How to walk in the Spirit.

[ozso]

That is correct.

The only conclusion is that there is no assurance of salvation, that one may not actually be saved.
Only God knows.

No the conclusion is that those verses are clearly being misapplied to make salvation appear more difficult, complicated and uncertain than it actually is.

 

[ozso]

Okay, that's all I need to know. You alone are right and the "pack of Legalists, bent and angry"(!), are wrong (because they don't agree with you). They are, obviously, not born again, or they are "fallen from Grace".

How does it feel to be the sole embodiment of wisdom?

Hardly him alone. Is Sidon really the only one you've heard this from? I was hearing it from Dr. Hank Lindstrom, Dr. Bob Wilkin, Dr. Charles Ryrie etc long before Sidon started posting to CF.

Dr. Lindstrom lays out "Sidon's theology" quite clearly here:

 

[Sidon]

2) Post #627 - demonstration of the apostle Paul's personal "error of Cain" in the Scriptures presented therein, keeping in mind that he received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven

Im not certain where you get this theology you make up? Is it JW or Mormon, as it not Catholic.
See, you just posted a total fantasy,.... whereby you say that Paul got his Gospel, Church Doctrine, when he went into the 3rd Heaven.
So, you made this up, or you got this from a liar's commentary,???


Here is where Paul said He received all the Church Doctrine and the knowledge of "justification by faith".

Take it from Paul., if that's possible for you, Clare73


"""""""But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."""""


It was in this 3 yrs of separation, in "arabia", that God as Christ revealed to Paul what Paul refers to as "my Gospel"

 

[Sidon]

Okay, that's all I need to know. You alone are right and the "pack of Legalists, bent and angry"(!), are wrong (because they don't agree with you). They are, obviously, not born again, or they are "fallen from Grace".

How does it feel to be the sole embodiment of wisdom?

They don't agree with Paul, or Christ.

Here is how you can tell.

God says, and Paul teaches....>"Justified by Faith", "without works or deeds of the law".

So, when you find anyone who is teaching that you ARE saved based on lifestyle, law keeping, commandment keeping, works, self effort...then you are not dealing with Justification by faith.
You are dealing with what Jude describes, as a corrupted Gospel, and what Paul describes as "another Gospel".

Salvation is not based on you and your performance.
Its only based on The finished work of Jesus.
= The Cross.
So, when you find a "pack" who can't understand this, and do not want it that way, and in fact argue their righteous in place of the Blood of Jesus, then you have found Galatians 1:8.

 

[Sidon]

Theology Means

Theology can be what The Buddha taught.
"Scientology" is "theology".
Atheism is a "theology".
Religion is "theology">

I dont teach any of that nonsense.
I teach Pauline THEOLOGY.
Thats very specific to the NEW Testament, as Paul wrote most of it, ligurian.
Its simply this. "The Cross".

 

[fhansen]

Agreed!
Too much standard pablum, and not enough thorough study with consistent understanding of Scripture.

Actually, the book of Romans was written precisely for that purpose, to present the full gospel--God's plan of salvation and righteousness from God for mankind, Jew and Gentile alike, and he definitely accomplishes that purpose therein.
And Peter tells us why Paul's words are misunderstood, because they "are hard to understand"
(2 Peter 3:16), and not because they are systematic doctrine, and if you've ever waded through the doctrines of Romans 2, 5, 7, 9, bringing them all into consistency with the rest of Scripture, you'll agree.

Yes, I've waded, and they become clearer and clearer, especially in light of historic teachings from the ancient eastern and western church. Either way, none of the bible was written as a clear systematic theological treatment of the faith, or even as that as the intention. Yes, Paul was striving to explain the gospel better especially as controversies arose, but the church would later work on bringing it all together and teaching it in creeds, catechisms, etc, as well as define doctrine at council as needed.

In any case I'll maintain to the end that Scripture can sometimes be vague and seemingly ambiguous or even contradictory on important matters of the faith, which is exactly why sincere believers, including scholars, often soundly-and plausibly- disagree over such points.

 

[Clare73]

No the conclusion is that those verses are clearly being misapplied to make salvation appear more difficult, complicated and uncertain than it actually is.

Would you care to Biblically demonstrate the misapplication?

 

[Clare73]

Im not certain where you get this theology you make up? Is it JW or Mormon, as it not Catholic.
See, you just posted a total fantasy,.... whereby you say that Paul got his Gospel, Church Doctrine, when he went into the 3rd Heaven.

And you know that he did not, how?

So, you made this up, or you got this from a liar's commentary,???

Here is where Paul said He received all the Church Doctrine and the knowledge of "justification by faith".

Take it from Paul., if that's possible for you, Clare73

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."
It was in this 3 yrs of separation, in "arabia", that God as Christ revealed to Paul what Paul refers to as "my Gospel"

And that negates being translated to the third heaven where he received it, how?

 

[fhansen]

A declaration of not guilty and right-standing with God's justice (justification) is not holiness.

 

[BNR32FAN]

John 1:9 is talking to people who need to be FORGIVEN, because they aren't.
The born again, do not need to be forgiven , as the BORN AGAIN are ALWAYS FORGIVEN, and always "Made RIGHTEOUS".
The Born again, have BECOME...>"the Righteousness OF GOD.....>IN CHRIST".
So, that is their salvaiton.
That is their ETERNAL SITUATION.
The born again are always """" THE RIGHTEOUSNESS""".....see that ?

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1:9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

John included himself in this statement. Was he not born again?

 

[Clare73]

They don't agree with Paul, or Christ.

Here is how you can tell.

God says, and Paul teaches....>"Justified by Faith", "without works or deeds of the law".

So, when you find anyone who is teaching that you ARE saved based on lifestyle, law keeping, commandment keeping, works, self effort...then you are not dealing with Justification by faith.

Another straw man.

Lifestyle is evidence, not proof, of either saved or not saved.
All we have is evidence, we don't have proof, of either saved or not saved.
Only God knows.

You are dealing with what Jude describes, as a corrupted Gospel, and what Paul describes as "another Gospel".

No "corrupted gospel" in Jude.
What is corrupt is their practice of lasciviousness in the name of the grace of God.

Salvation is not based on you and your performance.
Its only based on The finished work of Jesus.
= The Cross.
So, when you find a "pack" who can't understand this, and do not want it that way, and in fact argue their righteous in place of the Blood of Jesus, then you have found Galatians 1:8.

 

[pescador]

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1:9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

John included himself in this statement. Was he not born again?

This is a common error in reading 1 John. His writing is both gentle and inclusive, similar to a parent telling a child "we always wash our hands before eating". It is inclusive but not accusatory.

The great apostle was, of course "born again". 1 John 1:1-4, " This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life— and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete."

 

[ozso]

Would you care to Biblically demonstrate the misapplication?

Well rather than go into a large undertaking at this time to prove something, that's my opinion based on having examined the entire passage or chapter from which a verse was pulled and posted. But the other side does that as well. Like they'll post a verse that has a promise, but if you read on you'll see that the promise has a proviso attached to it.

Can you biblically demonstrate what you said?: "The only conclusion is that there is no assurance of salvation, that one may not actually be saved."

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I've waded, and they become clearer and clearer,
especially in light of historic teachings from the ancient eastern and western church.

I kinda' prefer in the light of the NT.

Either way, none of the bible was written as a clear systematic theological treatment of the faith, or even as that as the intention.

Enough already with the standard pablum.

More work in Romans is called for.

Yes, Paul was striving to explain the gospel better especially as controversies arose, but the church would later work on bringing it all together and teaching it in creeds, catechisms, etc, as well as define doctrine at council as needed.
In any case I'll maintain to the end that Scripture can sometimes be vague and seemingly ambiguous or even contradictory on important matters of the faith, which is exactly why sincere believers, including scholars, often soundly-and plausibly- disagree over such points.

I maintain it is all reconciled when correctly understood.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is a common error in reading 1 John. His writing is both gentle and inclusive, similar to a parent telling a child "we always wash our hands before eating". It is inclusive but not accusatory.

Yes the parent is not excluded from washing their hands before eating. Another similar statement would be “if we deny Him, He will deny us”. This was a message in a personal letter from Paul to Timothy. Both were saved, both were born again, both were capable of denying Christ, and both were capable of being denied by Christ.

 

[Clare73]

.

Non-responsive.

 

[fhansen]

A declaration of not guilty and right-standing with God's justice (justification) is not holiness.

True. In Catholic teaching, our state of justice is based on who we are, not merely who we're imputed to be, who we've become by the grace of God as we now enter relationship with Him via faith. And we're expected to produce, so to speak, with the seed of grace given, depending on the time and opportunity also given with more expected of those given more. Again, the Parable of the Talents gives clarification here.

Imputation or declaration involve forgiveness but not the justice or sanctity, itself, necessary to enter heaven, which is why the ancient churches maintain that, at justification, more than forgiveness is granted but also the power of the Spirit which involves the righteousness to oppose and overcome sin. If we were to die immediately, we'd go to heaven as long as our faith, hope, and love were genuine, but if God's plan for us included a longer life, as most will have, and we were to squander that gift, to bury that grace- that life of Himself in us- or fail to persevere, turning away from God and back to sin, away from love, then...

Anyway, at the end we're judged on holiness/sanctification, judged on our love to put it succinctly, so at some point in conjunction with justification that must be already realized, as a gift of righteousness even if only in seedling form. And with this in mind, verses such as the following make perfect sense as applying to believers now, and align with all of Paul's thoughts in Romans and elsewhere:
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

As well as John:
"Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:7-8

The righteousness you are ascribing to justification is actually due to faith (Romans 1:17).

Yes

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

 

[fhansen]

Enough already with the standard pablum.

If that floats yer boat. Others simply call it truth. But truth can be rather mundane at times alright.

Non-responsive.

Good things take time.

I think our problem is nomenclature.

But, but, Clare, what are we going to argue, er, converse, about if that's true?

 

[fhansen]

Jesus is God, so, He is above "theology", exactly as God is above the law.
What Jesus had to do was fulfill the law, as a human....and live a sinless life, also.
And He did just that, perfectly.
Had He not, then His sacrifice would not have been a "one time eternal " success.

He taught-much- by word and deed.

 

[pescador]

Yes the parent is not excluded from washing their hands before eating. Another similar statement would be “if we deny Him, He will deny us”. This was a message in a personal letter from Paul to Timothy. Both were saved, both were born again, both were capable of denying Christ, and both were capable of being denied by Christ.

And..?

Do you really think that Paul (especially) and Timothy were capable of denying Christ and were capable of being denied by Christ? If so, I would like some proof (from Scripture).

Actually, let's take it a step further. I am capable of murder, but I don't murder. I am a Christian, guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore don't kill people.