Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[FreeinChrist]

That's a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and you know it. If a Catholic told you that they were quite ignorant. The fact is no properly knowledgable Catholic would ever say "you got saved." The truth of the matter is that salvation is a life long process to be worked out, "in fear and trembling," to quote St. Paul. Thus unless you're dead you cannot be saved or unsaved as per Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, teaching. In fact by stating that one is "saved" one has committed a presumption of mercy, which is a grave sin in and of itself.

ACtually , quite a number of Catholics on this site have said they were saved.

 

[Trento]

Now, Sola Scriptura means all that doesn't "trump" the Bible or can be used equal to it - I use Tradition in HERMENEUTICS (interpretation), not norming.

It's not SOLO Scriptura (which would ignore all that powerful Tradition), but nor is it Sola Eccelsia where a teacher simply approves his own teaching according to the norm of his own teaching/Tradition/history, etc. I place the interpretation of Scripture UNDER Scripture, not OVER it. It's called "Sola Scriptura."


Sorry for the interruption...


Back to the fight...


Josiah



.

The problem is, Josiah has a definition of Sola Scriptura that may work for a number of Protestant denominations, but it won't work for all for all. Perhaps it is because of Sola Scriptura, and the further claim that Scripture is "self interpreting" that is part of the blame in there being so many versions of what Sola Scriptura is. How's that for circular reasoning?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It's also pretty ironic that the church which claims to be 'the church', can not assure anyone of their salvation.

It's even more ironic that you would posit that anyone other than God can assure one of their salvation- including your own 'inner sense.'

The heart is wicked and deceitful beyond all things, yet we have people speaking of their inner assurance of salvation- and ignoring the plain, biblical warnings about such presumption.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).


Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an "absolute" assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46

The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ's death on the cross—Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)—but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trento again.



Tell it .....brother.
​

 

[WarriorAngel]

Private intepretation is not in the vocabulary of St. Augustine, hence St. Augustine is foreign to the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura. The testimonies from St. Augustine are legion affirming that Scripture, Tradition and Church are inseparable as opposed to Sola Scriptura (i.e.Bible and one's private interpretation to obtain the truth). The words of St. Augustine in his work dealing with the Manichean heresy: 'For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the
knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--`Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.` Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is
my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus.But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?'


Likewise we have Augustine affirming the need for interpreting Scripture in light of Tradition/Church and never apart from them:
"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it" Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis


"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" Sermon 117:6


"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?" C. Julian 1:7,34



Like the rest of the Fathers who intepreted the Scriptures in light of Tradition and Church, Augustine affirmed Catholic doctrines such as the real presence:

'For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body,
he said: "This is my Body." Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands'
Ennar. In Ps 33


The farthest thing from Augustine, like the rest of the Fathers, is that he interprets Scripture within the milieu of tradition and Church as opposed to private interpretation.


Similarly, St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition (via the monument of universal belief and usage) regarding prayers for the dead. We read:

"In the books of Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit, even if their were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the death hath its place"

De Cura Pro Mortuis I,3

Likewise, St. Augustine appeals to Tradition and Church regarding the doctrine of infant baptism. In this passage we find St. Augustine affirm a couple of aspects of Tradition; 1)viewed as a belief held by the whole Church , 2) a belief that is entrenched in antiquity and 3)a belief that is unchanging. In addition, we find St. Augustine contrasting the apostolic authority of invariable custom with the authority placed in the Church (in Council)...Again we find St. Augustine, like Athanasius and the rest of the
Fathers, upholding Church, Scripture and Tradition as opposed to the Scriptures Alone.

And this is the firm tradition of the universal church, in respect of baptism of infants...and if one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the WHOLE Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by APOSTOLIC authority..." ibid IV,31

For St. Augustine, Scripture is the criterion of faith but not at the exclusion of tradition and Church. That is why St. Augustine explicitly affirms (eg. heretical baptism, infant baptism etc.) what the Church has traditionally/generally held to be of apostolic authority. In addition, St. Augustine also affirms that this tradition is entrusted to the Church and preserved by apostolic succession. Regarding infant baptism and original sin St. Augustine affirms that his interpretation was in-line with the
traditional teaching of the Church and not his private interpretation he writes:

For who does not see in what degree Coelestius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor and by the answers of Coelestius, whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, and fastened by a most wholesome chain, so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council....'by the purification of a new
regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of baptism.' What could be more clear than the judgement of the Apostolic See?"

WILL anyone actually read this besides me?
AND will it be understood?

For the record it bears repeating, and a very clear in Augustine's words that ALL of Tradition, Church and scipture must be adhered to.

 

[lionroar0]

So, are you asserting that He learned from oral teachings only? We have evidence in Scripture where epistles were written and delivered to churches when the instructor was delayed in getting there to teach in person. So, are you asserting that its a fact that Ignatius had no written texts from which he may have learned?

He may have had some written text or not. Either way those texts would have been interpreted through Tradition that he learned from St. John.

And if you are asserting that what Ignatius wrote is Holy Tradition and not Scripture, you're only proving how Holy tradition was at some point written down and eventually combined into one text--the Bible. So, what may have been Oral Holy Tradition is now preserved for us in Scripture.

What St. Ignatius wrote is part of Tradition. The Bible is also part of Tradition.

This can be gleened from Scripture.

Yes after Tradtion is learned. Not before it.

This is a play on words. Mary being the Mother of God Incarnate, Jesus, is very explicilty revealed in Scripture. But, you're playing a game of semantics when you call her the Mother of God.

She is the Mother of God Incarnate. Theotokos carries the connotation of Mother of God. People that think that Mother of God means, creator of Jesus or Mother of the Father have strayed from orthodox christianity.

He is correct and you know it. God the Father (known as God in the Trinity) had no mother. God the Son (known as Christ/Jesus in the Trinity) had a mother. Now, I'm sure you're going to make some sort of allusion to me being a Nestorian. But, we all know the difference here. Mary, herself, would turn flips in her grave (or in is turning flips in heaven, depending upon what you belief about her) if she knew what people would come to refer to her as.

I know that he is not correct. His positin was to call her the Mother of Christ and not Mother of God. His position was that Christ became God later not when He was conceived. I know that you belive that Jesus is God from conception and not afterwards.

Christ does not mean God. Christ meaning God is a modern christian notion.

But, it is gleened from passages that state that Jesus is God. We've only tacked a name to a concept revealed in Scripture.

But can we gleem that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human from Scriptures? Can this be done with out someone teaching that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, before hand and then showing scriptures to back this up?

The point is we read the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, because that is part of Tradition that has been taught before we read the Scriptures.

So far, you've stated nothing that is not Scriptural. There is only Holy Scripture and that's all that is needed.

I have stated quite a bit that's not in Scripture.

Peace

 

[WarriorAngel]

Lion, I ran out of reps......but you deserve one.

 

[JCrawf]

I find it ironic that Protestants that want to deny the importance of Baptism tend to forget what was said in Scripture:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." Romans 6:3-8)

"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him." (I Peter 3:18-22)

Baptism was prefigured by the grace and mercy of God given to Noah, so that now, through water, baptism saves. Yes, there is an appeal to God for good canscience. Does that mean a person starts out with one? No. Why would one appeal to God for something they think they have to earn before appealing to God for it? Does that even make sense? Of course not. So we appeal TO God FOR a good conscience, not wait for some age of conscience/reason to bring forth God's grace. To do that is almost like doing what many of you claim us Catholics do, which is to merit grace through works. For why wait for God's grace until that age of reason, when ever it is, when you can have God's grace even when you are yet to fully understand it. And who says that in reaching an age of reason that anyone does fully understand God's grace? I can't, and I waited until after my Bachelor's degree to be Baptized, all the while wishing I was baptized as an infant. But God's grace works in mysterious ways, and he will "seal the deal" when He wishes for it. Yet even when I was not Baptized, I can't say that the Holy Spirit wasn't present. Afterall, even Scripture notes of unbelievers having the Holy Spirit before being Baptized - yet immediately after the gentile unbelievers were shown to have the Holy Spirit were they Baptized. So to me, it doesn't sound like the Early Church - that is, the Apostles in Scripture, believed that Baptism was unnecessary. Otherwise, why did they baptize the gentiles who were filled with the Holy Spirit if the presence of the Holy Spirit was enough to provide salvation?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

He may have had some written text or not. Either way those texts would have been interpreted through Tradition that he learned from St. John.

It seems like it is a foreign concept to some Protestants that (*gasp!*) the Apostles actually taught people and led them in imitation of Christ through example and their teachings on faith and morals outside of writing epistles. Not to mention that transportation and communication of the age is ridiculed as inadequate for the Apostles to actually get together often enough to make sure everyone is on the same page as to how to do things within the Church as a whole body of congregations put together as one. Certainly they were able to travel and teach the faith and the customs of Christian worship. We know that St. Paul went to Spain, even though we don't know exactly what he did there.

What St. Ignatius wrote is part of Tradition. The Bible is also part of Tradition.

Amen. If it wasn't fot the solid teaching of the churches held together by a general (catholicus) bond, preaching and teaching the same message - and thus preserving what would become the New Testament Scriptures, there would not be a Bible.

She is the Mother of God Incarnate. Theotokos carries the connotation of Mother of God. People that think that Mother of God means, creator of Jesus or Mother of the Father have strayed from orthodox christianity.

Indeed. Why do people have to distort this fact and article of Christian faith? The only reasonable reason for denying Mary as the Mother of God is if Jesus was not God incarnate. And since Jesus as being God incarnate is one of the universal articles of faith that even Protestants cannot deny, that Mary is the Morther of God should be among those universal articles of faith. Or would any of you Protestants beg to differ that Jesus is not God incarnate?

[Nestorius'] positin was to call her the Mother of Christ and not Mother of God. His position was that Christ became God later not when He was conceived. I know that you believe that Jesus is God from conception and not afterwards.

Indeed, which bring us back to the question of why protesting that Mary is not the Mother of God. To deny her being the one who bore the God-Man Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour by saying she is not the Mother of God is essentially the same as denying the incarnation, which ultimately means denying that Christ is Lord. BTW, the poster's appeal to emotion was somewhat amusing, but still none-the-less a fallacy. Would my saying something like "Christ would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were calling him the Word of God made flesh" make it true that Christ is not God? Of course not. Neither does saying "Mary, herself, would turn flips in her grave...if she knew what people would come to refer to her as" make it true that Mary is not the Mother of God. Jesus is God incarnate, and is through Mary giving birth to Him that makes her Mother of God. Why distot the plain and simple facts. Is it just spiritual immaturity?.

Honestly, this whole problem with Tradition is really silly. Being that Protestants themselves "catechize" followers through Bible studies. What is the need of Bible studies if Scripture alone is all anyone needs? Who needs to even learn how to read anymore when one can get the Bible on tape or CD. Just need to be knowledgable enough to use a tape or CD player.


Pax Tecum,


John

 

[JCrawf]

It's not just the telling, it's the doing. It's not just you or I doing them, it's us. It's not done for the sake of self-righteousness, but out of obligation to and love of the Savior. It's not just seat of the pants, it's all of us doing and saying the same things, mutually submitted, worshipping God as a body.

To the extent that other traditions do these things, we commend them.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rdr Iakovos again.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

Perhaps it is because of Sola Scriptura, and the further claim that Scripture is "self interpreting" that is part of the blame in there being so many versions of what Sola Scriptura is.

It's passively (well, for some Prots it is pretty active, and accusative even) being able to make self-claims, but stating that it is what the Bible says. Therefore, a Protestant can sound authoritative without actually being authoritative, let alone accountable.

How's that for circular reasoning?

[/quote]

Feh, Sola Scriptura is circular reasoning in and of itself.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

ACtually , quite a number of Catholics on this site have said they were saved.

Not with the same meaning as Protestants though. It is more of a certainty of salvation, which means, I don't/can't know with absolute certainty, but I am certain that as long as I remain in Christ, I am certain to be saved.

That's way different that OSAS, which even many Protestants don't believe in it.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

Do you think that how many times a person is dipped affects the validity of the baptism? Do you think it has a bearing on a persons salvation?

No. But one tradition of tripple immersion was stopped mainly due to the herecy of Arius, being that it was mistaken as meaning that the three immersions had to do with being baptized into three gods. So, in a sense, it can affect the validity of Baptism only in the sense of being interpreted in a distorted manned. The same is true with the implied cannibalism of the Eucharist. To partake in the Eucharist while having such a belief would be blasphemous and likely dtrimental to a person's salvation.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[mike1reynolds]

I find it ironic that Protestants that want to deny the importance of Baptism tend to forget what was said in Scripture

I know babies are baptized in the Methodist church, I was, but what which traditions deny this?

When I was 7 and I went to New York to see my maternal grandfather for what would turn out to be the last time, I had a mystical experience with a sort of baptism. My grandfather took me to his empty Catholic Church. It wasn’t like any Church I’d ever seen, it was just a room with folding chairs and a podium. That didn’t impress me, or rather, it was somewhat disorienting, I didn’t feel like I was in a church. Yet something happen there that completely blew my mind.

My grandfather was in an unusually spirited mood, smiling from ear to ear. I remember wondering what on Earth he was smiling so intensely about. He took me too the alter, described what a priest does during baptism, dipped his hand in the water and placed it on my head. SWWWIIIIIIIIIISSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Something flowed into me all at once, completely altering my consciousness. Suddenly I was in the peace that passeth understanding, in a state of incredibly intense euphoria and bliss. I simply can’t put it into words what an impact this had on me, but to give you and idea, within the year I had decided that the most important thing in life is to serve God and become a theologian, pastor or priest.

I had a similar experience with two Jewish ceremonies, the tefillon and the ceremony of three kinds. I was stopped on the street by a rabbinical student who thought I was Jewish. I could tell that he was conservative and I couldn’t imagine that a conservative could show me anything, but we had a fairly enjoyable debate. It was contentious yet mutually respectful. I wasn’t impressed by any of his theological arguments, but the debate gave him a sense of my personality and he said, “You don’t seem shy” and just strapped the tefillon on me as he described the ceremony. I’m pretty open, I won’t reject something without trying it, but I didn’t expect much. To my shock, upon repeating the Hebrew sentences that he spoke I had the same kind of experience. Then again a few years later with a different rabbi that I ran into on the street, this time with the ceremony of 4 kinds. I don’t know why either of them work, strapping a box with Hebrew scripture on your arm, or touching the objects of 4 kind (a lemon, a shoot of some plant, and two other things I completely forget), but they definitely do work.

 

[ETide]

Earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an "absolute" assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46

The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ's death on the cross—Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)—but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.

Allow me to start from the end of your comments and work backwards..

I agree that salvation is not automatic, but rather contingent upon a person's response.. this is why I feel so strongly about the teaching that infants (or anyone) can be baptized and receive the Spirit of Christ at that time.. there is no response in the case of the infant.

This is 99% of the problem in my estimation, because many many people are taught that their baptism was the point in their life when they received the Spirit of God and were born again. Of course there's no assurance in what we do.. or in the acts of men in baptizing a person.. baptism is for those who ALREADY believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..

The word of God makes it clear that those who receive Christ (response) are born not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of GOD.

God seals them with the holy Spirit of promise WHICH IS the earnest of our inheritance UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory ! It is possible to grieve the Spirit of God with which we are SEALED unto the day of redemption.. and it's also possible to quench the Spirit.. although GOD places a person INTO CHRIST, not men.. and He knows what HE is doing when He does it.

Again, this is 99% of the problem imo.. and so it's no wonder that people believe that they can lose what they couldn't earn in the first place.. because they believe and are taught that their decision or that their baptism ultimately placed them into Christ.

NOW, concerning the scriptures.. 1 Cor is a book of correction.. it is primarily corrective in its nature..

In the 1st chapter of 1 Cor Paul writes to the Christians at Corinth (who he is going to correct in many things) that GOD will confirm them unto the END, that they may be blameless in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Notice that they are not confirming themselves unto the end.. GOD is.. Paul also speaks to the fact that the preaching of the CROSS is foolishness to them that perish, but unto us WHICH ARE SAVED, it is the POWER OF GOD.

Paul concluded chapter 1 in writing that Christ has become to the Christian, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and REDEMPTION..

In chapter 3 Paul speaks about building upon the foundation.. he says that if a man's work abides, he will receive a reward, and that if it's burned up, that he will suffer loss, but that HE WILL STILL BE SAVED..

In chapter 5 we read of the man who did the greivous sin of fornication.. and that he was to be put out of the assembly and turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that he could be saved in the day of Christ.. In 2 Cor we read of the forgiveness and restoration of this person..

As pertaining to your verses from chapter 4, this is within the context of stewardship, and it doesn't say a word about salvation, but how God is going to judge the secret things and then men will receive their praise of God.

In 1 Cor 9, Paul's apostleship was questioned, and he told them back in chapter 4 to not go above that which was written so that they wouldn't be puffed up one against another.. he even rebukes them for their apparent belief that they were REIGNING already.. IN chapter 9 he is speaking of his preaching the GOSPEL and what his REWARD will be for this (9:18).. and how that he becomes all things to all men so that he might SAVE some.. he does not do this with UNCERTAINTY, but with a sanctified life so that IT DOES SAVE some.. there's nothing worse in Christianity than a preacher who preaches righteousness and then lives an unholy and unsanctified life.. it usually doesn't save anyone..

ANYWAY, the context of these verses has nothing to do with SALVATION.. or losing salvation.. it would completely contradict what he has already taught and written.

This is getting way too long.. let me briefly address the other portions..

Romans 11 is not speaking of individuals.. it is speaking of Israel's stewardship in contrast to the stewardship which has been entrusted to the church of God..

Isn't it ironic that the church of Rome, to whom this epistle is written, completely misses the context of these verses and also is amillennial in its eschatology, ignoring the scriptural fact that Israel will only remain blinded in part UNTIL the fulness of the GENTILES be come in..

Then finally, Matthew 24 doesn't even apply to the CHURCH OF GOD as it is written and spoken to the disciples prior to the church of God coming into existence. This speaks of the great tribulation which Israel will pass through in the last days prior to Christ coming again..

AGAIN, the church of Rome completely rejects these things and it fails to make a distinction between the church of God and the Israel of God..

 

[ETide]

It's even more ironic that you would posit that anyone other than God can assure one of their salvation- including your own 'inner sense.'

Well, imo, there's nothing more ironic than the fact that two of the largest self proclaimed religious institutions on the planet, which also claim that they can see, simply can not assure anyone of their salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ..

The heart is wicked and deceitful beyond all things, yet we have people speaking of their inner assurance of salvation- and ignoring the plain, biblical warnings about such presumption.

Perhaps because you were taught in your religious institution that you were born again when you were baptized as an infant.. ? ? I do not know of your particular testimony, although this is what the EOC preaches and teaches, and ministers to those who attend.

When GOD Seals a person with His holy Spirit of promise, after they come to Him by faith.. HE purifies their heart by faith..

Perhaps you need a new heart through the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than feeding upon the dogma which you so readily embrace in the orthodox religion..

 

[ETide]

IMO, there's another seemingly enormous scriptural fact which many in Christendom are not taught, or that they simply miss..

It's the fact that when God seals a person with His holy Spirit.. that they are then and for ever imputed with the righteousness of Christ.

God places them into CHRIST. His body.

They can cry out as Paul did.. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me..

I Colossians Paul would write in chapter 3 that we should set our affections on things above, and not on the things which are on the earth.. because we are DEAD, and our life is HID IN CHRIST with God.. when Christ shall appear, then we shall appear with HIM..

And again.. to those whom God adds to His body.. He has become to them, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption..

Did you get that.. Christ has become our righteousness.. it doesn't get any more righteous than that.. AND YET.. there are many in Christendom who believe (and who are taught) that THEY are to maintain and sustain something which they could not EARN in the first place..

They are basically confusing SALVATION with SANCTIFICATION.. although even our sanctification is IN CHRIST.. the old man and his nature are not responsible at all for it.. the old man is to die.. and we're to put on CHRIST.. the new man, created in true righteousness and holiness.. for it IS CHRIST IN US.. our hope of glory..

The Christian will then go through life, growing in the GRACE and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.. being conformed to His glorious image by the SPIRIT of God, even from glory to glory..

The Christian has a few issues though.. the world, the flesh, and the devil are still rampant.. and we're responsible for how we keep ourselves unspotted from the world.. we are to flee from the devil.. and WE are to take up our cross (death to self, the old man) and follow Christ..

This is what the Christian will be judged for and rewarded for (if his work abides) at the judgment seat of Christ.. BUT not his salvation.. because the Christian has the imputed righteousness of CHRIST.

All glory and praise to our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ alone..

 

[calmcoolandelected]

ACtually , quite a number of Catholics on this site have said they were saved.

I would argue that salvation is a one- time event whereas sanctification is a life-long process.

CC&E

 

[Lynn73]

The heart is wicked and deceitful beyond all things, yet we have people speaking of their inner assurance of salvation- and ignoring the plain, biblical warnings about such presumption.

There is no biblical warnings about knowing you're saved, there is biblical assurance that we can know we're saved. And plenty of Scripture that tell us if we believe we're saved.

1Jo 5:13 - Show Context 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.

Notice that it doesn't say that ye may hope to have eternal life, or strive to have eternal life, or know that ye will have eternal life. It's that ye man know that ye HAVE eternal life. Present reality. There's no such thing as the sin of presumption. Jesus didn't die to give us a hope so salvation if I do all the right things and perform enough good works. He purchased for us a know so salvation based upon His work, not ours.

 

[racer]

WILL anyone actually read this besides me?
AND will it be understood?

Will it be understood? Yes. Will it be understood the same way you understand it (whatever that is)? Sometimes not.