How do I know I am saved?

[Wolf_Says]

If you have heartfelt conviction of your sin you are in a saved state, for the law has been placed on your heart. Coupled with that happening is your sins and lawless deeds will be remembered no more.
That's the new covenant.
No heartfelt conviction of sin before God means you have not been born again, then you are in an unsaved state

Do you mean "saved state" ot state of grace?

There is no "saved state" and "unsaved state". Being saved is a continuous process that doesn't end until we die.

We are however in a state of grace when we are truely sorry for our sins. When we are filled with grace, we try out best to please God, but we can lose this grace when we turn away from God.

We are only saved when we die and Jesus welcomes us to heaven (or purgatory). No other time are we saved because we can, and often do, still din and falter.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you mean "saved state" ot state of grace?

There is no "saved state" and "unsaved state". Being saved is a continuous process that doesn't end until we die.

We are however in a state of grace when we are truely sorry for our sins. When we are filled with grace, we try out best to please God, but we can lose this grace when we turn away from God.

We are only saved when we die and Jesus welcomes us to heaven (or purgatory). No other time are we saved because we can, and often do, still din and falter.

For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED, through faith.....
Eph2:8

It is by grace you HAVE been SAVED Eph2:5

You HAVE been saved, and you WILL be saved according to the bible, so it is correct of course, scripturally to speak of being in a saved state

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you mean "saved state" ot state of grace?

There is no "saved state" and "unsaved state". Being saved is a continuous process that doesn't end until we die.

We are however in a state of grace when we are truely sorry for our sins. When we are filled with grace, we try out best to please God, but we can lose this grace when we turn away from God.

We are only saved when we die and Jesus welcomes us to heaven (or purgatory). No other time are we saved because we can, and often do, still din and falter.

Purgatory?

You sin in your flesh/ body rom8:10

Your flesh/body is not going to heaven 1cor15:50, 2cor5:5&8

Why would your flesh need to be purged for heaven when it isn't going there?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Do you mean "saved state" ot state of grace?

There is no "saved state" and "unsaved state". Being saved is a continuous process that doesn't end until we die.

We are however in a state of grace when we are truely sorry for our sins. When we are filled with grace, we try out best to please God, but we can lose this grace when we turn away from God.

We are only saved when we die and Jesus welcomes us to heaven (or purgatory). No other time are we saved because we can, and often do, still din and falter.

God doesn't want you to try and obey the law/written code to attain heaven, but surrender your life to Christ, two different things.
If you try to obey the law to attain heaven, you continually step in and out of grace due to sin, for sin is transgression of the law 1 john3:4

If you surrender your life to Christ you will remain imperfect in the flesh for no one will achieve sinless perfection on this earth. However, though you are BEING made holy/ still imperfect in the flesh:

For by one sacrifice he made PERFECT FOREVER those who are BEING made holy
Heb10:14

 

[Jim Langston]

One way is if God answers your prayers.

1 John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

 

[xypnios]

How do do I know I am saved from sin.

You're not saved from sin, you are a human and because of original sin you will never be sinless because we are fallen.


I'm Orthodox, so this will be an Orthodox tale but if you're baptized/chrismated and regularly confess your sins, take communion and try your hardest to pray and follow the laws set out by God in scripture, through the Holy Traditions of the Church (guided by the spirit) and the councils of the church (guided by the spirit) you are living as God willed and you greatly increase your chance of salvation.

Anyone who tells you with 100% certainty that they know you're saved or not is a snake oil salesman. Only God knows, pray to him and pray to the saints for intercession and HAVE FAITH!

 

[St_Worm2]

You're not saved from sin, you are a human and because of original sin you will never be sinless because we are fallen.

"Original Sin"...................EOC........................?

 

[Jim Langston]

1 John says our assurance of being saved is that God answers our prayers.

1 John 5:14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Xypnios, very sorry, I didn't notice that you are new around here or I would have first said, WELCOME TO CF ..

God bless you! (Numbers 6:24-26)

--David

 

[xypnios]

"Original Sin"...................EOC........................?

I'm sorry, don't quite understand what you mean?


In Orthodox theology we understand original sin differently than Catholics or (some?) Protestants. Original sin isn't manifest in inherited guilt, but in inherited mortality (the wages of sin are death; Christ offers eternal life etc etc) and in mankind's proclivity to sin that we can't escape. We are sinners, we'll always be sinners but we are repentant sinners

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi again Xypnios, sorry, I should have been clearer. I have quite a number of EO friends and they've always insisted on calling what you refer to as "Original Sin", "Ancestral Sin", so I was wondering if there might be EO's who hold to OS while other EO's hold to AS?

Thanks!

--David

 

[xypnios]

Hi again Xypnios, sorry, I should have been clearer. I have quite a number of EO friends and they've always insisted on calling what you refer to as "Original Sin", "Ancestral Sin", so I was wondering if there might be EO's who hold to OS while other EO's hold to AS?

Thanks!

--David

Ancestral sin is the proper term, because it is ancestral i.e. passed down. The source of it is the original sin. In Western culture, original sin is the term most commonly used so I used that so that I didn't confuse people with the term. Neither are incorrect, one implies the other. The difference in wording likely lies in how Greek vs Latin (East vs West) puts concepts to words.

 

[St_Worm2]

Ahh, I thought that might have been the reason you did that

Stated EOC doctrine/theology seems more consistently believed/regularly practiced by members of your church than those who are members of the RCC (even though there is no church that more clearly defines what they do and do not believe than the RCC does, as I'm sure you'd agree). And now the inconsistencies in the RCC often seem to come right from the top, from the man with the "keys".

We do live in strange times

 

[xypnios]

Ahh, I thought that might have been the reason you did that

Stated EOC doctrine/theology seems more consistently believed/regularly practiced by members of your church than those who are members of the RCC (even though there is no church that more clearly defines what they do and do not believe than the RCC does, as I'm sure you'd agree). And now the inconsistencies in the RCC often seem to come right from the top, from the man with the "keys".

We do live in strange times

Well thats a very nice compliment, makes me very proud tbh


It has some to do with our history (constant persecution some within living memory or even ongoing) that never made "cultural Orthodoxy" (going through the motions but not believing) a beneficial choice like it was for Catholics in historically Catholic nations but in my humble view it also has to do with the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism going back to the schism and for me the current state of the Roman church is a vindication of Orthodoxy. I realize this is a multi religious forum so I don't know if I should go further into that (you tell me) because it might be insulting to Roman Catholics. However my intention isn't to insult, and I pray for their return every day.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Ahh, I thought that might have been the reason you did that

Stated EOC doctrine/theology seems more consistently believed/regularly practiced by members of your church than those who are members of the RCC (even though there is no church that more clearly defines what they do and do not believe than the RCC does, as I'm sure you'd agree). And now the inconsistencies in the RCC often seem to come right from the top, from the man with the "keys".

We do live in strange times

I'm not following?? Exactly what inconsistencies are you referring too??

I think the overall thing you are talking about are that there are Catholics who truly study and learn their faith, and then there are those who never scratch the surface and are fine where they are.

It is not the Church's fault if there are Catholics who choose to stay ignorant. This is by no means an attack on Orthodoxy.

What inconsistencies are you talking about? Because there are none that I know off.

 

[xypnios]

I'm not following?? Exactly what inconsistencies are you referring too??

I think the overall thing you are talking about are that there are Catholics who truly study and learn their faith, and then there are those who never scratch the surface and are fine where they are.

It is not the Church's fault if there are Catholics who choose to stay ignorant. This is by no means an attack on Orthodoxy.

What inconsistencies are you talking about? Because there are none that I know off.

I'm not the person you're quoting, I'm the person he is replying too but maybe he is referencing some of the statements made by Pope Francis (such as in the most recent apostolic exhortation, which makes the implication that he believes that divorced people in second marriages should be able to take communion and he has refused to refute that when asked directly) or maybe some of the mess created by Vatican II? I don't know.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm not following?? Exactly what inconsistencies are you referring too??

I think the overall thing you are talking about are that there are Catholics who truly study and learn their faith, and then there are those who never scratch the surface and are fine where they are.

It is not the Church's fault if there are Catholics who choose to stay ignorant. This is by no means an attack on Orthodoxy.

What inconsistencies are you talking about? Because there are none that I know off.

Hey Wolf, even here at CF we have Traditional RC's, Ultra-Traditional RC's, and Liberal RC's, yes, who believe a great many different things and even have different boards here at CF to post on. And there are plenty of other RC groups out there in the world, like Catholics for Choice for instance, and quite a large percentage of lay members who admit, at least here in America in a recent poll, that they don't believe the bread and wine transform into the Lord's Body and Blood.

And then there is Pope Francis, who I always think means well and is perhaps "too" loving in many cases I guess you could say (and is often misunderstood as a result) but, that said, I still see many more inconsistencies in Him than I have noticed in other recent Popes.

So the EOC members, both the ones I know here and the ones I know personally, all seem much more consistent in adhering to the same set of stated EOC doctrines than RC's do these days (granted, there are fewer of them).

Am I wrong in my assessment?

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[Wolf_Says]

Hey Wolf, even here at CF we have Traditional RC's, Ultra-Traditional RC's, and Liberal RC's, yes, who believe a great many different things and even have different boards here at CF to post on. And there are plenty of other RC groups out there in the world, like Catholics for Choice for instance, and quite a large percentage of lay members who admit, at least here in America in a recent poll, that they don't believe the bread and wine transform into the Lord's Body and Blood.

And then there is Pope Francis, who I always think means well and is perhaps "too" loving in many cases I guess you could say (and is often misunderstood as a result) but, that said, I still see many more inconsistencies in Him than I have noticed in other recent Popes.

So the EOC members, both the ones I know here and the ones I know personally, all seem much more consistent in adhering to the same set of stated EOC doctrines than RC's do these days (granted, there are fewer of them).

Am I wrong in my assessment?

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

The traditional and ultra traditional I dont see an issue with. However the liberal Catholic or "catholics for choice" I would hardly call Catholic. They are simply using the name.

You either accept everything the Catholic Church teaches or you dont. And if you dont, you are not a Catholic. "Cafeteria. Catholics" are not real Catholics.

And those who claim that the bread and wine don't change are not Catholic AT ALL.

The early Church Fathers even claimed that those who do not believe in the real presence are heretics. They are not Catholic.

Period.

 

[xypnios]

The traditional and ultra traditional I dont see an issue with. However the liberal Catholic or "catholics for choice" I would hardly call Catholic. They are simply using the name.

You either accept everything the Catholic Church teaches or you dont. And if you dont, you are not a Catholic. "Cafeteria. Catholics" are not real Catholics.

And those who claim that the bread and wine don't change are not Catholic AT ALL.

The early Church Fathers even claimed that those who do not believe in the real presence are heretics. They are not Catholic.

Period.

Isn't Catholic defined as anyone baptised in the Roman Church?

 

[Wolf_Says]

Isn't Catholic defined as anyone baptised in the Roman Church?

You can be baptized in the Catholic Church, there is no Roman Church, and fall away from the Church.

By name, yes they are Catholic, however they are not in practise nor belief and in my personal opinion they should not be called Catholic, ESPECIALLY if you do not believe in the real presence.

There is no confusion among ACTUAL Catholics in what we believe.