Jesus & James

[tdidymas]

Yes, I did, and now you've apparently acknowledged it in your post #71 saying that the reborn cannot walk away, or sin, citing John. And this is absurdity, not born out in real life-and Scripture definitely affirms that any can fall back into the deeds of the flesh seriously enough to break their relationship with God. The church addressed this some 17-18 centuries ago but people just keep regurgitating the same old nonsense.

So you are then in disagreement with John, I see. Or else you misunderstand both him and myself in the matter.

Those are encouraging words, and will come true for anyone who perseveres and persists in truly remaining in Him. But you have to throw out the other half of the new testament, the "stick" part, that acknowledges that we can return to our old life, that we can die again, in order to believe that we cannot lose our justifed status before God.

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22

You misuse this scripture. It's talking about false teachers who claim to believe in Christ, but they are not sheep of Christ. A "dog" and a "sow" are not sheep. You need to consider the whole section to see who he is talking about, rather than assuming you know already.

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." Heb 6:4-6

Again, out of context. This verse describes Judas Iscariot whom Jesus called "the son of perdition." But the other disciples didn't know because he hid his unbelief very well. Examine the context - in v. 9 it says better things concern salvation, which implies that v. 4-6 is describing someone not saved while in fellowship with true believers. Read it carefully, since you are misapplying it here.

“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

1. It doesn't say lake of fire judgment, that is a conclusion drawn. Many true believers are chastised by God, being "burned" by circumstances to awaken their fear of God.
2. He is speaking to immature disciples who may or may not have been born again, in which this warning has the wider application of the whole church. True believers have the wisdom to listen and heed the warning. False Christians don't heed the warning when the time of testing comes, and such fall away. This is described in the parable of the sower.

"Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will certainly not spare you either. Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." Rom 11:17-22

Again, a misuse of this scripture if you are using it to "prove" that a person can lose eternal life. Paul is calling gentile Christians to embrace the Jewish church which the gentiles are a branch of. It's a hypothetical situation and a warning against religious pride and a faction mentality (the error of the Corinthians). Again, true believers take heed because they have the wisdom of God; but unbelievers lack that wisdom. They might get it later if God grants them repentance that leads to life.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." Gal 5:6

True believers live by the Spirit, at least to a minimal extent. Living by the Spirit is a growing experience. Mature believers live by the Spirit more than immature believers. It's the way of progressive sanctification. So what this verse says is that if a person is "living by the flesh," that person has made their fleshly pleasures their master, and that's what they follow. It proves they are not born again. "By their fruit you shall know them."

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13


Well, there's still hope for you.

Ditto, ditto.

 

[tdidymas]

When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Rom 6:20-22

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

OK

 

[tdidymas]

Well, faith is certainly one condition, at least, with apparent dire consquences if lacking. But, again, we must also reciprocate with the love that we've been shown and received:

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

The forgiveness of God is not merited by our forgiving others. If you think this is what this verse means, then you misunderstand it. Jesus is warning His disciples that forgiveness of others is a command (His command, the same as "love your neighbor..."), and His commands have to be obeyed. So again, if a person is born of God, they will stop bitter unforgiveness against others. If a person is not born of God, they will have bitter unforgiveness against others, if the situation gets bad enough.

Again, "by their fruit you shall know them," and since this applies to everyone, "by your fruit you shall know yourself" (whether God has really saved you or not). So 1 Jn. 3:9 really comes into play here. Are you able to forgive another of sinning against you? And if not, are you seeking God's help to empower you to forgive? Do you really believe God has forgiven your sins, and the sins of the person who sinned against you? Do you dare to usurp God's throne of judgment to punish them because you don't think God will? It begs many questions.

But consider that if I think that God's forgiveness is dependent on my forgiveness, then I conclude that God's forgiveness is merited by my forgiveness. And if that's the case, I will be looking for others to merit my forgiveness before I will give it. But "forgive" is "for the giving." IOW, forgiveness is a gift. It has to start somewhere, and I contend that the Bible teaches that it starts with God first forgiving us, "reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them." So I believe that God's forgiveness is unconditional, and thereby am I motivated to give unconditional forgiveness to others. Unconditional forgiveness is real forgiveness.

But concerning justification, God is the one who justifies. It matters not that person knows if he is justified, only that he trusts Christ to save him. And if forgiveness is unconditional (I say it is), then justification is unconditional. Again, if you think this is antinomian, look again at Rom. 3:8.

 

[Guojing]

No, you are not understanding it literally. What you are doing is imposing a definition of the word "dividing" in your reading of it, that doesn't belong in the context of the scripture. You should be extracting the meaning from the scripture, not imposing meaning onto it. Correct interpretation requires taking account of the wider context of all the scripture. So the result of your imposition on the scripture, you come to a wrong conclusion about how many gospels there are. So it most certainly is a spin.

Divide has a meaning in English.

I am taking that meaning as the interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV.

That is what literal understanding means.

 

[David Lamb]

He did in Galatians 2:7-9 KJV. That is why he sent Paul to reach to us gentiles, the uncircumcised (Romans 11:13)

People just don't like to use the KJV to understand scripture.

But it wasn't a different gospel. The gospel of the uncircumcision means the gospel preached to gentiles, and the gospel of the circumcision is the gospel as preached to Jews. Except for the fact that Old Testament truths would have needed to have been explained more fully to Gentiles than to Jews, its was the same gospel, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.” (Ro 10:12 NKJV)

"Greek" is used there to mean "Gentile."

 

[tdidymas]

Divide has a meaning in English.

I am taking that meaning as the interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV.

That is what literal understanding means.

No, you're wrong about that. You're imposing a definition that doesn't belong. An example: Phil 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" - in modern English, the definition of "robbery" is to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from. So then, according to the English definition of the term, (and taking this statement by itself), Jesus was aggressively divine, because He "thought it not robbery" - IOW, taking a divine position was not "stealing" from God.

But when we examine the context carefully, it is clear that the verse is teaching the opposite. "Thought it not robbery" then has the meaning "did not think it necessary", or "did not think it advantageous" since He actually "humbled himself" to become a man. It actually means the opposite of what it appears to mean on the surface. There are other such words in scripture, especially the KJV, that have the opposite meaning of what we think of in our modern society. Such words like "cleave" which can mean either separate or join. You have to take meanings of words from their context. It is the usage of the word in context that determines its meaning. To impose a modern definition onto the word you are reading is bad hermeneutics, which leads to error, and the two-gospel scenario is error. Thus you are wrongly "dividing" scripture, because you are coming to a wrong conclusion.

 

[Guojing]

No, you're wrong about that. You're imposing a definition that doesn't belong. An example: Phil 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" - in modern English, the definition of "robbery" is to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from. So then, according to the English definition of the term, (and taking this statement by itself), Jesus was aggressively divine, because He "thought it not robbery" - IOW, taking a divine position was not "stealing" from God.

But when we examine the context carefully, it is clear that the verse is teaching the opposite. "Thought it not robbery" then has the meaning "did not think it necessary", or "did not think it advantageous" since He actually "humbled himself" to become a man. It actually means the opposite of what it appears to mean on the surface. There are other such words in scripture, especially the KJV, that have the opposite meaning of what we think of in our modern society. Such words like "cleave" which can mean either separate or join. You have to take meanings of words from their context. It is the usage of the word in context that determines its meaning. To impose a modern definition onto the word you are reading is bad hermeneutics, which leads to error, and the two-gospel scenario is error. Thus you are wrongly "dividing" scripture, because you are coming to a wrong conclusion.

Why are you jumping to another verse now?

 

[Guojing]

But it wasn't a different gospel. The gospel of the uncircumcision means the gospel preached to gentiles, and the gospel of the circumcision is the gospel as preached to Jews. Except for the fact that Old Testament truths would have needed to have been explained more fully to Gentiles than to Jews, its was the same gospel, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.” (Ro 10:12 NKJV)

"Greek" is used there to mean "Gentile."

You are of course free to interpret it in another way, to fit your doctrine.

 

[tdidymas]

Why are you jumping to another verse now?

Evading the obvious is to your detriment. I merely gave an example of how imposing a modern dictionary definition on a biblical word leads to error. Friend, you are in error. There is no such thing as a two-gospel scenario. And you didn't answer my question: did you get this idea from C.R. Stam, or from someone else?

 

[fhansen]

I get that this statement is against antinomianism which I have no problem with.

Good. We're saved by more than faith alone-by the sheer act of faith only- even as faith is the beginning of our vital relationship with God.

Session 6, Chap 7
For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity [love] of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

1. "Cooperate" is the "faith + works" scenario.

No, to cooperate is to cooperate-with God's work, the first of which is the gift of faith, itself. The gospel is gutted of its meaning and purpose when the will of man is taken completely out of the equation. Man cannot move himself toweards or find God but he can nonetheless say "no" to Him when He calls. Grace is resistible, IOW.

I don't have any issue with this. Incidentally, what this statement opposes is the error of Pelagius and of modern-day Charles Finney.

I didn't think you'd have any problem with those last two. They're the grace side of the coin and, yes, they actially reflect the teachings of a council in 529 AD that was convened to address that very issue: the absolute necessity of grace, based mainly on the arguments of Augustine against Pelagianism some 75 years earlier. Those canons were sanctioned as Catholic doctrine.

 

[fhansen]

So you are then in disagreement with John, I see. Or else you misunderstand both him and myself in the matter.

Do believers no longer sin?

You misuse this scripture. It's talking about false teachers who claim to believe in Christ, but they are not sheep of Christ. A "dog" and a "sow" are not sheep. You need to consider the whole section to see who he is talking about, rather than assuming you know already.

Again, out of context. This verse describes Judas Iscariot whom Jesus called "the son of perdition." But the other disciples didn't know because he hid his unbelief very well. Examine the context - in v. 9 it says better things concern salvation, which implies that v. 4-6 is describing someone not saved while in fellowship with true believers. Read it carefully, since you are misapplying it here.

Nah. They've tasted of the heavenly gift, they've escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of Christ. They've received the Holy Spirit-and yet they later turned away.That is sheer grace given and grace received and ultimatley grace rejected. No one can predcit if they, themselves, might end up a dog or a sow for that matter. And nothing about Judas is mentioned there-sheer speculation.

Again, a misuse of this scripture if you are using it to "prove" that a person can lose eternal life. Paul is calling gentile Christians to embrace the Jewish church which the gentiles are a branch of. It's a hypothetical situation and a warning against religious pride and a faction mentality (the error of the Corinthians). Again, true believers take heed because they have the wisdom of God; but unbelievers lack that wisdom. They might get it later if God grants them repentance that leads to life.

An interpretation conveniently structured to try to make Scripture fit a novel theology.

. It doesn't say lake of fire judgment, that is a conclusion drawn. Many true believers are chastised by God, being "burned" by circumstances to awaken their fear of God.
2. He is speaking to immature disciples who may or may not have been born again, in which this warning has the wider application of the whole church. True believers have the wisdom to listen and heed the warning. False Christians don't heed the warning when the time of testing comes, and such fall away. This is described in the parable of the sower.

True believers live by the Spirit, at least to a minimal extent. Living by the Spirit is a growing experience. Mature believers live by the Spirit more than immature believers. It's the way of progressive sanctification. So what this verse says is that if a person is "living by the flesh," that person has made their fleshly pleasures their master, and that's what they follow. It proves they are not born again. "By their fruit you shall know them."

Same answer as above. This whole idea of there being a two-tiered kind of system where we have "true beleivers" and the reborn vs some other kind of believer is bogus. We all have faith in God or we don't. We don't know with absolute certainty if we're His until the end. We can condsider ourselves reborn all we want but until we're truly perfected in love we're not commited to the extent that we may wish to think we are,

 

[tdidymas]

Good. We're saved by more than faith alone-by the sheer act of faith only- even as faith is the beginning of our vital relationship with God.

Session 6, Chap 7
For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity [love] of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39]

I never said nor implied in any way that faith, hope, and charity were not part of the gift of faith God gives to the elect (Eph. 2:5-10). But what you are doing here along with Trent is to separate faith out as if it exists by itself - IOW turn it into a mere mental exercise or theoretical truth. Of that usage of faith I disagree with, just as James disagreed with that usage of faith in James 2.

No, to cooperate is to cooperate-with God's work, the first of which is the gift of faith, itself. The gospel is gutted of its meaning and purpose when the will of man is taken completely out of the equation. Man cannot move himself toweards or find God but he can nonetheless say "no" to Him when He calls. Grace is resistible, IOW.

When God gave faith, grace, and salvation to someone (Eph. 2:8), it was at a particular "moment" in that person's life, and a moment before which they had no interest in obeying God, being "dead in transgressions and sin." Therefore, according to Eph. 2:5 and Rom. 3:11, there was no cooperation with God until after what God did in Eph. 2:5. Therefore, no cooperation was required, no cooperation was necessary, and no cooperation was ever given from man to merit justification. The reason why the believer cooperates with God's will is because they are made to cooperate by God's action. Cooperation happens after faith, regeneration, and being in Christ. So then the "faith + cooperation" idea for obtaining justification and salvation is a misunderstanding of grace, which is unmerited.

When a person is born of God, it is not by their own will, since John 1:13 says, "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Therefore, it cannot be because of "cooperation." People cooperate with God only after the Spirit enters to dwell in their heart, and causes them to fear God (which is the beginning of wisdom), and to hope in Christ.

I didn't think you'd have any problem with those last two. They're the grace side of the coin and, yes, they actially reflect the teachings of a council in 529 AD that was convened to address that very issue: the absolute necessity of grace, based mainly on the arguments of Augustine against Pelagianism some 75 years earlier. Those canons were sanctioned as Catholic doctrine.

I have no problem with most of the councils, but they are fallible in addition to the pope, including in his magisterial role.

 

[tdidymas]

Do believers no longer sin?

Why don't you ask John what he meant? It still appears that you are disagreeing with his doctrinal statement. But perhaps you really do need an explanation (unless you are asking a rhetorical question). So here it is:

Since John doesn't contradict himself, we have to reconcile two statements that APPEAR to contradict:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
"The one born of God does not sin, since God's seed is in him; he can't sin because he is born of God."
Of the first statement, a common expression is "no one is perfect." It means no one is sinlessly perfect. This statement is to explain that we all have faults, but is not to be used as an excuse to willfully commit sin.
Of the second (which is often misunderstood), it means that the believer has become a God-seeker. The Holy Spirit sets a person on the path to glory, and doesn't let him fall away. This is what Peter meant in 1 Pet. 1:5. So it's a matter of direction the believer goes. A true believer has an awakened conscience, in which the misery of guilt, shame, and fear of eternal judgment drives him to repentance for seeking the experience of peace with God, that is, the peace of God. The Grk term translated "commit sin" in the KJV is present incomplete tense, so it's ongoing; thus some translations render it "continue sinning" or "practice sin." So then, since we all have room for improvement, believers can and do commit sin of some kind, but are always ready to repent because the Holy Spirit drives them to it.

Nah. They've tasted of the heavenly gift, they've escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of Christ. They've received the Holy Spirit-and yet they later turned away.That is sheer grace given and grace received and ultimatley grace rejected. No one can predcit if they, themselves, might end up a dog or a sow for that matter. And nothing about Judas is mentioned there-sheer speculation.

An interpretation conveniently structured to try to make Scripture fit a novel theology.

I disagree. Judas fits that description perfectly, and he was not saved. V. 9 clearly says that salvation is better than those things.

Same answer as above. This whole idea of there being a two-tiered kind of system where we have "true beleivers" and the reborn vs some other kind of believer is bogus. We all have faith in God or we don't. We don't know with absolute certainty if we're His until the end. We can condsider ourselves reborn all we want but until we're truly perfected in love we're not commited to the extent that we may wish to think we are,

No it's not bogus. Jesus clearly stated, "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." Therefore there are true believers and false believers. True believers are the ones of whom the apostles say things like, "of like precious faith," "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," "everyone who calls on the name of Lord will be saved," and other such things. False 'believers' are those who fall away because they weren't born of God.

And your idea that we can't know for absolute certainty if we are His, I consider is nonsense, and here is the reason: John states in 1 John 5:13, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." So your idea does not encourage confidence in God's promise as John's statement does. I call your idea "perpetual paranoia."

 

[fhansen]

The forgiveness of God is not merited by our forgiving others. If you think this is what this verse means, then you misunderstand it. Jesus is warning His disciples that forgiveness of others is a command (His command, the same as "love your neighbor..."), and His commands have to be obeyed. So again, if a person is born of God, they will stop bitter unforgiveness against others. If a person is not born of God, they will have bitter unforgiveness against others, if the situation gets bad enough.

Again, "by their fruit you shall know them," and since this applies to everyone, "by your fruit you shall know yourself" (whether God has really saved you or not). So 1 Jn. 3:9 really comes into play here. Are you able to forgive another of sinning against you? And if not, are you seeking God's help to empower you to forgive? Do you really believe God has forgiven your sins, and the sins of the person who sinned against you? Do you dare to usurp God's throne of judgment to punish them because you don't think God will? It begs many questions.

But consider that if I think that God's forgiveness is dependent on my forgiveness, then I conclude that God's forgiveness is merited by my forgiveness. And if that's the case, I will be looking for others to merit my forgiveness before I will give it. But "forgive" is "for the giving." IOW, forgiveness is a gift. It has to start somewhere, and I contend that the Bible teaches that it starts with God first forgiving us, "reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them." So I believe that God's forgiveness is unconditional, and thereby am I motivated to give unconditional forgiveness to others. Unconditional forgiveness is real forgiveness.

But concerning justification, God is the one who justifies. It matters not that person knows if he is justified, only that he trusts Christ to save him. And if forgiveness is unconditional (I say it is), then justification is unconditional. Again, if you think this is antinomian, look again at Rom. 3:8.

The answer involves the human will. The idea that there is a one-time permanent state of justice, meaning salvation, that one enters into by the act of faith is wrong. Yes, we know them and ourselves-we can at least have a darn good idea about them and ourselves-by their/our fruit. We do enter justice by our faith, because we enter union/fellowship/right relationship with God by faith, a state of being which, itself, is the essence and basis of man’s justice/righteousness. To put it simply, the more we draw near to God first before all else, the more righteous we “happen” to become. This is why the correct teaching is that justification and sanctification are part and parcel of the same thing, with justification being the seed of grace, of God’s life planted in us making us a slave to righteousness (Rom 6), and sanctification being the outworking and blossoming of that, both entailing the reception of the ability to become holy, as we were made to be. The more we exercise or invest this gift, this grace and the virtues involved: faith, hope, and love, the more they grow. And this also means in any case that more than a mere imputation or declaration of righteousness occurs at justification-or else the new believer never could or would begin to live more righteously to begin with.

We can also walk away from them, from grace, from God, either when He first calls or at any point later and the gospel along with the whole bible for that matter make little sense if not for that fact. Too many passages must be ignored, twisted, revised, read between the lines otherwise.

So yes, talk alone about our faith alone is cheap. Now some do take the doctrine of Sola Fide to the antinomian extreme- which it lends itself to-and that’s one reason why I think it’s an unworthy inclusion to the faith that’s been handed down from the beginning. It means that sin is actually sanctioned because our justice/righteousness before God has nothing to do with real justice/righteousness finally attained and lived out even if that righteousness would necessarily be a gift from Him.

Also, and this is related, if we know them and ourselves by our fruit, whether by our forgiveness or our overcoming of sin or doing good for others, etc, by our love IOW, then we’re also acknowledging that not only are we enabled to be righteous at justification, by the indwelling of the Spirit, but also that there is some level of unrighteousness that would indicate that we are not one of them, one of His. Otherwise, we could not know them, of course. But if we also acknowledge that no one becomes perfectly sinless in this life then this all begins to align with the Catholic teaching on sin, that there are levels or degrees of sin that should mean that we don’t belong to God, or have left Him.

 

[fhansen]

Why don't you ask John what he meant? It still appears that you are disagreeing with his doctrinal statement. But perhaps you really do need an explanation (unless you are asking a rhetorical question). So here it is:

Since John doesn't contradict himself, we have to reconcile two statements that APPEAR to contradict:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
"The one born of God does not sin, since God's seed is in him; he can't sin because he is born of God."
Of the first statement, a common expression is "no one is perfect." It means no one is sinlessly perfect. This statement is to explain that we all have faults, but is not to be used as an excuse to willfully commit sin.
Of the second (which is often misunderstood), it means that the believer has become a God-seeker. The Holy Spirit sets a person on the path to glory, and doesn't let him fall away. This is what Peter meant in 1 Pet. 1:5. So it's a matter of direction the believer goes. A true believer has an awakened conscience, in which the misery of guilt, shame, and fear of eternal judgment drives him to repentance for seeking the experience of peace with God, that is, the peace of God. The Grk term translated "commit sin" in the KJV is present incomplete tense, so it's ongoing; thus some translations render it "continue sinning" or "practice sin." So then, since we all have room for improvement, believers can and do commit sin of some kind, but are always ready to repent because the Holy Spirit drives them to it.

This is better than the answer so often given, that God simply sees the believer as sinless when, in fact, they're not: simul iustus et peccator, etc, as if no sin could ever separate us from Him. But you had cited John in post #71 for support that a believer doesn't sin as I understood it:

You say "we can walk away..." but I've already quoted 1 Jn. 2:9 in which a "brother" fails to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. And here is another: 1 Jn. 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

To reconcile the two statements, John is saying that a child of God will not contine to sin, 1 John 3:9. But if he fails he can confess his sins and be purified of all unrighteousnes, 1 John 1:9, putting him back on track, in God's grace. Does John mean perfect sinlessness-never a white lie? Probably not even if that should be the ultimate goal. The church had always understood that a person could not be wallowing in persistent grave deeds of the flesh/sin, wantonly breaking the commandments, for example, and still be considered a child of God.

​

 

[fhansen]

I call your idea "perpetual paranoia."

No, its a sound and healthy and knowledgeable respect for God's justice, mercy, love, sanity and the purpose of the sacrifice of His Son combined with a humble acknowledgement of our own weaknesses and limitiations, taking all of Scripture into acount along with the historic understanding of Christianity. He's not the wildcard; we are. And if you think your faith alone permanently immunizes you from either the potential for commiting sin, or its consequences, you've failed to properly understand the gospel.

 

[fhansen]

The reason why the believer cooperates with God's will is because they are made to cooperate by God's action. Cooperation happens after faith, regeneration, and being in Christ. So then the "faith + cooperation" idea for obtaining justification and salvation is a misunderstanding of grace, which is unmerited.

God can do it however He sees fit, according to his wisdom and will, for our highest good. As the Church correctly teaches:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without Him we can do nothing.51

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from Him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of His grace. The fatherly action of God is first on His own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63

 

[fhansen]

But what you are doing here along with Trent is to separate faith out as if it exists by itself - IOW turn it into a mere mental exercise or theoretical truth. Of that usage of faith I disagree with, just as James disagreed with that usage of faith in James 2.

Trent doesn't treat it as a "mere mental exercise or theoretical truth", but neither is faith sufficient on its own. Augustine put it this way:
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

And Paul:
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Cor 13:13

 

[fhansen]

IOW, forgiveness is a gift. It has to start somewhere, and I contend that the Bible teaches that it starts with God first forgiving us, "reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them."

Yes, forgivness is a gift; it actually flows from the gift of love, as He has loved us. But it's also a gift that can be rejected as with any gift-again, we're not puppets. And that's why Jesus told us we must forgive. Otherwise He wouldn't have needed to tell us- would just do it.

 

[tdidymas]

The answer involves the human will. The idea that there is a one-time permanent state of justice, meaning salvation, that one enters into by the act of faith is wrong. Yes, we know them and ourselves-we can at least have a darn good idea about them and ourselves-by their/our fruit. We do enter justice by our faith, because we enter union/fellowship/right relationship with God by faith, a state of being which, itself, is the essence and basis of man’s justice/righteousness. To put it simply, the more we draw near to God first before all else, the more righteous we “happen” to become. This is why the correct teaching is that justification and sanctification are part and parcel of the same thing, with justification being the seed of grace, of God’s life planted in us making us a slave to righteousness (Rom 6), and sanctification being the outworking and blossoming of that, both entailing the reception of the ability to become holy, as we were made to be. The more we exercise or invest this gift, this grace and the virtues involved: faith, hope, and love, the more they grow. And this also means in any case that more than a mere imputation or declaration of righteousness occurs at justification-or else the new believer never could or would begin to live more righteously to begin with.

We can also walk away from them, from grace, from God, either when He first calls or at any point later and the gospel along with the whole bible for that matter make little sense if not for that fact. Too many passages must be ignored, twisted, revised, read between the lines otherwise.

So yes, talk alone about our faith alone is cheap. Now some do take the doctrine of Sola Fide to the antinomian extreme- which it lends itself to-and that’s one reason why I think it’s an unworthy inclusion to the faith that’s been handed down from the beginning. It means that sin is actually sanctioned because our justice/righteousness before God has nothing to do with real justice/righteousness finally attained and lived out even if that righteousness would necessarily be a gift from Him.

Also, and this is related, if we know them and ourselves by our fruit, whether by our forgiveness or our overcoming of sin or doing good for others, etc, by our love IOW, then we’re also acknowledging that not only are we enabled to be righteous at justification, by the indwelling of the Spirit, but also that there is some level of unrighteousness that would indicate that we are not one of them, one of His. Otherwise, we could not know them, of course. But if we also acknowledge that no one becomes perfectly sinless in this life then this all begins to align with the Catholic teaching on sin, that there are levels or degrees of sin that should mean that we don’t belong to God, or have left Him.

I disagree with your premise, which is this statement:
"The idea that there is a one-time permanent state of justice, meaning salvation, that one enters into by the act of faith is wrong."
Here is where our paths diverge. No amount of persuasive words you say would ever convince me of your premise. I stand on what the Bible teaches me, which I have iterated before, and will not reiterate. This means that if I have to confess this premise as a Catholic, then I could never be a Catholic. This premise in my view is unbiblical and does not hold to the gospel of grace. I think it's time for us to part ways here.