Sin No More

MorganFamilyMinistry · Dec 19, 2011

Montalban said:
I don't believe in 'loosing a salvation' as I don't believe I'm saved at one point in my life and that's it. I thought I'd explained this. Being 'saved' is a life-long process

Ask yourself these two questions
a) do oyu have the Holy Spirit in you?
and
b) do you still sin?

-M

This might be part of the communication issue. How do you define salvation?

Acts 16:29-31 (NIV 1984)
29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household.

As for your 2 questions
a) Yes.... Luke 11:13 (NIV 1984) 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

B) Yes... 1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Thanks,
Scott

3rdHeaven · Dec 19, 2011

MorganFamilyMinistry said:
This might be part of the communication issue. How do you define salvation?

Acts 16:29-31 (NIV 1984)
29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household.

As for your 2 questions
a) Yes.... Luke 11:13 (NIV 1984) 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

B) Yes... 1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Thanks,
Scott

Acts 16:29-31, why stop at 31? What happened after that?

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

clearly there was a little more then on the spot vending machine style salvation

anada · Dec 19, 2011

ViaCrucis said:
It's important to understand that Private Confession, as practiced in Roman Catholicism, is not about the priest being a "go between" between man and God; but is rather about the priest fulfilling his pastoral office, received down through the centuries from the apostles, where Christ gave the apostles the authority to pronounce forgiveness of sins. The priest, of himself, has no power or authority, it is only by virtue of his office and the words of Jesus that he speaks those words of Absolution, "your sins are forgiven". The forgiveness is from God alone, by the power and authority of Christ alone. The priest is merely fulfilling that duty and responsibility, to speak those words.

It should not be underestimated just how powerful hearing "you are forgiven" can be. Whether we hear it read from Scripture or hear it spoken from our pastor, or from a close friend whom we had injured. There is a peace that comes from hearing that our injurious action or word is mended, and communion is restored.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes Christ gave the apostles that power. Not the priests of the Catholic church

anada · Dec 19, 2011

Montalban said:
Self-deception is an easy thing. The priest in our church has the role of bearing witness.

I don't understand, are you saying that I deceive myself when I confess my sins to God in prayer? That I'm not really forgiven??

All the time.

However you had said earlier:
How could anyone who understands God's unconditional and guaranteed love for those who believe, take that love and throw it back in God's face? Such a person is demonstrating not that eternal security has given him a license to sin, but rather that he or she has not truly experienced salvation through Jesus Christ.

Does this mean you're not demonstrating that eternal security?

You are getting too worked up about this issue. Both paragraphs were from articles dealing with the thought process that Christ's forgiveness is a "license to sin" or "how bad can a person sin and still be a Christian". Essentially I was agreeing with you that someone could "accept Jesus" and think that's a ticket to do what they like, when it obviously isn't. Even though as Christians we still sin, we definitely don't enjoy and bask in it. Well I don't anyway. Looking back I see maybe you may have thought I was having a go at what you've said, since I didn't start a fresh post for that bit, but that wasn't what I meant at all. I was simply expanding on the topic. Accepting Jesus Christ as our saviour and recognising that we are sinners in need of forgiveness doesn't mean that we can go on a killing spree scot free, or continue our old lives. It's not a get out of jail free card in that respect. Do you agree?

Jane_the_Bane · Dec 19, 2011

I think salvation would be more like you saying, "I forgive you, I will pay for everything all you have to do is admit that it was your fault and you need me to do this." Then I have the choice to make. Maybe I'm prideful and don't want to admit it was my fault.

You agree, though, that this is not unconditional forgiveness? The bolded part above very clearly delineates the conditions placed upon it.

Jane_the_Bane · Dec 19, 2011

Allow me to delineate my rather unorthodox interpretation of Christian salvation:

The Good News is: You ARE saved. The reconciliation has already taken place, the gates of Sheol have been broken, the captives have been set free - and so have you. There's no need to slaughter animals and burn them on an altar any longer: guilt does not stand between you and the deity anymore.

Nothing remains to be done: You don't have to join the right religion, repeat the right creed or earn bonus points by acting morally.

Freedom is given to you, whether you want it or not, and if you choose to squander it on immoral behaviour or self-destructive hedonism - that is your call.
Why spoil your life, however, when you can enjoy the fruits of reconciliation?

Montalban · Dec 19, 2011

MorganFamilyMinistry said:
This might be part of the communication issue. How do you define salvation?

Being saved - so I go to heaven and be with God

Montalban · Dec 19, 2011

Jane_the_Bane said:
Allow me to delineate my rather unorthodox interpretation of Christian salvation:

The Good News is: You ARE saved. The reconciliation has already taken place, the gates of Sheol have been broken, the captives have been set free - and so have you. There's no need to slaughter animals and burn them on an altar any longer: guilt does not stand between you and the deity anymore.

Nothing remains to be done: You don't have to join the right religion, repeat the right creed or earn bonus points by acting morally.

Freedom is given to you, whether you want it or not, and if you choose to squander it on immoral behaviour or self-destructive hedonism - that is your call.
Why spoil your life, however, when you can enjoy the fruits of reconciliation?

Are you going Protestant?

Montalban · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
I don't understand, are you saying that I deceive myself when I confess my sins to God in prayer? That I'm not really forgiven??

Not everyone really confesses all of their sins. Some internalise things and excuse them

anada said:
You are getting too worked up about this issue.

I seem quite fine, at this end.

anada said:
Both paragraphs were from articles dealing with the thought process that Christ's forgiveness is a "license to sin" or "how bad can a person sin and still be a Christian". Essentially I was agreeing with you that someone could "accept Jesus" and think that's a ticket to do what they like, when it obviously isn't. Even though as Christians we still sin, we definitely don't enjoy and bask in it. Well I don't anyway. Looking back I see maybe you may have thought I was having a go at what you've said, since I didn't start a fresh post for that bit, but that wasn't what I meant at all. I was simply expanding on the topic. Accepting Jesus Christ as our saviour and recognising that we are sinners in need of forgiveness doesn't mean that we can go on a killing spree scot free, or continue our old lives. It's not a get out of jail free card in that respect. Do you agree?

But it is Scot free, as there are no further consequences in your system.

anada · Dec 19, 2011

Montalban said:
Not everyone really confesses all of their sins. Some internalise things and excuse them

Do they? Well that probably comes from their own misunderstanding. I'll bet that there's people who confess sins to a priest purely out of ritual as well.

But it is Scot free, as there are no further consequences in your system.

It's not my system, it's God's.

ViaCrucis · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
Yes Christ gave the apostles that power. Not the priests of the Catholic church

You recall that the Apostles appointed episkopoi and presbyteroi to minister to the Faithful.

Historically Christianity has asserted that bishops (episkopoi) and presbyters (presbyteroi)--which comes into English as the word priest or translated as elder--being successors of the Apostles bear the same apostolic authority. That is, as Christ ordained His Apostles to carry on His mission, ministry and authority so did the Apostles ordain bishops/presbyters to continue the apostolic ministry for the good and sake of the Church.

Thus there is a chain of succession going back to the Apostles, this notion is preserved quite early in the writings of the ancient Fathers and was considered critical in safeguarding orthodoxy. The early leaders of the Church would point to this succession going back to the Apostles as a way of saying, "We have preserved the apostolic teaching right to this very day" in contrast to those who claimed secret or new revelation or knowledge.

While I don't regard apostolic succession as dire or essential for the pastoral ministry, it certainly doesn't hurt it and I think it is quite good. Thus saying Christ gave His apostles authority but not to the bishops and presbyters of the Church (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or other) is a rather moot point. Since anyone ordained according to that historic succession by virtue of their calling retains the apostolic mandate to pastor the Faithful, which includes pronouncing the words of absolution.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
Do they? Well that probably comes from their own misunderstanding. I'll bet that there's people who confess sins to a priest purely out of ritual as well.

I'm sure there are many who say grace at their meal just out of ritual. That doesn't mean God doesn't hear our prayer even if done in such a fashion.

The beautiful thing about grace is that it's grace.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Dec 19, 2011

Jane_the_Bane said:
Allow me to delineate my rather unorthodox interpretation of Christian salvation:

The Good News is: You ARE saved. The reconciliation has already taken place, the gates of Sheol have been broken, the captives have been set free - and so have you. There's no need to slaughter animals and burn them on an altar any longer: guilt does not stand between you and the deity anymore.

Nothing remains to be done: You don't have to join the right religion, repeat the right creed or earn bonus points by acting morally.

Freedom is given to you, whether you want it or not, and if you choose to squander it on immoral behaviour or self-destructive hedonism - that is your call.
Why spoil your life, however, when you can enjoy the fruits of reconciliation?

This kind of reminds me a point a Lutheran friend of mine made several odd years ago, back before I was Lutheran and still in theological limbo. She would often quote her pastor where he would ask, "Yes, we know what we were saved from, but what have been saved for?" Or otherwise put, "saved for what" rather than "saved from what".

I didn't quite get it for a while, but it eventually made sense to me. Saved for what? Well I think the New Testament iterates time and again. Saved for the good works of God's kingdom, to meet the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry, to speak truth to power, to welcome the stranger and the homeless, to love the unloved, to convert our swords to plowshares, to proclaim justice for the weak, to announce the futility of wealth, power and success. It's what St. Paul calls the "ministry of reconciliation", where the social walls are torn down, where there is no slave nor free, male or female, Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, black or white. This doesn't happen from the top down, but begins among those who have been called and invited to participate in God's work as manifest in and through Jesus. The locus of this being what Jesus called His Church, that gathered community of disciples who are called by His name for His work in the world.

-CryptoLutheran

Montalban · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
Do they? Well that probably comes from their own misunderstanding.

You base this on what?

anada said:
I'll bet that there's people who confess sins to a priest purely out of ritual as well.

If you're talking about my church I already said that they don't confess to a priest

anada said:
It's not my system, it's God's.

I don't believe God removes free will from you.

anada · Dec 19, 2011

ViaCrucis said:
You recall that the Apostles appointed episkopoi and presbyteroi to minister to the Faithful.

Historically Christianity has asserted that bishops (episkopoi) and presbyters (presbyteroi)--which comes into English as the word priest or translated as elder--being successors of the Apostles bear the same apostolic authority. That is, as Christ ordained His Apostles to carry on His mission, ministry and authority so did the Apostles ordain bishops/presbyters to continue the apostolic ministry for the good and sake of the Church.

Thus there is a chain of succession going back to the Apostles, this notion is preserved quite early in the writings of the ancient Fathers and was considered critical in safeguarding orthodoxy. The early leaders of the Church would point to this succession going back to the Apostles as a way of saying, "We have preserved the apostolic teaching right to this very day" in contrast to those who claimed secret or new revelation or knowledge.

While I don't regard apostolic succession as dire or essential for the pastoral ministry, it certainly doesn't hurt it and I think it is quite good. Thus saying Christ gave His apostles authority but not to the bishops and presbyters of the Church (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or other) is a rather moot point. Since anyone ordained according to that historic succession by virtue of their calling retains the apostolic mandate to pastor the Faithful, which includes pronouncing the words of absolution.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah well, that's debatable.

anada · Dec 19, 2011

Montalban said:
You base this on what?

If you're talking about my church I already said that they don't confess to a priest

I don't believe God removes free will from you.

Lol, do you come on here purely to argue Montalban?

Fuzzy · Dec 19, 2011

ViaCrucis said:
I concur.

-CryptoLutheran

Thirded, though the OP was open enough to be allowed in C&WR as an outreach message.

ViaCrucis · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
Yeah well, that's debatable.

The history of apostolic succession isn't debatable. It's quite explicit in ancient Christian literature.

What I agree is debatable is whether or not apostolic succession is a requirement for the pastoral office, to which I'd say it isn't and which our Orthodox and Catholic friends would say it is.

-CryptoLutheran

Montalban · Dec 19, 2011

anada said:
Lol, do you come on here purely to argue Montalban?

People often make statements. When I ask for what basis they have that opinion they think I'm being argumentative.

I see it that they have beliefs that have no basis in fact.

anada · Dec 19, 2011

Montalban said:
People often make statements. When I ask for what basis they have that opinion they think I'm being argumentative.

I see it that they have beliefs that have no basis in fact.

I think it's more because no matter what response you recieve you keep asking. I agreed with you at one point and you tried to twist it! If you're here to play games mate, you can count me out.

My beliefs come from the Bible.

Sin No More

Newbie

Truth Seeker

777

777

Gaia's godchild

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

777

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

777

777

One by Four by Nine

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

777

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency