven’t explained how John 15:2 and John 15:6 don’t refute your interpretation of Phil 2:13.

Can you explain how Jn 10:28 doesn't refute your interpretation of Jn 15:6, Php 2:13?

 

[Clare73]

Jesus specifically said exactly why He condemned them, because of their lawlessness,

And whom did he condemn. . .those who performed miracles in his name. . .that's faith, and it was counterfeit and condemned.

aHe never said anything about a counterfeit faith. You’re conjuring this idea of a “counterfeit faith” out of thin air. The context is
those who hear His words and don’t act on them, not those who pretend to believe.

Nor did I say who those who don't act on his words claim to have faith.

 

[Clare73]

Again you keep conjuring up this idea of a counterfeit faith and Paul absolutely did say that they could lose their salvation if you continue reading another 7 verses.

Then their minds were not totally set on the flesh, and he is warning true believers not to do so.

 

[Clare73]

Yep I completely anticipated this response but tares are never in Christ.

Nevertheless, they are in the field which is the kingdom of heaven (the professors of faith), which is the field in the parable (Mt 13:24-30).
And the faith they profess is counterfeit, for they will be gathered and tied in bundles to burn.

No one can come to Christ unless The Father draws them and it’s satan who plants the tares

. . .in the field, which is the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13:24).

not The Father so that explanation doesn’t work either.

It works to demonstrate that not all those who profess faith; i.e., are "in the kingdom," have a saving faith, some have a counterfeit faith, which is why they are rejected.

And just to save time I’ll go ahead and refute your response in reference to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 in advance, Paul is ONLY talking about people who are building on the foundation of Christ not people who are not building on that foundation. So that explanation isn’t going to work either.

Of course it doesn't work, and I never said it did.

Your mind-reading skills need a little "polishing up."

Jesus never once says that anyone is in Him who is not actually in Him.

Never said he did. . .it's the parable (Jn 15:1-2) that is your problem.

Furthermore in every example that Jesus gave of anything not producing fruit He has nothing but contempt for them and the result was destruction. So again your response is not biblical.

Your problem is with Jn 15:1-2.

 

[Clare73]

We have to take all scripture into consideration in order to formulate our doctrines. For example we see many passages that say we are saved when we believe, yet we see other passages that say we must abide in Christ and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life. We can’t pick one passage and ignore the other when formulating our doctrines because both are true. We have to reconcile both passages together and come to an understanding that doesn’t contradict either one of them.

Precisely. . .

 

[fhansen]

So you reject that as assurance, even though the Bible posits it as assurance. Typical of the RCC —knows more about God than what God himself says about God.

Hi, Mark-was wondering if you might not pop in here. I used to feel as you do, having left the CC at a young age to later go on to be Protestant-and pretty anti-Catholic. One of my reasons for returning-many, many years later yet-was something that I found to be most typical-that people often disagree, quite plausibly at times, over just what God says about Himself based on His written Word alone. This occurs even in this forum, as evidenced even in this very thread. Everyone knows what God says about Himself-no matter how much they disagree with the next guy on what God says about Himself. Often, isolated passages are woodenly relied on while failing to take into account other passages and teachings that would help supply the fuller, balanced picture.

Either way we have all these people becoming their own "magisterium" by picking up a Book multiple centuries after the fact and then privately interpreting it with little or no reference given to the past teachings and understandings of the ancient church in the east and west along with the ECFs. Just because they can read-and apply some intelligence and reasoning to their reading. It doesn't work that way. Scripture was never even intended to serve as some sort of exhaustive and systematic, clearly stated catechism-or be divorced from the understanding of the church that received the revelation given by and through Christ at the beginning, before the NT was even written.

The early church already had to do battle with errors, often resulting from or associated with erroneous Scriptural interpretations. For example, the very early church was convinced that there could be no repentance for those who fell back into serious sin. Turning to God meant also turning away from sin and the world's values-and many had given up much, including their lives to do so, and there are many passages in Scripture that could support this view. But the church had to see past the various arguments, and based also on Scripture and a basic general understanding of God and His love and mercy, leave this rigorist view behind, amidst much heated controversy. The teaching that came out and which was eventually adopted by the church universal still acknowledged the importance of overcoming sin in order to enter heaven, but allowed for a change of heart and true repentance even for murder, adultery, etc along with, eventually, the understanding that perfect sinlessness was not required or even necessarily possible in this life while there are nonetheless sins so seriously opposed to love of God or neighbor that, if persisted in, will lead to eternal death.

There were many other controversies, of course, the nature of Christ being a notable one with both sides debating each other using Scripture. Either way, one thing is quite typical: everyone will think they're exclusively right regardless of how right or wrong they may actually be.

 

[setst777]

Indeed, Jesus did not take a step backward and deny children. The pledge of the parents, as it was in OT times, is sufficient.

If you are saying that the pledge of the parents is sufficient to replace Lord Jesus' command to baptise disciples, then you are mistaken.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jn 10:28 - "I give them (my sheep) eternal life and they shall never perish."

Can you explain how Jn 10:28 doesn't refute your interpretation of Jn 15:6, Php 2:13?

Because in verse 27 He said that His sheep hear and follow. That’s an important part of the message.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And whom did he condemn. . .those who performed miracles in his name. . .that's faith, and it was counterfeit and condemned.

Nor did I say who those who don't act on his words claim to have faith.

I didn’t imply that you did I was merely pointing out the context of the message.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then their minds were not totally set on the flesh, and he is warning true believers not to do so.

Yeah and the consequence of doing so is having no inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nevertheless, they are in the field which is the kingdom of heaven (the professors of faith), which is the field in the parable (Mt 13:24-30).
And the faith they profess is counterfeit, for they will be gathered and tied in bundles to burn.

This has nothing to do with being joined to Christ. You’re so very fond of and familiar with John 6:44 “no one can come to Me unless The Father draws them”. Why aren’t you applying this verse into your explanation?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi, Mark-was wondering if you might not pop in here. I used to feel as you do, having left the CC at a young age to later go on to be Protestant-and pretty anti-Catholic. One of my reasons for returning-many, many years later yet-was something that I found to be most typical-that people often disagree, quite plausibly at times, over just what God says about Himself based on His written Word alone. This occurs even in this forum, as evidenced even in this very thread. Everyone knows what God says about Himself-no matter how much they disagree with the next guy on what God says about Himself. Often, isolated passages are woodenly relied on while failing to take into account other passages and teachings that would help supply the fuller, balanced picture.

Either way we have all these people becoming their own "magisterium" by picking up a Book multiple centuries after the fact and then privately interpreting it with little or no reference given to the past teachings and understandings of the ancient church in the east and west along with the ECFs. Just because they can read-and apply some intelligence and reasoning to their reading. It doesn't work that way. Scripture was never even intended to serve as some sort of exhaustive and systematic, clearly stated catechism-or be divorced from the understanding of the church that received the revelation given by and through Christ at the beginning, before the NT was even written.

The early church already had to do battle with errors, often resulting from or associated with erroneous Scriptural interpretations. For example, the very early church was convinced that there could be no repentance for those who fell back into serious sin. Turning to God meant also turning away from sin and the world's values-and many had given up much, including their lives to do so, and there are many passages in Scripture that could support this view.

Does the following you wrote indicate to you that the magisterium of the RCC is above error? If the early church could be in error, why not the RCC?

But the church had to see past the various arguments, and based also on Scripture and a basic general understanding of God and His love and mercy, leave this rigorist view behind, amidst much heated controversy. The teaching that came out and which was eventually adopted by the church universal still acknowledged the importance of overcoming sin in order to enter heaven, but allowed for a change of heart and true repentance even for murder, adultery, etc along with, eventually, the understanding that perfect sinlessness was not required or even necessarily possible in this life while there are nonetheless sins so seriously opposed to love of God or neighbor that, if persisted in, will lead to eternal death.

There were many other controversies, of course, the nature of Christ being a notable one with both sides debating each other using Scripture. Either way, one thing is quite typical: everyone will think they're exclusively right regardless of how right or wrong they may actually be.

I notice, too, here as in other places, the tendency of the RCC and those who think like them, to deal with "sins" and ignore basic "sinfulness" in the human.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Of course it doesn't work, and I never said it did.

Your mind-reading skills need a little "polishing up."

Actually you did say that just yesterday when you said that if we continue grieving the Holy Spirit we lose our rewards but we’re still saved. That’s precisely what the people in John 15:2 were doing. They were in Christ which means they had received the Holy Spirit and they weren’t bearing fruit which means they were grieving the Spirit and if they do that for too long they will eventually be cut off from Christ just like the Galatians which results in condemnation if they don’t repent.

No, the Holy Spirit is the new birth which is the source of our faith.

Ignoring him is unprofitable for good works and their rewards, but it still saves (1 Co 3:11-15).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Never said he did. . .it's the parable (Jn 15:1-2) that is your problem.

Yes you absolutely did say it when you said that the people in John 15:2 are tares. Tares are not in Christ, they’re planted by the evil one, no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws them, so you absolutely did say that people who were false professors are in Christ.

"Me" being the body of Christ, the called-out assembly (ekklesia, the church), wherein we find both wheat and tares (Mt 13:4-30).

"God works everything" for those of true faith (wheat), not for those of counterfeit faith (tares).

Those of Jn 15:2, 6 are of counterfeit faith.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Precisely. . .

I’ve explained every passage you’ve quoted and you haven’t explained how my explanation is wrong. I’ve actually explained how every passage you’ve quoted is wrong.

 

[Rapture Bound]

Clare73 said:
The one in whom the Holy Spirit both witnesses (testifies) with their spirit that they are a child of God (Ro 8:16) and guarantees their inheritance (2 Co 1:22, 5:5, Eph1:14), working in them to will and to do according to God's good purpose (Php 2:13).

So you reject that as assurance, even though the Bible posits it as assurance. Typical of the RCC —knows more about God than what God himself says about God.

You said, "So you reject that as assurance, even though the Bible posits it as assurance. Typical of the RCC —knows more about God than what God himself says about God.

Well stated Mark [& Clare73]! ... here you hit on a very important point ... tragically, according to RCC theology, no person can possess the assurance of their salvation... a promise that scripture clearly proclaims to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit :

The Roman Catholic Institution claims :

Council of Trent sixth session [celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547] -
Decree Concerning Justification :

Canon 15. If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide [from faith] to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

On the other hand ... the Bible declares the assurance of salvation/eternal life given to the all blood-bought, Holy Spirit regenerated believing children of God :

[1] 1 Thess.1:4-5 - "knowing brethren beloved, your election in God."

[2] Eph.1:13-14 with 2 Cor. 1:21-22 - " after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy spirit of promise".

[3] Rom.8:16 - "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God".

[4] 1 John 11-13 with 1 John 5:11-13 - "Hereby know we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit" ... "that ye may know that ye have eternal life".

[5] Gal.4:6 - "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father".

[6] Heb.10:14 - "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified".

[7] 1 John 3:24 - "And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us".


According to the RCC, every person on this planet [whether regenerated or unregenerated by the Holy Spirit] will just have to "wait and see" [i.e. - "cross their fingers"] and hope that they have actually received eternal life, or that they will enter Heaven when they die. Their theology simply does not allow a person to have the understanding and assurance in the here and now that they will go to heaven when they draw their final breath in this world.

It's one thing to say that a person may possess a false sense of the assurance of their salvation .... however, it's quite the unscriptural leap to make the claim that no persons will actually possess a genuine assurance that they will go to Heaven when they die.

 

[AbbaLove]

We have to take all scripture into consideration in order to formulate our doctrines.

That's a mouthful as not all scripture is "considered" (interpreted) the same way and importance to their theology... as evident in this SALVATION thread.

For example we see many passages that say we are saved when we believe, yet we see other passages that say we must abide in Christ and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life.

Every "Christian" has his/her favorite [comfort zone] doctrine(s). My preference is the underlined including the sharing of inspiring transforming testomonies from the congregation of how the Lord is moving today among His chosen people.

That said too many postmodern doctrinal interpretations would seem to imply that not giving into temptation and stop sinning is not necessary even for a postmodern born again new creation in Christ (Titus 3:5). We seem to be surrounded by more than enuf [so-called] mainline Christians that the world looks upon as hypocrits than saints. A new Christian that was indoctrinated ... "we are saved when we believe" with a congregation (and pastor) that by and large doesn't believe it's possible to live a holy righteous life so as to stop sinning.

As new seeker-sensitive believers which of the two doctrines listed above is more likely to keep them returning to church? Even if they are never growing beyond being a nominal believer (lukewarm). Just as long as they are comfortable in church by being told what they like to hear. Some churches even allow coffee in the sanctuary.

A disciple/follower of Jesus is to live a sanctifed life (holy-righteous) in order for justification to receive a glorified body. Too many modern church doctrines are such that a modern-day disciple doesn't even need any of the 9 special (supernatural) Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-10). Some mainline church beliefs go so far as to believe that speaking in an unknown heavenly tongue is gibberish (demonic influence).

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

 

[fhansen]

Does the following you wrote indicate to you that the magisterium of the RCC is above error? If the early church could be in error, why not the RCC?

?? It's all part of the same one church. Error was practiced until it was officially addressed by the larger church. Same as it was in Jerusalem when the apostles met to address the issue of dietary laws for the Gentiles. Same as it was at Nicaea when the church sat to resolve the matter of Arianism, a movement that was threatening to take over all of Christianity. People can be wrong all over the place while God keeps His house in order despite us.

I notice, too, here as in other places, the tendency of the RCC and those who think like them, to deal with "sins" and ignore basic "sinfulness" in the human.

Sounds like a strawman-I have no idea what you're talking about. Failing to deal with sinfulness is more in line with believing that righteousness is merely imputed to a person whereas in the ancient churches until today its acknowledged that the root of sin is not in our actions first of all but in our hearts. Only with God, now reconciled with Him, no longer apart from Him, is it possible to overcome the sin that will still earn one death unless overcome, unless we become His people and He puts His law in our minds and writes in on our hearts IOW (Jer 31:33-34). So that is possible only by virtue of communion with Him, the Holy Spirit indwelling, the life of grace now opened to us. That's why Jesus came.