Um, no, that's your job, since you think it's such a worthwhile endeavor. And then include some proof of validity and widespread general acceptance. And I agree that we shouldn't rely solely on our own understanding of scripture, but I trust relatively few to interpret it accurately anyway nowadays
You raised the objection of which commentary should be considered correct, I am giving you the opportunity to find one that supports your understanding, that seems very fair.
All for who Christ died is holy and blameless before God in Love simply because His Suretyship Obedience for them provided that standing for them before God. Col 1:21-2
Well, you raised the subject of commentaries to begin with but since they seem quite important to you, at least, I’ll indulge your request as best I can. I read several from Protestants, many supporting my view, often by maintaining that the passage is referring to apostasy, but I have no idea which would be considered as widely accepted. Here’s one that might more or less satisfy both of us though as it offers a balanced approach. You’ll need to scroll down to get to verses 20-22:
Thank you. And there are many passages that remind and instruct us that we must remain in that state, that we must strive, be vigilant, persevere, endure to the end, be holy, put to death the deeds of the flesh, do good, love, etc.
Sounds like you trusting in man. The Death of Christ hath perfected them He died for, forever ! Heb 10:14
Sure-and until the end we won't necessarily know who "them" are, who endured to the end, who were numbered among the elect, who were perfected and who were not. You certainly don't think that everyone who heard those words, whether at the time they were written or anytime later on, and applied them to themselves was/is/will be necessarily, incontrovertibly, saved?? And that's why there aren't any absolutes regarding any individual's salvation, but much hyperbole and encouragement along with, as I said, many warnings and admonishments. I'm not really interested in all these personal, private interpretations of the bible out there-often relying too heavily on isolated passages to develop one theology or another. That is trusting in men-in ourselves.
I dont see how what you are saying here is valid friend. The Elect know they are saved when they are given Faith to believe it. Eph 1:13
Of course it makes sense, because it applies to all men, ourselves included. No one can know with absolute, perfect certainty whether or not they're numbered among the elect, whether or not their names are written in the Book of Life. That is God's province, while we can have a high level of assurance based on our fruit but still guarded in light of human limitations, weakness, and sin. Humility, alone, calls for this. God's 100% trustworthy and true while we're the wildcard in it all. And no one can predict their own perseverance anyway, which is why we're exhorted to persevere, BTW
I think that was very fair, it does not support the osas doctrine, it applies also to those who were false teachers (Judaizers) and those who practiced the Jewish Ceremonial laws and attempted to revert back to them after accepting the Gospel. I have no problem with Catholic Theology having studied it as well as the reformed. Very difficult to study the early church and not also study Catholic Theology. We were not so far apart in our understandings. Blessings to you.
Yes! -and amen!! When we believe that faith somehow excludes us from the need or obligation to be righteous, and that we aren't equipped with righteousness as part of our new fellowship with God, then we don't really understand the purpose of the New Covenant.
Nope, that's knowledge, experience, the continuous understanding of the Christian Church from day one, and aligns well with the overall context of Scripture as well. I've been around the faith too long-including many of its variations.
So was Paul absolutely sure he was one of the elect, who was the chief of sinners, when he wrote 2 Tim 1:12
I’m persuaded as well, though with much less reason than Paul, I’m sure. And that’s a point. We know Christians by their fruits; that’s about all we have to go on and there’s an element of subjectivity in that assessment. And without much fruit we would and should naturally be suspicious, because Christianity is about real change in us-and talk is cheap. So, in humility, I just don’t have perfect certainty. Only God knows, on that level, whose names are written in the Book of Life.
The doctrine of "faith only" opens no door for unbelief of sanctification.
The gift of faith is not external, it is internal, an inner work of God wherein he disposes one toward the gospel, to prefer the gospel, and the will freely chooses what one prefers.
Blameless denotes no guilt. That is the result of justification; i.e., declared "not guilty" by God the Judge, because of faith in and trust on the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice, and imputing (crediting) to us the very righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18-19).
It's not either/or, it's both/and.
