Salvation: Theosis, Assurance of Salvation, Once Saved Always Saved, Predestination?

[hedrick]

On sin and punishment, I’m going to summarize what I think Jesus taught. I believe my views would be typical of mainline Protestants. (I’m kind of the token mainliner in this group.)

First, Jesus endorsed the 10 commandments. But he also (particularly in Mat 5) emphasized intent and how things affect others and our relationships with them. So I’d say he interpreted them non-legalistically.

If you look at Jesus’ many teachings on judgement, you’ll see that the people he showed as judged weren’t those who lied to their parents, or missed church, or committed sexual improprieties. The people judged were those who abused power, hurt others, or even were just plain useless. I would argue that it was people who weren't followers at all, not followers who sinned in the sense that Christians often use sin.

Jesus also never set up either purity or holiness as ideals. Check a concordance: he spoke of various things as holy, but not individuals and certainly not as an ideal. I think there’s a reason for this. He taught that when we did good we were just slaves doing what we’re commanded. We get no personal credit. The idea of saying that anyone is holy or pure is inconsistent with his approach.

I think you can find places where he said that no one is free of sin, but that alone isn’t quite the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West. Nor is it a fatal problem for those who depend upon God for forgiveness.

As to punishment, Jesus spoke of that. His real stories about judgement are, as I noted, those who are useless or abuse others, i.e. people who aren’t Jesus’ followers. But he also talks about varying degrees of reward and punishment. Jesus certainly taught that we’re all accountable for our actions, but I think that’s goes beyond just judging who are his followers vs who are enemies of the Kingdom. Protestants traditionally rejected purgatory, because of lots of doctrine surrounding it. But I think even though God will forgive all of his people, he’ll also look at what we did right and wrong, and hold us accountable in some way.

 

[com7fy8]

What is your perspective of salvation as a Traditional Christian?

God brings us to Jesus, and transforms us to become submissive to Jesus (Ephesians 1:12). Then God works in us more and more all He means by His word > Isaiah 55:11.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

On sin and punishment, I’m going to summarize what I think Jesus taught. I believe my views would be typical of mainline Protestants. (I’m kind of the token mainliner in this group.)

First, Jesus endorsed the 10 commandments. But he also (particularly in Mat 5) emphasized intent and how things affect others and our relationships with them. So I’d say he interpreted them non-legalistically.

If you look at Jesus’ many teachings on judgement, you’ll see that the people he showed as judged weren’t those who lied to their parents, or missed church, or committed sexual improprieties. The people judged were those who abused power, hurt others, or even were just plain useless. I would argue that it was people who weren't followers at all, not followers who sinned in the sense that Christians often use sin.

Jesus also never set up either purity or holiness as ideals. Check a concordance: he spoke of various things as holy, but not individuals and certainly not as an ideal. I think there’s a reason for this. He taught that when we did good we were just slaves doing what we’re commanded. We get no personal credit. The idea of saying that anyone is holy or pure is inconsistent with his approach.

I think you can find places where he said that no one is free of sin, but that alone isn’t quite the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West. Nor is it a fatal problem for those who depend upon God for forgiveness.

As to punishment, Jesus spoke of that. His real stories about judgement are, as I noted, those who are useless or abuse others, i.e. people who aren’t Jesus’ followers. But he also talks about varying degrees of reward and punishment. Jesus certainly taught that we’re all accountable for our actions, but I think that’s goes beyond just judging who are his followers vs who are enemies of the Kingdom. Protestants traditionally rejected purgatory, because of lots of doctrine surrounding it. But I think even though God will forgive all of his people, he’ll also look at what we did right and wrong, and hold us accountable in some way.

Good points hedrick, regarding accountability. The second last sentence of the - The Athanasian Creed speaks to this as well (second last sentence):

"At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire."
​

Taken by itself one could presume that things are pretty legalistic and cut-and-dried; but like the points you make in your post, This Creed makes it perfectly clear that again the turning point is "faith"; the presence/absence of faith is the good and the evil as we note in the first two sentences and the last sentence:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance... "


"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
​

This creed makes quite an argument for "Sola Fide" by clearly defining what that faith must be.

​

 

[hedrick]

Mark: yes, I understand that Jesus distinguished what I'd call a primary orientation, either his follower or an enemy of the Kingdom. And God will forgive his followers. I do in fact identify being his follower with Paul's concept of faith, and being in Christ. I also think Jesus assurances that God forgives us, and that he doesn't abandon his people is functionally equivalent to justification by faith. In Jesus terminology we're justified by being his follower.

 

[All4Christ]

Good points hedrick, regarding accountability. The second last sentence of the - The Athanasian Creed speaks to this as well (second last sentence):

"At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire."
​

Taken by itself one could presume that things are pretty legalistic and cut-and-dried; but like the points you make in your post, This Creed makes it perfectly clear that again the turning point is "faith"; the presence/absence of faith is the good and the evil as we note in the first two sentences and the last sentence:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance... "


"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
​

This creed makes quite an argument for "Sola Fide" by clearly defining what that faith must be.

​

Honestly Mark, I believe most Christians would agree with all those statements in the Athanasian Creed, but not all necessarily believe that the section you pointed out is proof of sola fide. Without that faith, a man cannot be saved. That's the key portion there. "This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran and most Christians would agree on that point (though perhaps some nuances are needed for children before they are able to understand and have faith themselves).

I'd even say that most Christians across the board believe faith is the primary requirement. Paul is quite clear about justification by faith, but he also speaks of faith working through love. If someone has an authentic faith, they will produce good works. Should someone stop producing good works, does that mean that their authentic faith is gone? Faith and good works are inseparable. However, faith is the primary piece, and perhaps as you said, it is the turning point.

So a question for you - if someone commits the acts in Galatians 5:21 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and does not repent / reorient themselves towards God, do they no longer have faith? Is that sentence only applicable to non-Christians?

We come to Christ as sinners and are justified by Faith apart from good works. But once we connect with Christ and enjoy a saving relationship with Him, we ought to honor Him with good works because we love Christ and also because our final judgment will hinge in part on the criterion of good deeds. Paul states: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10).

Paul is very clear about what the final judgment entails:

“God will render to every person according to his works; to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, God will give eternal life; but for those who . . . obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom 2:6-8).

The work of salvation lies entirely with God. Along with that is a lifetime covenant with God in which we work, planting and watering, but it is “only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:7).


We are saved by Faith. All good works are manifestations of that Faith. Without Faith, no works are pleasing to God. We are regenerated through baptism. However, Communion and Baptism do us no good if we do not have Faith. However, if we do have Faith, we will seek to fully participate in the Sacraments of the Church and to follow the commandments of God. So, as the Scriptures teach, Faith without works is dead.

I apologize if this is not clear...I'm going against my general rule of not posting when exhausted! Hopefully it makes enough sense!

Here is an article about a recent Lutheran / Orthodox dialogue on salvation and the ecumenical councils that might interest you: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/1995-Lutheran_Orthodox_Dialogue-EN.pdf

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Honestly Mark, I believe most Christians would agree with all those statements in the Athanasian Creed, but not all necessarily believe that the section you pointed out is proof of sola fide. Without that faith, a man cannot be saved. That's the key portion there. "This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran and most Christians would agree on that point (though perhaps some nuances are needed for children before they are able to understand and have faith themselves).

I'd even say that most Christians across the board believe faith is the primary requirement. Paul is quite clear about justification by faith, but he also speaks of faith working through love. If someone has an authentic faith, they will produce good works. Should someone stop producing good works, does that mean that their authentic faith is gone? Faith and good works are inseparable. However, faith is the primary piece, and perhaps as you said, it is the turning point.

So a question for you - if someone commits the acts in Galatians 5:21 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and does not repent / reorient themselves towards God, do they no longer have faith? Is that sentence only applicable to non-Christians?

We come to Christ as sinners and are justified by Faith apart from good works. But once we connect with Christ and enjoy a saving relationship with Him, we ought to honor Him with good works because we love Christ and also because our final judgment will hinge in part on the criterion of good deeds. Paul states: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10).

Paul is very clear about what the final judgment entails:

“God will render to every person according to his works; to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, God will give eternal life; but for those who . . . obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom 2:6-8).

The work of salvation lies entirely with God. Along with that is a lifetime covenant with God in which we work, planting and watering, but it is “only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:7).


We are saved by Faith. All good works are manifestations of that Faith. Without Faith, no works are pleasing to God. We are regenerated through baptism. However, Communion and Baptism do us no good if we do not have Faith. However, if we do have Faith, we will seek to fully participate in the Sacraments of the Church and to follow the commandments of God. So, as the Scriptures teach, Faith without works is dead.

I apologize if this is not clear...I'm going against my general rule of not posting when exhausted! Hopefully it makes enough sense!

Here is an article about a recent Lutheran / Orthodox dialogue on salvation and the ecumenical councils that might interest you: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/1995-Lutheran_Orthodox_Dialogue-EN.pdf

It makes perfect sense; let me start at the bottom... I can not Speak to the dialogue between the LWF and the Orthodox (as a confessional Lutheran, we have disociated ourselves from this group (The Lutheran World Federation). That was 1986, and at present considering their pro-choice; female ordination; female bishops; historical critical view of Scripture; open communion with those who deny the real presense: it is doubtful that and self evident that such dialogue went no further.

So a question for you - if someone commits the acts in Galatians 5:21 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and does not repent / reorient themselves towards God, do they no longer have faith? Is that sentence only applicable to non-Christians?
​

Even the devil knows God; faith motivates repentance (we all sin) but when we revel in it, enjoy it, and know better, but have no desire to amend our sinful ways; we turn away from God. If you do these things, and feel sorrow over them, and desire to turn away from them, but human weakness keeps drawing you back; I think that God would recognize a desire to repent. While we are still in the flesh, we can strive for, but never fully attain sanctification; yet when we put on that immortal flesh on the last day, God has granted us just that.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The LWF-Orthodox dialogue was by 1986 a purely academic affair; all serious thought of reconciliation ended in the 1970s.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

<Staff Edit>

You might want to take a gander at the Traditional Theology forum SOP.

 

[~Anastasia~]

<Staff Edit>
Well, if you wish to argue against Tradition, you would do better in General Theology. Paul directed you to the SoP because it is against the rules in Traditional Theology.

Besides "traditions of men" is a phrase that doesn't even understand what we mean by "Holy Tradition". You are under no obligation to learn what that means, but you might not even realize just what it is you are objecting to.

Regardless, the important point is that it is off topic and against the rules to attack "tradition" widely, and as I said, without specifying, it doesn't even make sense.

The Holy Trinity is explained through Holy Tradition, for example, and only a few sects are in opposition to that.

 

[ScottA]

Well, if you wish to argue against Tradition, you would do better in General Theology. Paul directed you to the SoP because it is against the rules in Traditional Theology.

Besides "traditions of men" is a phrase that doesn't even understand what we mean by "Holy Tradition". You are under no obligation to learn what that means, but you might not even realize just what it is you are objecting to.

Regardless, the important point is that it is off topic and against the rules to attack "tradition" widely, and as I said, without specifying, it doesn't even make sense.

The Holy Trinity is explained through Holy Tradition, for example, and only a few sects are in opposition to that.

I was not "arguing against Traditions" or "Traditional Theology."

I was answering the OP question (What is my perspective?): I say again, "one is only "saved" if they are "changed." And if changed, then saved, a new creation - and therefore forever saved."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Thread has had a slight cleanup.

As stated by others above; the Statement of Purpose is the standard in this forum, and it will be zealously promoted and enforced here. Those who insist on posting at odds with this standard will most likely find this forum "uncomfortable"; on the other hand, those who enjoy good dialogue without antagonism will find this forum as comfortable as a second home.

Blessings and peace to all.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was not "arguing against Traditions" or "Traditional Theology."

I was answering the OP question (What is my perspective?): I say again, "one is only "saved" if they are "changed." And if changed, then saved, a new creation - and therefore forever saved."

Indeed. And if that was all you said, it would be perfectly fine and acceptable.

I'm not attacking you, Scott. This forum has rules that are particular to it, and they are in place for a reason. My post was intended as a gentle reminder, because the conversation appeared to potentially be heading in a direction that would lead to staff actions. If that can be prevented, it is always my preference.

With that said, one really IS supposed to read the SoP before posting. It is not there to change members' minds about anything, but to outline the purpose and rules of the particular forum. I'm not sure why you thought you could not post honestly if you read it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, apologies, I was posting on top of your edit, Mark. I don't believe I included anything needing to be edited out, but please forgive me if I did.

Thank you for your quick attention.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ah, apologies, I was posting on top of your edit, Mark. I don't believe I included anything needing to be edited out, but please forgive me if I did.

Thank you for your quick attention.

You were on the mark with your posts! This is a good topic for this forum within the Statement of Purpose (as you noted). As you also noted, there are other forums where heated arguments may happen, but we like a more "reasoned" approach.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, we are not going to derail the thread to discuss this.

If you took my posts as an accusation, then I apologize that it came across to you in that way. But I was not accusing - merely I said that if that is what you want to do, there are other forums appropriate for that. This isn't the place.

 

[All4Christ]

The LWF-Orthodox dialogue was by 1986 a purely academic affair; all serious thought of reconciliation ended in the 1970s.

Agreed. I honestly don't see the LWF and Orthodox Church near reconciliation, especially with some of the things Mark mentioned. I referenced the paper as a possible way to explain the various positions.

 

[delaD3]

On sin and punishment, I’m going to summarize what I think Jesus taught. I believe my views would be typical of mainline Protestants. (I’m kind of the token mainliner in this group.)

First, Jesus endorsed the 10 commandments. But he also (particularly in Mat 5) emphasized intent and how things affect others and our relationships with them. So I’d say he interpreted them non-legalistically.

If you look at Jesus’ many teachings on judgement, you’ll see that the people he showed as judged weren’t those who lied to their parents, or missed church, or committed sexual improprieties. The people judged were those who abused power, hurt others, or even were just plain useless. I would argue that it was people who weren't followers at all, not followers who sinned in the sense that Christians often use sin.

Jesus also never set up either purity or holiness as ideals. Check a concordance: he spoke of various things as holy, but not individuals and certainly not as an ideal. I think there’s a reason for this. He taught that when we did good we were just slaves doing what we’re commanded. We get no personal credit. The idea of saying that anyone is holy or pure is inconsistent with his approach.

I think you can find places where he said that no one is free of sin, but that alone isn’t quite the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West. Nor is it a fatal problem for those who depend upon God for forgiveness.

As to punishment, Jesus spoke of that. His real stories about judgement are, as I noted, those who are useless or abuse others, i.e. people who aren’t Jesus’ followers. But he also talks about varying degrees of reward and punishment. Jesus certainly taught that we’re all accountable for our actions, but I think that’s goes beyond just judging who are his followers vs who are enemies of the Kingdom. Protestants traditionally rejected purgatory, because of lots of doctrine surrounding it. But I think even though God will forgive all of his people, he’ll also look at what we did right and wrong, and hold us accountable in some way.

This is my personal view on 'predestination'. God has chosen all who have been birthed to be saved and so His Predestination for their lives is for Himself to desire for them to be saved and not perish. God is always God and God will always desire that none perish but that all be saved. That will always be His desire... Always... Predestination for and to all lives.. That He desires All to be saved...

Another way of looking at it is this:

God has provided a way for all to enter into Life. He does not keep that 'way' 'opportunity' away from anyone.

 

[hedrick]

So a question for you - if someone commits the acts in Galatians 5:21 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and does not repent / reorient themselves towards God, do they no longer have faith? Is that sentence only applicable to non-Christians?

This is a topic where I don’t think we can be dogmatic. On one side, Jesus taught that there are no limits to forgiveness (except the somewhat enigmatic sin against the Holy Spirit) and at least by implication that we can be forgiven even if we do the same thing seven times a day.

But his examples of judgement were all based on what the person did.

About all I can say is that anyone who is Jesus’ follower will show it, so it’s fair for God (though not us) to look at people’s lives. But I think what he’s looking for is a sign of love of God and neighbor, and not a lack of blots on our copybook. That means that I’m very skeptical about using lists like Gal 5:21 or 1 Cor 6:9 as disqualifiers. I mean, how many of us are actually free of envy, and reveling? And using Mat 5, even in some sense murder. In Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6, Paul didn’t give those lists in the context of prescriptions for how God is going to judge us in the end, but as signs of the “flesh”, which will not inherit the Kingdom. Or in 1 Cor 6 as characteristics of the old life, which we’ve been saved from. But Paul is also quite realistic that while we’re in this life, we remain divided between “flesh” (in that special sense) and spiritual.

A lot of people are worried that without threatening people with hell because they sin, they won’t do what God wants. But I think both Jesus and Paul expect change to come from a change in our heart. I think people who behave because they’re afraid of hell are likely to do so in a spirit very different from what Jesus and Paul wanted. So it’s worth the risk of complacency to found Christianity on real renewal and the change in orientation of our lives that Paul meant by faith.

I do also think that Jesus’ followers will in some way be held accountable for what we do and don’t do, but not in a way that involves being rejected by God.

—————————————————————

As a non-Lutheran looking in, I think there are some valid points in the LWF agreements. But I do think there are fundamental differences among the major theological traditions that can’t be entirely papered over by that kind of agreement. As long as we avoid real Pelagianism I’m willing to maintain fellowship, but I still think we need to maintain the Protestant tradition and understand why the remaining differences matter. I'm not one of those that think the Protestant Reformation no longer matters.

 

[All4Christ]

So a question for you - if someone commits the acts in Galatians 5:21 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and does not repent / reorient themselves towards God, do they no longer have faith? Is that sentence only applicable to non-Christians?
​

Even the devil knows God; faith motivates repentance (we all sin) but when we revel in it, enjoy it, and know better, but have no desire to amend our sinful ways; we turn away from God. If you do these things, and feel sorrow over them, and desire to turn away from them, but human weakness keeps drawing you back; I think that God would recognize a desire to repent. While we are still in the flesh, we can strive for, but never fully attain sanctification; yet when we put on that immortal flesh on the last day, God has granted us just that.

I would agree with this. I am curious though about how this relates to Sola Fide? When someone who has had authentic faith in Christ doesn't feel sorrow over their sins and turns away from Christ, how does Sola Fide come into play? Is their faith lost?

On the same line of thought, if someone knowingly and willingly avoids some of the commands of God, including Baptism and the Eucharist, and doesn't sorrow over it, do they lose their authentic faith? How does Sola Fide come into play with willful disobedience? One of the key elements there is willingly and knowingly.

Honest question. Sometimes I wonder if some of the differences (albeit not all) are linguistic differences. Hopefully this can clarify that

ETA: I'm not saying God will necessarily deny salvation to those who aren't baptized or partaking of the Eucharist, but we are commanded to do so. It isn't just a nicety (sp?). I'm glad we don't decide who or who won't be saved!

 

[All4Christ]

This is a topic where I don’t think we can be dogmatic. On one side, Jesus taught that there are no limits to forgiveness (except the somewhat enigmatic sin against the Holy Spirit) and at least by implication that we can be forgiven even if we do the same thing seven times a day.

But his examples of judgement were all based on what the person did.

About all I can say is that anyone who is Jesus’ follower will show it, so it’s fair for God (though not us) to look at people’s lives. But I think what he’s looking for is a sign of love of God and neighbor, and not a lack of blots on our copybook. That means that I’m very skeptical about using lists like Gal 5:21 or 1 Cor 6:9 as disqualifiers. I mean, how many of us are actually free of envy, and reveling? And using Mat 5, even in some sense murder. In Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6, Paul didn’t give those lists in the context of prescriptions for how God is going to judge us in the end, but as signs of the “flesh”, which will not inherit the Kingdom. Or in 1 Cor 6 as characteristics of the old life, which we’ve been saved from. But Paul is also quite realistic that while we’re in this life, we remain divided between “flesh” (in that special sense) and spiritual.

A lot of people are worried that without threatening people with hell because they sin, they won’t do what God wants. But I think both Jesus and Paul expect change to come from a change in our heart. I think people who behave because they’re afraid of hell are likely to do so in a spirit very different from what Jesus and Paul wanted. So it’s worth the risk of complacency to found Christianity on real renewal and the change in orientation of our lives that Paul meant by faith.

I do also think that Jesus’ followers will in some way be held accountable for what we do and don’t do, but not in a way that involves being rejected by God.

Fair enough. I agree that we can't say "you did one of the things on those lists, so you won't be in the kingdom of heaven", but I do believe as Christians that we need to repent and be sorry for our sins. This is imho part of being oriented towards Christ. I like your phrasing with what it means to be a follower of Christ.

I do know we all sin, but we need to continually orient ourselves towards Christ. Honestly, that's what I think sanctification (or theosis) does. God does the work, but we need to accept Him to do that work, and cooperate with Him. That includes repentance and seeking to be more like God. That said, we absolutely aren't saved by works. We are saved by Grace and not by our works. What matters then is our having surrendered our sin to God through confession, and our gestures of love (Mt. 25), together with the unshakable conviction that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” and the unique Way to eternal life. We aren't given a "required amount" of works to be saved. Rather, if we truly have faith in Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, we will manifest and reveal our faith in how we live and how we treat others. Matthew 25:31-46 is pretty important in explaining what I mean.

Romans 8:13 “if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

All "good works" of Christians are born out of the spirit - none is through our own power, yet we must participate in them to orient ourselves towards Christ. Again, it is only through God's grace that we can do that. As you said earlier, all of that comes through the change in our heart.

Does that make sense?

I'm late for work so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

ETA: I want to emphasize that while all "works" are through the Grace of God and should be a fruit of our faith, it is important for us to accept the direction of God and "work out our salvation" through "faith working through love". This isn't by our own power, and only through God's Grace. However, as we still have free will, we need to "cooperate" with His grace in order to continually grow closer to God. Through repentance and love, we stay focused on God. Should we accept it, "works" of love and obedience are part of God's gift to help us grow closer to Christ and to become more like Him (synergy). This is born out of the regeneration of Christ's gift to us, through baptism and through His freely offered Grace. From my past experience as a Pentecostal, this has some strong similarities to what we considered sanctification.