Confession ...

[stan1953]

So you are right that one who sins and knows that they have sinned yet chooses not to confess their sins to God remains in their sins and is separated from God for as long as they choose their sins over God.

The insidious nature of sin is that some of it in our lives remains unconfessed because we do not acknowledge it IS sin. Confess means to agree, and if we have actions in our lives that God determines is sin and we don't agree with Him that it is sin, we remain unforgiven for that, in the same fashion that God will only forgive our sins against others IF we also go to them to confess and ask forgiveness.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If that were the mindset I'd object as well. you are leaving too much out. like understanding that He is faithful to forgive us our sins and that He is also intent on finishing the work he began in us.
Now tell me, do you read Hebrews 10:26 as meaning blessed assurance and not to concerning our self with sins? How many sins do you consider we are given a get out of jail free card on?

BTW a journey is not a hope only. It's a life lived with a destination and purpose. Now how could something be lost that isn't finished yet. I'm pretty sure the judgement has not yet happened. Guess I'd make a poor preterist.

It seems to me that Jesus spoke of salvation as a journey. Consider what he said about the strait gate and the narrow road that leads to salvation. If there were no journey then would it not be a strait gate that is salvation without any road mentioned? The Lord also speaks of a wide gate and a broad and spacious road that leads to destruction so one's path to hell also seems to be a journey. How do our instant-and-complete-salvation brethren understand the Lord's teaching?

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14
​

 

[stan1953]

I have difficulty discussing this Catholic view, because it is so completely the opposite of how I understand Jesus.
But that's what makes the world go 'round, I guess.

Hey Willie,

We are all catholic, Mama is Eastern Orthodox, NOT Roman Catholic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The insidious nature of sin is that some of it in our lives remains unconfessed because we do not acknowledge it IS sin. Confess means to agree, and if we have actions in our lives that God determines is sin and we don't agree with Him that it is sin, we remain unforgiven for that, in the same fashion that God will only forgive our sins against others IF we also go to them to confess and ask forgiveness.

This gets into a whole other potential area. (And btw, I am discussing from a strictly theoretical perspective, not from any particular point of view.)

Say someone is converted, and God lets them know that stealing at work is a sin. So they repent. A month later, they are growing in Him, and then He lets them know that smoking cigarettes is a sin. So they quit, keep following. A few months later, He lets them know that a glass of wine isn't a sin, but it is when he drinks it while talking over the fence to a neighbor, who thinks no Christian should ever drink alcohol. So he repents, and no longer drinks in front his his neighbor. A few months later, God prompts him to donate something. He decides to think about it, and later he does donate the thing. But God lets him know, that while he did it, he hesitated, and the hesitation was actually a sin.

Now, if the man had gotten the prompting from God to donate something a day after coming to faith, before receiving all those other corrections, God would probably NOT have impressed on him that it was a sin because he thought about it first.

I think that if we get closer and closer to God, and follow Him more and more, we become more sanctified, but we also become more aware of things that are sin, that we never knew before.

Did God count them against us as "unconfessed sin" because we weren't that sanctified yet, and He never let us know?

As to the "other person" sin ... what if the person we wronged would be even more hurt by our confession? Or what if they die before we can confess to them?

Several sticky situations I see in that scenario.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Sorry.... You display the label icon of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, so I found myself thinking that was your faith.

I see you've been visiting wiki
Yes I am EO. Yes we are catholic. But at this forum Catholic means RCC or Eastern Catholic(those in communion with Rome and in submission to the Pope). I am not in communion with the RCC or Eastern Catholics as we disagree concerning dogma and supremacy. I'm also not in communion with Oriental Orthodox.
Believe it or not, Lutherans, Anglicans and most liturgical groups call themselves catholic. But not Catholic. Yes I consider my Church to be the Holy Catholic Church but for reasons of not causing confusion, I leave that alone while here.
Actually it's the Orthodox Catholic Church officially not the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. So you were thinking correct. I only corrected you as it would imply I was a Vatican Catholic, which I am not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It seems to me that Jesus spoke of salvation as a journey. Consider what he said about the strait gate and the narrow road that leads to salvation. If there were no journey then would it not be a strait gate that is salvation without any road mentioned? The Lord also speaks of a wide gate and a broad and spacious road that leads to destruction so one's path to hell also seems to be a journey. How do our instant-and-complete-salvation brethren understand the Lord's teaching?

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14
​

No insult intended, MC, but I would expect that a common explanation would center on the fact that it might seem unwise to develop such a broad doctrine based on a single word or two.

Your post makes sense though.

To be honest, I'm trying to decide what the differences in looking at things really are.

I mean, eternal security is obviously at the opposite end of what you are discussing, if one takes that to mean that all they have to do is "get saved" and can go on to sin as much as they like - basically just a "get out of hell free card".

But if you put aside that, how different it is to believe what you are saying (if I understand you right), or to believe instead that one is instantly "saved" and would go to heaven if they died right then, but by the same token expect a person to grow in grace and sanctification?

The only difference I can find (and I admit I've only been looking at it briefly) is that some seem to say that there is some "level" of good works that tip the scales to "saved" (please I don't mean to be insulting) ... but my question is whether or not that person would be saved if they die before they have a chance to do sufficient good works? If they would be saved in any case, then I'm not seeing huge differences?

I believe some teach that good works add to and are necessary for their salvation, and some teach that good works are a natural result of the faith that imparts salvation they already have.

The major difference I see in this is that one position makes us somewhat responsible for ourselves for our own salvation, while the other would not necessarily do so.

Is that a fair assessment of at least two positions?

(I hope no one takes offense, either way.)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

History.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Willie T]

I see you've been visiting wiki
Yes I am EO. Yes we are catholic. But at this forum Catholic means RCC or Eastern Catholic(those in communion with Rome and in submission to the Pope). I am not in communion with the RCC or Eastern Catholics as we disagree concerning dogma and supremacy. I'm also not in communion with Oriental Orthodox.
Believe it or not, Lutherans, Anglicans and most liturgical groups call themselves catholic. But not Catholic. Yes I consider my Church to be the Holy Catholic Church but for reasons of not causing confusion, I leave that alone while here.
Actually it's the Orthodox Catholic Church officially not the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. So you were thinking correct. I only corrected you as it would imply I was a Vatican Catholic, which I am not.

No, visiting Britanica.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I see you've been visiting wiki
Yes I am EO. Yes we are catholic. But at this forum Catholic means RCC or Eastern Catholic(those in communion with Rome and in submission to the Pope). I am not in communion with the RCC or Eastern Catholics as we disagree concerning dogma and supremacy. I'm also not in communion with Oriental Orthodox.
Believe it or not, Lutherans, Anglicans and most liturgical groups call themselves catholic. But not Catholic. Yes I consider my Church to be the Holy Catholic Church but for reasons of not causing confusion, I leave that alone while here.
Actually it's the Orthodox Catholic Church officially not the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. So you were thinking correct. I only corrected you as it would imply I was a Vatican Catholic, which I am not.

Complete and total aside, but the Methodist church I visited referred to the Apostles Creed with the "one holy catholic church" and my husband asked me about that. He won't say it. I believe the Nicene creed includes it as well. It has been confusing to me overall.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems to me that Jesus spoke of salvation as a journey. Consider what he said about the strait gate and the narrow road that leads to salvation. If there were no journey then would it not be a strait gate that is salvation without any road mentioned? The Lord also speaks of a wide gate and a broad and spacious road that leads to destruction so one's path to hell also seems to be a journey. How do our instant-and-complete-salvation brethren understand the Lord's teaching?

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14
​

No insult intended, MC, but I would expect that a common explanation would center on the fact that it might seem unwise to develop such a broad doctrine based on a single word or two.

Your post makes sense though.

To be honest, I'm trying to decide what the differences in looking at things really are.

I mean, eternal security is obviously at the opposite end of what you are discussing, if one takes that to mean that all they have to do is "get saved" and can go on to sin as much as they like - basically just a "get out of hell free card".

But if you put aside that, how different it is to believe what you are saying (if I understand you right), or to believe instead that one is instantly "saved" and would go to heaven if they died right then, but by the same token expect a person to grow in grace and sanctification?

The only difference I can find (and I admit I've only been looking at it briefly) is that some seem to say that there is some "level" of good works that tip the scales to "saved" (please I don't mean to be insulting) ... but my question is whether or not that person would be saved if they die before they have a chance to do sufficient good works? If they would be saved in any case, then I'm not seeing huge differences?

I believe some teach that good works add to and are necessary for their salvation, and some teach that good works are a natural result of the faith that imparts salvation they already have.

The major difference I see in this is that one position makes us somewhat responsible for ourselves for our own salvation, while the other would not necessarily do so.

Is that a fair assessment of at least two positions?

(I hope no one takes offense, either way.)

The strait gate and narrow road story is far from the only passage in the Lord's teaching that points to salvation being a journey it was just the most obviously journey-related because it speaks of a road that leads to eternal life. The other passages are the ones where he speaks of the arduous work and faithful obedience that yield the fruit of salvation.

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
John 6:26-27

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
John 15:1-10
​

There are other passages too, you can probably think of some yourself, and there are the comments of saint Paul about running the race so as to receive the prize and not be disqualified.

PS: none of what I've said and none of what I believe means that one is not saved solely because of the grace of God and the saving work of Jesus Christ. I am inclined to say this:

• a person cannot know with absolute certainty that they are 'saved' but they can be confident in God's promises and that counts for a lot.
• only God knows absolutely who is saved and who will be saved and who was saved. It's one of the attributes of deity to know everything that can be known.
• human beings who want to claim absolute knowledge of their own salvation ought to take the warnings from the new testament seriously including the one from Hebrews that I quoted in an earlier post.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Hey Willie,

We are all catholic, Mama is Eastern Orthodox, NOT Roman Catholic.

It was a fair question he asked. I don't have an issue with being called Catholic but it does cause confusion here. I used that upper case "C" intentionally.
Yes if we agree with the Creed and if we are of that one holy Church, catholic will apply to us.

 

[Willie T]

I see you've been visiting wiki
Yes I am EO. Yes we are catholic. But at this forum Catholic means RCC or Eastern Catholic(those in communion with Rome and in submission to the Pope). I am not in communion with the RCC or Eastern Catholics as we disagree concerning dogma and supremacy. I'm also not in communion with Oriental Orthodox.
Believe it or not, Lutherans, Anglicans and most liturgical groups call themselves catholic. But not Catholic. Yes I consider my Church to be the Holy Catholic Church but for reasons of not causing confusion, I leave that alone while here.
Actually it's the Orthodox Catholic Church officially not the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. So you were thinking correct. I only corrected you as it would imply I was a Vatican Catholic, which I am not.

This is why my avatar states, specifically, what church I go to. The icon offered by the forum is not adequate, so I spell it out so no one will be guessing as to what just saying "Christian" is.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

No insult intended, MC, but I would expect that a common explanation would center on the fact that it might seem unwise to develop such a broad doctrine based on a single word or two.

Your post makes sense though.

To be honest, I'm trying to decide what the differences in looking at things really are.

I mean, eternal security is obviously at the opposite end of what you are discussing, if one takes that to mean that all they have to do is "get saved" and can go on to sin as much as they like - basically just a "get out of hell free card".

But if you put aside that, how different it is to believe what you are saying (if I understand you right), or to believe instead that one is instantly "saved" and would go to heaven if they died right then, but by the same token expect a person to grow in grace and sanctification?

The only difference I can find (and I admit I've only been looking at it briefly) is that some seem to say that there is some "level" of good works that tip the scales to "saved" (please I don't mean to be insulting) ... but my question is whether or not that person would be saved if they die before they have a chance to do sufficient good works? If they would be saved in any case, then I'm not seeing huge differences?

I believe some teach that good works add to and are necessary for their salvation, and some teach that good works are a natural result of the faith that imparts salvation they already have.

The major difference I see in this is that one position makes us somewhat responsible for ourselves for our own salvation, while the other would not necessarily do so.

Is that a fair assessment of at least two positions?

(I hope no one takes offense, either way.)

St. Paul called it a race with a beginning and an end.
I am unaware of anyone teaching works for salvation. But I know it's easy to misinterpret works due to entering into salvation with works for salvation. Works keep faith alive and are a product of being born again through water and Spirit.

 

[cerette]

Complete and total aside, but the Methodist church I visited referred to the Apostles Creed with the "one holy catholic church" and my husband asked me about that. He won't say it. I believe the Nicene creed includes it as well. It has been confusing to me overall.

one holy catholic church = one holy universal church

 

[MoreCoffee]

one holy catholic church = one holy universal church

Yes, that's right. So why do people want to borrow Catholic for their self description when they really mean universal? Catholic is, after all, a Greek word that underwent transition into a Latin word and so came into western languages. My Orthodox siblings in Christ can use katholikos and we Latins can use Catholic.

 

[stan1953]

I think that if we get closer and closer to God, and follow Him more and more, we become more sanctified, but we also become more aware of things that are sin, that we never knew before.
Did God count them against us as "unconfessed sin" because we weren't that sanctified yet, and He never let us know?

You are getting the picture very clearly Kylissa. Christ died for ALL sin, past, present and future. We are forgiven our past and some present when we confess HIM as our saviour, and we are forgiven future sin when we acknowledge and confess it. Sin is only sin when we do it, knowingly or not, but future sin is not held against us until we actually do it. We have to know, recognize and confess sin for it to be forgiven. We can't ask for general forgiveness, only for specific forgiveness. Even then our responsibility is not to ASK for forgiveness, but to confess it to God. Forgiveness is automatic.

 

[Willie T]

Complete and total aside, but the Methodist church I visited referred to the Apostles Creed with the "one holy catholic church" and my husband asked me about that. He won't say it. I believe the Nicene creed includes it as well. It has been confusing to me overall.

Well, if it helps him, I believe that was just a description Ignatius used in a letter to the Smyrnaeans around the year 110. It wasn't talking about the RCC.

IMO it really should be expressed something along the lines of "universal" since Catholic really doesn't mean catholic.

 

[stan1953]

It was a fair question he asked. I don't have an issue with being called Catholic but it does cause confusion here. I used that upper case "C" intentionally.
Yes if we agree with the Creed and if we are of that one holy Church, catholic will apply to us.

I WAS RC, born and raised, so I like to distinguish for clarity sake.
BTW, if you are not EO, then maybe you should find a different icon to convey as much.
Thanks

 

[MoreCoffee]

I WAS RC, born and raised, so I like to distinguish for clarity sake.
BTW, if you are not EO, then maybe you should find a different icon to convey as much.
Thanks

Oi!

Wait a minute. Mama Kidogo uses

which is the icon for Eastern Orthodox Christians

 

[cerette]

Yes, that's right. So why do people want to borrow Catholic for their self description when they really mean universal? Catholic is, after all, a Greek word that underwent transition into a Latin word and so came into western languages. My Orthodox siblings in Christ can use katholikos and we Latins can use Catholic.

If one takes the time to find out what a word means it shouldn't be a problem. But yeah, I suppose we would have less confusion if the creeds used the word 'universal'. But then again, Roman Catholics don't own the rights to 'catholic' so maybe we should just continue using the word.