• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is Confession of Sin Necessary for Salvation?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Bible Highlighter, Aug 31, 2019.

  1. Yes, but only for initial salvation and acceptance of Christ. It is not required a second time.

    2.3%
  2. Yes, 1 John 2:1, and 1 John 1:9 says we need to continue to confess sin to be cleansed of sin.

    48.8%
  3. No, confession would be considered a work and is not necessary. Only belief is required.

    2.3%
  4. No, but confession of sin will naturally take place as a result of having been saved.

    20.9%
  5. I don't know.

    2.3%
  6. Other (Please explain).

    23.3%
  1. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    I thought so, in post #184 you wrote the following:


     
  2. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    Sorry I misunderstood. I definitely believe that right conduct is important. In fact, right conduct is more important than right belied. Right belief makes us more culpable that our actions conform to our belief. Jesus said that to him much is given much is required. The more we know the less excuse we have if we do live up to the truth.

    I am not saying this to brag, but I know a lot. Sometimes that scares me. I know what is right and what is wrong. And I will be held accountable for what I know. But a person who knows less would be less accountable.
     
  3. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,634
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    I should have said "lest you risk condemning yourself eternally", I'm still working on it too...

    But that was about "yourself" and condemning yourself, not judging others though, although I did mention that was one near sure-fire way to condemn yourself though, when it come to another's salvation or whatever though, etc...

    And I meant absolutes when it comes to judging, and especially judging ones eternal salvation or eternal destination for sure... In that area, the area we were talking about, I don't believe in absolutes...

    And if there are absolutes in that area, I think only God alone can possibly know or judge...

    God Bless!
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  4. Ing Bee

    Ing Bee Son of Encouragement Supporter

    228
    +153
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    Regarding the last sentence there, forgiveness is required and has been granted in Christ to all you receive it in faith. Your statement above conflates two different things:
    1. "Salvation as forgiveness of sin & entrance into Christ Kingdom & adoption as children of God & co-heirs with Christ ----> This was all accomplished by Christ on the Cross. I don't think that's controversial.
    2. Confession as the means of enjoying the full relationship we already have.
    In 1 John 1:9, John is speaking to believers (those who have already "fellowship with God"), so this passage is not about salvation (e.g. "crossing from death to life, being transferred (past tense) from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the beloved son"). Reading the entire 1st and second chapters helps to flesh out this picture: the focus is on maintaining and growing in fellowship, not salvation.

    I absolutely agree with you that confession is part of the ongoing life of a believer in Christ. But then, any interpersonal relationship works this way as well. We desire relationship (to "walk in the light" as John puts it) with the Father and with His Son so we continue in that relationship, kept by the power of the Holy Spirit as we cooperate with the Spirit (Romans 8:9-15). Confession facilitates relationship because we allow our minds to be conformed to the likeness of Christ when we agree with God's view of reality and choose to walk "in the light as He is in the light". Since God ever and always only does what's best and loving, He never needs to correct his thinking and conform it to ours.

    I am assuming here that when you say "the Bible makes it clear"... you then are using Matthew 21:28-30 as evidence. If so, I disagree with your use of this parable on grounds that it is used out of context.

    The parable is preceded by a discussion with some chief priests and jewish elders in which his authority is questioned. After showing them their own hypocrisy with a clever question, he tells the parable you mention. He then explains the parable with this statement in the following verses (31-21):

    Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in a righteous way and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

    Then he tells another,related parable about the fact that God is going to kick the religious leaders out and give the "vineyard" to others. The chief priests and company know Jesus is talking directly to them.

    When the chief priests and Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew He was speaking about them.

    This brace of parables in NOT about daily repentance, they are judgements pronounced specifically on the religious leaders at that time for not believing in Jesus.

    Again, in using this to support your conclusion (that confession is necessary for salvation) you have neglected the context (i.e. the preceeding verses) and are also emphasizing certain words while ignoring others.

    Some bits of context for fellow Forum participants who are interested:
    • In Colossians 1:8, Paul was "informed of your love in the Spirit". Other passages in Paul's writing (notably Romans 8:14-17 & Ephesians 1:14) emphasize the Spirit as a permanent seal and the procurer of "sonship". He also sys that you cannot please God apart from the Spirit in you, a permanent condition.
    • In Colossian 1:12 it is the Father who "has qualified" the Colossians to share in "the inheritance of the saints in light". Past tense language is applied to the qualifying action of the Father. This is not "qualifying" like a race car must do before being able to drive in the actual race, it is achieved on our behalf.
    • Colossians 1:13-14 contains three past tense actions of God all connected to our new and permanent status as the redeemed (forgiven), citizenship in a new kingdom, and rescued from bondage to a dark kingdom.
    • Following a doxology to Jesus, establishing his preeminent authority, in v21-22 (which you quote) Paul again uses past tense language to say how our fortunes have changed through Christ's death: we're holy, unblemished and blameless.
    As it happens, Paul has an important reason for telling the Colossians to "continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel you have heard" (v.23). This statement has nothing to do with confession or repentence; Paul is aware that false teachers are creeping in to mislead with "other gospels". In the very next chapter he makes this context explicit.

    Colossians 2:6 Therefore, just as you have received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him, established in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ...

    16 Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you with speculation about what he has seen. Such a man is puffed up without basis by his unspiritual mind, 19 and he loses connection to the head, from whom the whole body, supported and knit together by its joints and ligaments, grows as God causes it to grow...

    20 If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? 22 These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
    False teachers and "Judaizers" are teaching "new and improved gospels" that include madnatory circumcision for gentile believers, adherence to kosher food laws, observance of religious festivals, adoration of angels, and other "philosophy and empty deception". Paul's message: stick to the "Jesus-Only" message that was proclaimed by Epaphras (see 1:7), you already have the complete message, don't be fooled into a lesser salvation of works and human effort.

    Since the question of the post was: "Is Confession of Sin Necessary for Salvation?", I hope I have established that your supporting passages, once put in context, don't support an affirmation of that question.

    May the Peace of Christ be with you.

     
  5. Danthemailman

    Danthemailman Well-Known Member

    +1,032
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Some verses are more difficult to explain than others, but in the end, scripture must harmonize with scripture.

    The present tense of the word "justified" implies that these Galatians were contemplating justification by the law. They were getting side tracked by legalistic teachers. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have fallen away from grace," but had they fully come to that place yet? Galatians 3:3 reads: Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The middle voice implies "making yourselves perfect" by means of self effort. The present tense indicates that the action is in progress and that there is still time to correct the error.

    If these Galatians lost their salvation and it was a done deal, then why didn't Paul simply say you "lost your salvation" and I'm done with you? Instead, in verse 10, he said - I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. Why would Paul have confidence in these Galatians if they lost their salvation and it's all over for them? In verse 12, Paul uses hyperbole, As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Obviously referring to circumcision, which elsewhere we could also see had led to legalism (Acts 15:1)

    In John 15:2-6, the branches that bear fruit and remain are genuine believers (like the remaining 11 disciples). The self-attached branches (cosmic connection) that bear no fruit and do not remain are not genuine believers (like Judas Iscariot). In John 15:2, Jesus mentions branches that bear no fruit and branches that bear fruit but Jesus says nothing about branches that bear fruit but then later stop bearing fruit.

    Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that there are two kinds of connections with Christ as the vine (the merely cosmic which bears no fruit, the spiritual and vital which bears fruit). Probably (Bernard) Jesus here refers to Judas. - https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-15.html

    When Jesus spoke these words in John 15, how many people at that time, prior to Him being glorified, had received the Holy Spirit and were baptized by one Spirit into one body? - "the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 12:13) -- NONE.

    John 7:38 - He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. So "in me" is part of the metaphor of the vine (in the vine) and not in the body of Christ under the New Covenant which was not yet fully established. Without that vital union with Christ, there can be no spiritual life and no productivity. Those who profess to know Christ but whose relationship to Him is self-attached, Christ neither saved them, nor sustains them. Eventually, the dead self-attached fruitless branches are cut off.

    I've heard three different interpretations for Hebrews 6:4-6 (hypothetical view, lost salvation view, never truly saved view) but am not convinced that it teaches a really "saved" person really "lost their salvation." *NOWHERE does the Bible use the specific words "lose or lost salvation." According to the hypothetical interpretation, the key word in the passage is "IF." The writer of Hebrews is setting up a hypothetical statement: "IF a Christian were to fall away, with the point being that it would be impossible (IF a Christian falls away) to renew them again to repentance. That’s because Christ died once for sin and if His sacrifice is insufficient, then there’s no hope at all. The passage, therefore, presents an argument based on a false premise (that a true Christian can fall away) and follows it to its senseless conclusion (that Jesus would have to be sacrificed again and again).

    In regards to the never saved view, once enlightened means to bring to light, to shed light upon or to cause light to shine upon some object, in the sense of illuminating it. John 1:9 describes Jesus as the "true Light," giving light "to every man"; but this cannot mean the light of salvation, because not every man is saved. This light either leads to the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ or produces condemnation in those who reject this light.

    In reference to partakers of the Holy Spirit, this describes one who shares with someone else as an associate in an enterprise or undertaking. It speaks of those who are participators in something. Metochos is used elsewhere in Hebrews in the context of believers (Hebrews 3:14 - "For we have become partakers of Christ") and thus the statement that the readers have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit at first glance seems to support that genuine believers are being addressed, yet there are other ministries of the Holy Spirit that precede the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. An individual may become a sharer in or partaker of the Holy Spirit, in regards to His pre-salvation ministry, convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment to come by responding for a time to His drawing power intended to lead unbelievers to Christ. Yet notice that the writer does not state that these individuals were "indwelled by the Holy Spirit" or "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" who is the guarantee of future inheritance." (Ephesians 1:13-14)

    In regards to tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, one may taste in such a way as to give them a distinct impression of the character and quality of what was tasted, yet still fall away. Inherent in the idea of tasting is the fact that one might or might not decide to accept what is tasted. For example, the same Greek word (geuomai) is used in Matthew 27:34 to say that those crucifying Jesus "offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it." *Do we taste into one Spirit or drink into one Spirit? (1 Corinthians 12:13).

    In regards to "fall away," I find it interesting that this term was used by Jesus of His 11 disciples at the time of His arrest. The disciples deserted Jesus as was predicted and Peter obviously denied Jesus three times. They were said to "fall away." Matthew 26:31 - Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.' 32 "But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." 33 But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away." Obviously, this was not a loss of salvation. For a righteous man may fall seven times AND rise again, But the wicked shall FALL by calamity. (Proverbs 24:16) In regards to restore them again to repentance, the wording alone does not specify whether or not the repentance was outward or genuine, yet as we read further..

    *In Hebrews 6:7-8, we read - For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned. In this metaphor, we see that those who receive final judgment are compared to land that bears no vegetation or useful fruit, but rather bears thorns and thistles. In other metaphors in scripture, we see that good fruit is a sign of true spiritual life and a lack of fruit is a sign of false believers (for example - Matthew 3:8-10; 7:15-20; 12:33-35). Verse 9 sums it up for me. The writer is speaking to those truly saved (calls them BELOVED). He says that even though he speaks like this concerning THOSE types of people, He is convinced of better things concerning YOU.Things that ACCOMPANY SALVATION. Thorns and briars and falling away do not accompany salvation.

    It's generally stated by those who believe salvation can be lost that you can get it back again. If the writer of Hebrews was truly teaching that a really "saved," person really "lost their salvation" then such a person would not get it back again and also, why didn't the writer of Hebrews simply say, "For it is impossible for those who were once born again or saved, if they fall away, to renew them again to salvation? Why is it that we never find the words "lost or lose your salvation" in the Bible? *That would certainly settle the issue for me. ;)
     
  6. Danthemailman

    Danthemailman Well-Known Member

    +1,032
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Only "on the surface" does there appear to be a contradiction, yet there are no contradictions in God's Word.

    I don't put a lot of stock in the ECF like Roman Catholics do. These men were not infallible and did not all support your doctrines. - Church Fathers

    This makes for a good sales pitch for Roman Catholics, but I'm not buying it. - Church Fathers

    I recently watched an interesting video on the origins of the Roman Catholic church. Christianity and pagan customs do not mix:



    Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." As He was accustomed, Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." :oldthumbsup:

    The literal interpretation of eating flesh and drinking blood (cannibalism) is absurd. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not literally with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies here, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language below:

    John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

    John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

    John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

    "He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" because the result is the same, eternal life. :)

    John 6 does not afford any support to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. (Romans 5:2) Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.

    Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

    The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary. :oldthumbsup:

    Individuals choosing to be celibate is one thing, yet forcing celibacy on the entire clergy is unbiblical.

    Not just before 1139 AD.

    You really have to ask that question? o_O

    Says you and the Bible was written before the Middle Ages, so try again. Forced celibacy for all clergy is unbiblical. 1 Timothy 4:3 settles it for me.

    There is a reason why we do not have priests. Old Testament priests were chosen by God and they were chosen for a purpose, to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. When the temple veil to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ's death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Believers now come directly to God through our high priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as there was in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).

    INCONCLUSIVE.

    You are misinterpreting what I wrote. By persevering in faith and not falling away, believers demonstrate that their conversion was genuine, yet believers can KNOW they have eternal life now. (1 John 5:13)

    BASED ON WHAT and isn't that the "sin of presumption" in Catholicism? Prior to my conversion, while still attending the Roman Catholic church, I NEVER had assurance of salvation because I was trusting in works for salvation and not in Christ alone. After my conversion upon placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, I then knew without a doubt that I was saved. Praise God! :)

    How can you know for certain? Again, BASED ON WHAT?

    Why not? That judgment call is well above your pay grade.

    Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  7. Danthemailman

    Danthemailman Well-Known Member

    +1,032
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    There is no need for straw man arguments. "Nominal" (in name only) Christian is a term used to describe those who are not genuine Christians. Such people are especially easy to find in false religions and cults that "label" themselves as "Christian." Although the Bible does not specifically use the term "nominal" Christian, that term reflects what a false prophet/wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29) false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) false apostle etc.. (2 Corinthians 11:13) is. The specific term "Trinity" is also not found in the Bible, yet it's a term that is used to reflect the concept of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit one God in essence/nature; yet three distinct persons. :oldthumbsup:

    I can see that arguing with you is like arguing with a lawyer who pridefully must have the last word in any argument and is also out to win his case at all costs (whatever it takes). I have not failed to address your points and I have thoroughly refuted your arguments in my previous posts, but unfortunately, you are unable to see anything beyond the veil of your biased doctrine/indoctrination. I've already heard just about every argument under the sun from works-salvationists and eternal-insecurists (including Roman Catholics and Mormons) in regards to losing salvation, so none of your arguments are anything new or enlightening. Any further discussion with you would just be a waste of time.

    I believe those who are truly born of God are eternally secure and preserved forever (Psalm 37:28; John 10:27-28; Ephesians 1:13-14 etc..) and you will NEVER convince me otherwise. ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Constant examination is what a servant must do. We call Jesus LORD for a reason.

    The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 7:13-23).

    Present-day evangelicalism, by and large, ignores these warnings. The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person's behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.

    This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

    The Distinctives of Lordship Salvation

    There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

    What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation? What does Scripture teach that is embraced by those who affirm lordship salvation but rejected by proponents of "easy-believism"? The following are nine distinctives of a biblical understanding of salvation and the gospel.

    First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Peter 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.

    Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Ephesians 2:1-5, 8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Philippians 1:6; cf. Hebrews 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.

    Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

    Fourth, Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Galatians 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Romans 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God's commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matthew 12:50), abide in God's Word (John 8:31), keep God's Word (John 17:6), do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and continue in the faith (Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3:14). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.

    Fifth, Scripture teaches that God's gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3; Romans 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.

    Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Romans 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.

    Seventh, Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Peter 1:8-9; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Corinthians 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.

    Eighth, Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one's faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith.

    Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.

    Most Christians recognize that these nine distinctives are not new or radical ideas. The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. In fact, no major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior.

    This issue is not a trivial one. In fact, how could any issue be more important? The gospel that is presented to unbelievers has eternal ramifications. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not merely a matter for theologians to discuss and debate and speculate about. This is an issue that every single pastor and lay person must understand in order that the gospel may be rightly proclaimed to all the nations.

    ---John MacArthur

    An Introduction to Lordship Salvation
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    If these did not support my doctrine then you, and other Protestants, would use them. Protestant scholars always talk about looking at the historical context. The way the ECF use the the teaching of the apostles is part of the historical context. I am not using them as infallible people. But they were the ones closest to the apostles. If I was famous and I died soon, the media would interview my wife, my children, and my friends to find out what the real Paul Ackermann was like. So even though the disciples of the apostle were not inspired, they could tell you what the apostles, who were inspired, actually were like and taught.

    Well, I'm not buying a video produced by an anti-Catholic Protestant.

    Funny, you should mention John 6. I was going to mention it in the future. Jesus said "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”(v 51) The crowd felt the same way way as you did - THIS IS CANNIBALISM!("How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” see v 52). So how did Jesus respond? Did He say that they misunderstood Him? That He was only figuratively? NO! He just said it again!

    Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
    Verses 53 - 56

    He startegd saying Truly - actually in Greek it was "Amen, Amen". This is what
    a person says when he wants to be taken seriously and literally. I defy you to find about another that Jesus said "Amen, Amen" and was only talking figuratively. Look at
    verse - Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. Is eternal life only figurative??? Of course not! He really mean it! He always mean what He says when He starts off with "Truly" or "Amen, Amen"! And He really mean it when He said in 53 "Unless you eat the flesh and drink His blood, you have not life in you"

    But he does not stop there. He also says in verse 55 "For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink" He said this is REAL! He is REALLY expecting us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The language is not the way that you expect one to talk if he was only speaking figuratively.

    Then the many of His disciples say " “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (verse 60). Again, they think this is cannibalism. Does Jesus point out to them that they are talking him to literally. NO! Instead, He said "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life." You misunderstand this verse. He is not saying He is only speaking figuratively. He is saying only through the Holy Spirit can accept what He said. The flesh counts for nothing. In Romans 8, Paul writes about living in the flesh versus living in the Spirit. Only one who is being led by the Spirit can accept what He says. This why He ended His discussion with them by saying "He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”(v 65). He never said that He was talking figuratively to them. He was say "You are trying to accept this in your own flesh, in your own power. But he who is in the flesh can never accept this. You are not coming to Me because the Father has not enabled you"

    From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (v 66).

    They still took Him literally and they left Him and never came back Him. Now, if it was a misunderstanding then why did Jesus let them leave without explaining that this was all a misunderstanding? He could not do that because the problem was not that they misunderstood. They just could not accept it. And since they could not accept it, there was nothing else Jesus could say to them. He had to let them go. If it was all a misunderstanding, it would have been cruel for Him to let them leave without clarifying that He was only speaking figuratively. They no longer followed him, which they died in their sins are lost forever! All because of a misunderstanding???
    That is the problem with man Protestant interpretations. For instance, to get around James 2:2 about faith and work, they define faith there differently there than in Romans 3. That is why Protestants always have group Bible studies - they need to be guided verse by verse since definitions can quickly change. I know what I talking about. I was a Baptist minister for three years, and I used to lead those Bible studies. And for about 12 years before I became a minister I used to attend them.

    I will show you how by the verses you site, that you switch from plain language to figurative language, and you are not aware at all how unduly complicated this is.

    According to you, I assume, this is plain language.

    According to you, I assume, this is figurative language (But is being raised up on the last day figurative or plain? :scratch:).

    According to you, I assume, this is plain language.
    According to you, I assume, this is figurative language (But is living forever figurative or plain? :scratch:).

    The Catholic interpretation of this passage is much simpler. It is ALL plain and literal.

    Again, this is making it more complicated than it is.

    "He who believes" is the one who believe in Jesus, in everything He said and it. He said "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood". The one who believe in Jesus will believe everything that Jesus said. Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it.

    Sure, it sounds like cannibalism. But the doctrine of the Trinity sounds like the belief in three Gods. The doctrine of the Incarnation, that the unchanging God changes into a Man, the Infinite becoming finite, seems contradictory. But the Catholic Church calls them mysteries. We cannot fully understand them. We just accept them with childlike faith. Jesus warned us that unless we come as little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.


    Yes, Jesus is all we need. But that is not the issue. If Jesus is in the Eucharist and Jesus is all we need then we need the Eucharist. Just as if Jesus is among us whenever two or three are gathered in His Name then we need Christian fellowship. We need Jesus wherever He is found.

    It is NOT the entire clergy. Deacons can be married. And only in the Latin Rite must the priest not be married. The other rites in the Catholic Church allow married priests. Also, a married Episcopalian priest who converts to the Catholic Church can be a Latin Rite priest.

    After I graduated from a Protestant seminary, it took me TWO YEARS to find a pastorate. There is an unwritten rule in Protestantism. They expect their ministers to be married! I finally found a church to hire me. They gave me $50 a week and they paid my rent. It was not much, even though it was the early '80's, but since I was single minster this was all I could find.

    The point is that the Catholic Church, in the Latin Rite, has a rule that priests must be celibate. And Protestantism has an unwritten rule that their ministers must be married. Personally, I think the Catholic rule is better based on 1 Cor 7 where Paul points out that celibacy is better than being married as well as Jesus and Paul being celibates.

    Not just before 1139 AD.

    You really have to ask that question? o_O
    This was not a prediction. This was something that was happening at the time Paul was writing it. In the first century, there was a heresy called Gnosticism. It taught that there were two Gods - the God of the Old Covenant and the God of the New Covenant. The God of the Old created the whole (see Genesis). He was an evil God, telling the Israelites to kill ever man, woman and child in Canaan. The God of New was Jesus - He was the good God. The God of the Old created the physical world. Jesus was the God of the spiritual world. Marriage was instituted by the evil God, so it was forbidden in their cult to get married. They did not forbid sex, just marriage. In fact, since the physical did not matter, you could in this cult have sex with problem. Jesus was only concerned with the spiritual realm. If you look closer at the text, they forbade marriage, they did not force celibacy.


    The temple veil being rent is YOUR interpretation. No where in scripture does it say that. And even if that was its meaning, it only would mean the of the OLD TESTAMENT priesthood.

    But you contradict yourself here. You say we come directly to God. But then you say we come THROUGH Jesus Christ. So is it direct or not?

    In the Old Testament, there was a high priest but also other priests. The high priest was the ultimate priest. Jesus replaced the ultimate, high priest. But there are other priest. It says in the Bible that priesthood continues for earthly people (Romans 15:16, 1 Pet 2:5, 9, Rev 5:10). Trues, these verses say the we are ALL priests. But this refutes that are no longer earthly mediators, since a priest is a mediator. Unlike a Protestant church service, where a member just attends the service, I as a layman go to Mass to assist. I assist because I, at a lower level than the presiding priest, am a priest assisting the Mass. But a Protestant church have no priests, even though they say they believe in the priesthood of all believers. A priest cannot exist without a sacrifice.

    It is not what you wrote but the unintended consequences of what you wrote.
    Your perseverance is still in the future. You not not know if you will fall away in a year from now. Others have fall away, how you know that the same is for you? I think I know what you would say. You know you will not fall away in the future because God will keep you from falling. But this is all a circular argument. I'll try to demonstrate.

    1. Perseverance shows that my conversion is genuine
    2. Since I know that my conversion is genuine, I know that I will persevere.
    3. I know my conversion is genuine because of my perseverance (#1 again)
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
  10. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Context is everything. Not just in the Bible.
     
  11. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican


    We orthodox Catholics are Bible-being Christians, too. And we have been around for centuries. But we would not believe in all these tenets.



    I would agree that Jesus must be your Lord and Savior. But this is not a one-time act. You do not just pray for Jesus to be your Lord and Savior today and then dethrone Him tomorrow. Every day He must be your Lord.

    But it is not true that no orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior. Charles Ryrie of the Ryrie Study Bible accused MacArthur of preaching a false gospel. He argued that we accept Jesus as Savior only.

    This shows to us that we cannot use the Bible only for our truth. This does not deny that the Bible is 100% the Word of God. It is! But people who use the Bible alone can still come up with differing views. We each have our own presuppositions based on the traditions of our churches and out past experiences. These effect how we view the Bible. John MacArthur view the Bible and Charles Ryrie view it another way. This is why sola scriptura cannot work.
     
  12. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    No it shows one is using the full revelation of God vs one using it sporadically. Your church being among the latter.
     
  13. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You should as all the tenets are from God’s Holy Word revealed to mankind.
     
  14. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The very quoted source speaks against what you are claiming.
     
  15. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    Everybody thinks its the OTHER church that is using God's revelation sporadically.
     
  16. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    Agree. The issue is whether you have those tenets,
     
  17. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    Does a "very quoted source" become infallible simply because it is quoted often?
     
  18. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    How much of the Sacred Scriptures has the Catholic church interpreted?
     
  19. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,557
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Infallible no. The Sacred Scriptures are the Holy Spirit breathed infallible Word of God.
     
  20. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    997
    +164
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    So then we are in agreement. Your "very quoted source" that disagrees with me does not prove that I am wrong, since a very quoted source is not infallible. Hence, your post in #214 is fallacious.
     
Loading...