How do I know im saved???

[bbbbbbb]

Reading John 14:1-31 & John 15:1-27 can be most helpful in understanding salvation & the Trinity. The Lord says keeeping His commandments in John 14:15-18 & Trinity is actually present in these passages. Also John 14:26 & John 15:26 have Trinitarian explanation.

The commandments the Lord expects of us are in various places like Romans 13:8-10 for ex. My work break is over….,

I agree. If one does not believe in the undivided Trinity, then one cannot be considered to be a Christian. Otherwise, all manner of non-Trinitarian heretics would legitimately claim genuine Christianity.

 

[Valletta]

My argument was not that Catholics do not have faith in Jesus Christ (they most assuredly do) but that some would argue that the Catholic faith is not a genuine saving faith in contrast to their own saving faith. As I also state, the Catholic Church has judged all other Christian faith as being inadequate because it and it alone possesses "the fullness of salvation".

You said:

One can argue that the RCC places its faith in works and in the Church, but the Protestant faith places its faith in Jesus Christ.

Just correcting that sentence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No a believer can never become an un-born again child of God.

Well, at least you got that part right. Good luck with the dead doing an alive thing, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The post answers\ed perfectly why Romans 10:9 is not telling unbelievers how to receive Eternal Life salvation. But instead is telling believers how to receive physical salvation from harm.

What, then, does verse 9 mean? Doesn’t it condition salvation upon both faith and confession? The key is in understanding the theme of Romans. Paul was writing to tell his believing Roman readers how one can escape (i.e., be saved from) the wrath of God temporally and eternally. He reminded them that one escapes the eternal wrath of God simply by believing in Christ as his Savior. He also taught them that one escapes the wrath of God here and now by living a godly life (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.) A believer is thus secure eternally but not temporally. That is, nothing a believer can do can lead to his experiencing the eternal wrath of God (Rom. 8:38-39). However, believers can and do experience the wrath of God here and now by sinning. The more we sin the more we experience God’s loving discipline.

"[One is] secure eternally, but not temporally"? If they are secure eternally, they are secure temporally. But maybe you mean, feel secure? Or maybe, they are not exactly faithful temporally?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Of course, the counterargument is that Simon did not possess "saving faith", even though the Apostles accepted his profession of faith and baptized him as a believer.

Are you saying Scripture gives us a clear distinction and examples of "faith" and "saving faith" or "belief" and "True_Belief™ or "Real_Belief™?

I hear this false distinction all the time especially among the Baptists. And all it does is cause confusion especially among new converts. Baptists make statements like "All True_Believers™ believe x, y or z." Or "only those with Real_Faith™ go to heaven."

Or concerning backsliders, they say "Yes, he said he did have faith and believed, but he didn't say he really truly had Real_Faith™ and he didn't say he Truly_Believed™

Concerning Baptist beliefs in Baptist Faith and Message 2000, states "All true believers endure to end." So are the Baptists saying here "believers don't endure to the end, but True_Believers™ do?

Scripture don't confuse us with qualifiers with adjectives and adverbs. We are called to trust the promises of Scripture and the words of Scripture. When we add qualifiers we are adding an unwanted layer of uncertainty which can cause doubt in the minds of the weak.

I read an article on this subject the the author said, ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS ARE THE GREAT ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL. How true!

Adjectives and Adverbs presuppose Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you saying Scripture gives us a clear distinction and examples of "faith" and "saving faith" or "belief" and "True_Belief™ or "Real_Belief™?

I hear this false distinction all the time especially among the Baptists. And all it does is cause confusion especially among new converts. Baptists make statements like "All True_Believers™ believe x, y or z." Or "only those with Real_Faith™ go to heaven."

Or concerning backsliders, they say "Yes, he said he did have faith and believed, but he didn't say he really truly had Real_Faith™ and he didn't say he Truly_Believed™

Concerning Baptist beliefs in Baptist Faith and Message 2000, states "All true believers endure to end." So are the Baptists saying here "believers don't endure to the end, but True_Believers™ do?

Scripture don't confuse us with qualifiers with adjectives and adverbs. We are called to trust the promises of Scripture and the words of Scripture. When we add qualifiers we are adding an unwanted layer of uncertainty which can cause doubt in the minds of the weak.

I read an article on this subject the the author said, ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS ARE THE GREAT ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL. How true!

Adjectives and Adverbs presuppose Calvinism.

The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?

If you want to affirm Simon didn't believe when the Luke said he did....you can do that. But you can also say, Simon did believe and did have True_Faith but Peter was wrong when he said "your heart is not right with God." Either way you question the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The demons also believe

I certainly know the tri-part reformational definition of faith. notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Demons have notitia and assensus but never fiducia. Fiducia saves. If you don't believe Simon had Real_Faith™ but only mere faith or no faith, go ahead. It is a free country.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?

Baptists and Calvinists have a real conundrum here. Because of their belief in OSAS, either Simon had Real_Faith™ (not a fake faith, mere faith or no faith) and Peter was wrong about Simon having a "heart" not right with God or Simon had Real_Faith™ and Peter was not wrong. The latter is anathema to them because it is impossible to reconcile due to OSAS belief.

I just go along with the plain text of the narrative and add no assumptions to the text. Simon believed and Peter was not wrong. Simple

 

[GDL]

.

Some say if we believe in Jesus Christ we’re saved – how can they believe in Jesus being the Christ if they don’t know what the Christ is?

• Maybe this is why Paul evangelized as he did in Acts13:16-41 making certain to reference Psalm2.

Some use this verse to say they believe in Jesus Christ and thus have eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone:

• NKJ John5:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

• Yet this verse speaks of believing in God the Father based in hearing what Jesus says

Some use this same verse to say if we believe in Jesus Christ, then we have eternal life

• NKJ John5:24a "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Yet this verse by the same writer – John - seems to disagree that all we have to do is believe for eternal life

• NKJ 1John3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

And this verse seems to add another qualification to eternal life

• NKJ Rom 2:7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good work seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

Some say that the Romans letter says the wrath we’re saved from is strictly temporal (yet Rom5:9 does not necessarily say this) – but in context this mention of wrath in Romans seems to say God’s wrath pertains to a final judgment of men based upon their works and that eternal life will be recompensed for endurance of good works:

• NKJ Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds": 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good work seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Some say we just have to believe in Jesus Christ but knowing Him is not necessary and they never really explain what eternal life is:

• NKJ John 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should1 give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

And then they casually say they know God and Jesus Christ - but do they?

• NKJ 1John2:3-5 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
• NKJ Titus1:15-16 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

So, God actually says they're disgusting - those who say they know Him but don't obey Him / don't have eternal life.


Maybe knowing God and His Son whom He sent – knowing Jesus Christ has authority over (at minimum) all humanity – obeying Him because He is the Christ (Acts13 cf. Ps2) – loving God and Christians siblings – doing the good works in Christ as we are newly created in righteousness to do - has something to do with knowing we have eternal life

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you want to affirm Simon didn't believe when the Luke said he did....you can do that. But you can also say, Simon did believe and did have True_Faith but Peter was wrong when he said "your heart is not right with God." Either way you question the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

Where have I said any such thing about Simon and Peter? Really???

 

[Mark Quayle]

I certainly know the tri-part reformational definition of faith. notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Demons have notitia and assensus but never fiducia. Fiducia saves. If you don't believe Simon had Real_Faith™ but only mere faith or no faith, go ahead. It is a free country.

I'm starting to think you are talking to someone else. I'm not the one who has said anything about Simon.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Where have I said any such thing about Simon and Peter? Really???

I stand corrected.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I'm starting to think you are talking to someone else. I'm not the one who has said anything about Simon.

I stand corrected.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Baptists and Calvinists have a real conundrum here. Because of their belief in OSAS, either Simon had Real_Faith™ (not a fake faith, mere faith or no faith) and Peter was wrong about Simon having a "heart" not right with God or Simon had Real_Faith™ and Peter was not wrong. The latter is anathema to them because it is impossible to reconcile due to OSAS belief.

I just go along with the plain text of the narrative and add no assumptions to the text. Simon believed and Peter was not wrong. Simple

You sound like a lot of others here. The notion that ANY of us can read without assumptions is absurd.

I don't like OSAS. But it is simple that those to whom God has chosen to show mercy, the ones he made for the purpose of being with him in Heaven, WILL indeed be saved. If others "have faith" and lose it, or "have faith" and fall away, or "have faith" and for any other reason go to the LOF instead of Heaven, then their faith was not genuine, saving, faith.

But as I've responded 3 times now, I have made no statements as to your question of Simon and Peter. But if your "conundrum" is brought up for me to answer —not as a response to something someone said about Simon and Peter— that's different. I suppose, I will have to assume you are referring to Acts 8:9-24. I'm not sure why you think this should be a difficult passage for Calvinists. A Plain_Reading™ makes one wonder what was wrong with Simon, that he thought spiritual virtue or ability —specifically, 'the ability' to convey the Spirit of God being manipulated at will— could be bought with money. WHY do you insist (3 times now) that the Calvinist must jump to conclusions what was meant by 'believe' and by 'a heart not right'?

You need an answer? I'm not even a Calvinist, as such, anyway. But they (generally, since you group them all together) make a lot more sense to me than you do here. If Simon was of the Elect, he will go to Heaven. If not, he will go to the Other_Place™. But even if his belief was genuine, and certainly if it was not, he is more than capable of having a heart not fully understanding and not fully committed to God. Deceived. Addicted to money and false religion. There is no end to ignorant and deceived Elect. So are many of us here, and to some degree, ALL of us. Yes, that includes me, and you.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You sound like a lot of others here. The notion that ANY of us can read without assumptions is absurd.

I don't like OSAS. But it is simple that those to whom God has chosen to show mercy, the ones he made for the purpose of being with him in Heaven, WILL indeed be saved. If others "have faith" and lose it, or "have faith" and fall away, or "have faith" and for any other reason go to the LOF instead of Heaven, then their faith was not genuine, saving, faith.

But as I've responded 3 times now, I have made no statements as to your question of Simon and Peter. But if your "conundrum" is brought up for me to answer —not as a response to something someone said about Simon and Peter— that's different. I suppose, I will have to assume you are referring to Acts 8:9-24. I'm not sure why you think this should be a difficult passage for Calvinists. A Plain_Reading™ makes one wonder what was wrong with Simon, that he thought spiritual virtue or ability —specifically, 'the ability' to convey the Spirit of God being manipulated at will— could be bought with money. WHY do you insist (3 times now) that the Calvinist must jump to conclusions what was meant by 'believe' and by 'a heart not right'?

You need an answer? I'm not even a Calvinist, as such, anyway. But they (generally, since you group them all together) make a lot more sense to me than you do here. If Simon was of the Elect, he will go to Heaven. If not, he will go to the Other_Place™. But even if his belief was genuine, and certainly if it was not, he is more than capable of having a heart not fully understanding and not fully committed to God. Deceived. Addicted to money and false religion. There is no end to ignorant and deceived Elect. So are many of us here, and to some degree, ALL of us. Yes, that includes me, and you.

Okay, I went a little to extreme but for you it might be alot extreme. Sorry. Liked the Other_Place™ I will throttle down considerably.

 

[d taylor]

Context. Context. Context. What does Peter say to Simon, eight verses later?

(8:21) "You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God."

Simon gets booted from all church activities....a sort of excommunication.

And what does the Scriptures say about the heart that is not right before God?

• Matthew 15: 18-19 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the HEART come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
• Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the HEART.
• Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish HEART were darkened.
• Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their HEART to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
• Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant HEART, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

The "heart" like Paul's usage of the word "flesh" is universally negative in Scripture, except where there is faith.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

SIMON DID NOT HAVE A PURE HEART. This ain't rocket science.

If you are going by context why post verse from Matthew and Romans. Show me from the account of Simon in Acts where Simon lost his born again life.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You said:

Just correcting that sentence.

Yes, my point what any a person (one) (not myself) can make that argument. In fact, many have made that argument.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

where Simon lost his born again life.

Of course Acts 8 doesn't say Simon lost his "born again" life. That's John 3 vocabulary. I already answer that in Post #76. However, I did answer the question using Peter's vocabulary----something about the "heart."

 

[Valletta]

Yes, my point what any a person (one) (not myself) can make that argument. In fact, many have made that argument.

I suppose anyone can misrepresent another religion, but should you?