The Basis of God's Judgment

[Tree of Life]

Ok, but you seem to be saying that our imperfect sanctification may threaten our salvation since you maintain that justification alone is insufficient, and sanctification is necessarily included in salvation. Or is regeneration, cleansing, santifying all part of justification in the end? Is it one whole package? Does a person, once justified, have assurance of salvation?

An imperfect sanctification will not threaten our salvation. A person who displays no sanctification in their lives may have grounds to question the legitimacy of their justification and regeneration.

Once a person is justified they are as good as saved. Much clean up work needs to be done and the details need to be worked out, but they have gained entry into the kingdom of God. This does not mean that once a person is justified that they have an assurance of salvation. To be assured that we are, indeed, saved may take a long time to develop.

In Catholic theology, once a person is justified, their salvation is assured; nothing stands between them and heaven. But from that point they're expected to continue to walk in that justice, and grow in it even, impossible unless they remain in Christ and He in them. This communion is actually the essence of their justice, their spiritual life. This is where cooperation with God, working out our salvation with he who works in us, comes into play.

Would that this were the case! But sadly this is not Catholic teaching. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a justified person can lose their justification and they distinguish between initial and final justification. A person may be justified initially but not justified finally if they lose their justification along the way through mortal sin.

Within the Catholic system there can be no assurance of salvation because justification is always in question.

 

[fhansen]

An imperfect sanctification will not threaten our salvation. A person who displays no sanctification in their lives may have grounds to question the legitimacy of their justification and regeneration.

Once a person is justified they are as good as saved. Much clean up work needs to be done and the details need to be worked out, but they have gained entry into the kingdom of God. This does not mean that once a person is justified that they have an assurance of salvation. To be assured that we are, indeed, saved may take a long time to develop.



Would that this were the case! But sadly this is not Catholic teaching. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a justified person can lose their justification and they distinguish between initial and final justification. A person may be justified initially but not justified finally if they lose their justification along the way through mortal sin.

Within the Catholic system there can be no assurance of salvation because justification is always in question.

I didn’t say that man couldn’t lose his state of justice or destroy his relationship with God anew by walking in injustice. I said that at the point when he’s justified (Baptism for Catholics as that's considered the first formal public profession of faith, known as the "sacrament of faith", and an act commanded by the Lord) there’s nothing that stands between him and heaven. From the catechism:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Justification isn't always in question by Catholics; it's just not arrogantly presumed with 100% confidence as if we know what God, alone, knows with certainty. We can have a healthy guarded assurance, based on our fruits and the promises of God. God can be trusted while we're the wildcard. At the opposite end of the spectrum, taking the faith alone doctrine to its extreme, are those who believe that no amount of sin could affect their saved status, once they've come to have faith. Otherwise we have to play some mental gymnastics: the one who doesn't persevere either wasn't saved to begin with because they lacked true saving faith (and who of us can really know this anyway?), or we admit that it's possible to fall way, losing our justified, and therefore our saved, status.

 

[icxn]

When I read the title of the thread my mind went to the six expressions/actions of love mentioned in Matthew 25 based on which Christ judges who enters Heaven (the sheep) and who doesn't (the goats):

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
​

Did I miss something?

 

[redleghunter]

When I read the title of the thread my mind went to the six expressions/actions of love mentioned in Matthew 25 based on which Christ judges who enters Heaven (the sheep) and who doesn't (the goats):

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
​

Did I miss something?

I think you are on to something and I believe Charles H. Spurgeon explained it best when opining on the Evangelist's third epistle:

For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth.
—3 John 1:3

The truth was in Gaius, and Gaius walked in the truth. If the first had not been the case, the second could never have occurred; and if the second could not be said of him the first would have been a mere pretence. Truth must enter into the soul, penetrate and saturate it, or else it is of no value. Doctrines held as a matter of creed are like bread in the hand, which ministers no nourishment to the frame; but doctrine accepted by the heart, is as food digested, which, by assimilation, sustains and builds up the body. In us truth must be a living force, an active energy, an indwelling reality, a part of the woof and warp of our being. If it be in us, we cannot henceforth part with it. A man may lose his garments or his limbs, but his inward parts are vital, and cannot be torn away without absolute loss of life.

A Christian can die, but he cannot deny the truth. Now it is a rule of nature that the inward affects the outward, as light shines from the centre of the lantern through the glass: when, therefore, the truth is kindled within, its brightness soon beams forth in the outward life and conversation. It is said that the food of certain worms colours the cocoons of silk which they spin: and just so the nutriment upon which a man's inward nature lives gives a tinge to every word and deed proceeding from him. To walk in the truth, imports a life of integrity, holiness, faithfulness, and simplicity-the natural product of those principles of truth which the gospel teaches, and which the Spirit of God enables us to receive. We may judge of the secrets of the soul by their manifestation in the man's conversation. Be it ours to-day, O gracious Spirit, to be ruled and governed by Thy divine authority, so that nothing false or sinful may reign in our hearts, lest it extend its malignant influence to our daily walk among men. ​

In Matthew 25:34-40 it is the inward Light of Christ shining forth in the sheep he set apart in verse 33 who are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.(Ephesians 2:10)

 

[BBAS 64]

When I read the title of the thread my mind went to the six expressions/actions of love mentioned in Matthew 25 based on which Christ judges who enters Heaven (the sheep) and who doesn't (the goats):

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
​

Did I miss something?

Good Day, ICXN

No... Sheeps do "sheepish" things because they are sheep (cause and effect). Doing sheepish things can not make a goat a sheep.

In Him,
Bill

 

[fhansen]

When I read the title of the thread my mind went to the six expressions/actions of love mentioned in Matthew 25 based on which Christ judges who enters Heaven (the sheep) and who doesn't (the goats):

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
​

Did I miss something?

Yes, by their acts, born of love, with love born of God, they show their justice...by which they're judged. It's still a matter of choice...they could do otherwise, as many, many do.

 

[icxn]

Good Day, ICXN

No... Sheeps do "sheepish" things because they are sheep (cause and effect). Doing sheepish things can not make a goat a sheep.

In Him,
Bill

If that is the case then goats like myself are in trouble...

Lord have mercy!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Some people believe they will be judged righteous on the basis of their faith. How would you respond to these folks?

If my mind did not go blank, I would quote from Hebrews, that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Some translations use the word "captain", either way "our" faith is completely dependent on the captain, the preserver of faith. Where people get it wrong is looking at faith as something conjured within the human will, it is an autonomous view of the origin of faith in a person, and ridiculous because of the connection between faith and spirit, and that which is flesh is flesh, the flesh cannot conjure the spiritual.

 

[fhansen]

If my mind did not go blank, I would quote from Hebrews, that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Some translations use the word "captain", either way "our" faith is completely dependent on the captain, the preserver of faith. Where people get it wrong is looking at faith as something conjured within the human will, it is an autonomous view of the origin of faith in a person, and ridiculous because of the connection between faith and spirit, and that which is flesh is flesh, the flesh cannot conjure the spiritual.

In Catholicism faith is a gift, of grace, that can be accepted or rejected.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In Catholicism faith is a gift, of grace, that can be accepted or rejected.

Yes it is a gift of God, of the Spirit, and is ever rejected by the flesh unless or until God converts the sinner out of divine mercy. Our acceptance comes in after the fact God has set us free and enabled us to respond.

 

[BBAS 64]

Yes it is a gift of God, of the Spirit, and is ever rejected by the flesh unless or until God converts the sinner out of divine mercy. Our acceptance comes in after the fact God has set us free and enabled us to respond.

Because the beauty of Christ is truly irresistible and we can do no other...

 

[fhansen]

Yes it is a gift of God, of the Spirit, and is ever rejected by the flesh unless or until God converts the sinner out of divine mercy. Our acceptance comes in after the fact God has set us free and enabled us to respond.

And with this I'd disagree. He enables us to respond, but we can still refuse. We can't possibly be saved without Him, and yet we can still refuse to be saved, or turn back away from Him at any point after accepting.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And with this I'd disagree. He enables us to respond, but we can still refuse. We can't possibly be saved without Him, and yet we can still refuse to be saved, or turn back away from Him at any point after accepting.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the possibility that none of the Saints will persevere. We believe God is omniscient, that He is all knowing. From this arises the question, why would God save a person, adopt them into the family of God, yet knowing their every choice before they were even born, and yet even though they are sealed with Spirit, they are made new, set free from the bondage of sin, and yet allow the freedom to refuse to be saved, to walk away from Him who began the good work of salvation? He allows man to thwart His completing the good work He started? Sorry but I can't hang with that line of thinking when it comes to the sovereignty of God and His role in the salvation of His chosen people. The Lord's Prayer comes to mind, especially "thy will be done" and "as it is in Heaven".

 

[fhansen]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the possibility that none of the Saints will persevere. We believe God is omniscient, that He is all knowing. From this arises the question, why would God save a person, adopt them into the family of God, yet knowing their every choice before they were even born, and yet even though they are sealed with Spirit, they are made new, set free from the bondage of sin, and yet allow the freedom to refuse to be saved, to walk away from Him who began the good work of salvation? He allows man to thwart His completing the good work He started? Sorry but I can't hang with that line of thinking when it comes to the sovereignty of God and His role in the salvation of His chosen people. The Lord's Prayer comes to mind, especially "thy will be done" and "as it is in Heaven".

No one argues that the elect are... elected-and will necessarily persevere. We just maintain that we can't know with absolute certainty what God, alone, knows-whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, who the elect are IOW. I.e. we can't predict who will persevere. And I certainly can't agree with the notion that God predestines anyone to hell.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No one argues that the elect are... elected-and will necessarily persevere. We just maintain that we can't know with absolute certainty what God, alone, knows-whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, who the elect are IOW. I.e.

I think the Apostle Peter would disagree, 2 Peter 1:10

we can't predict who will persevere.

The Apostle Paul seemed to have a confidence about others when he wrote to the 1 Thessalonians 1:4 .

And I certainly can't agree with the notion that God predestines anyone to hell.

Well if it's any consolation, I did not state such. I take the singular route to predestination. However, we have to accept that God knows in advance everyone He will cast into hell. His knowledge however should not be equated with predestination, because predestination involves election which involves active selecting by God, from the foundation of the world.

 

[Thess]

The Apostle Paul seemed to have a confidence about others when he wrote to the 1 Thessalonians 1:4 .

He sure did. The two Thessalonian letters are like none other in the bible. Why? Because they had LOVE figured out! Hense, my nickname of Thess. I want to be a Thessalonian.

 

[fhansen]

I think the Apostle Peter would disagree, 2 Peter 1:10

So Peter offers some churches advice and encouragement on making efforts to make their calling and election sure (as if the possibility for failure is assumed BTW), and you make the case that everyone who heard those words are guaranteed of perseverance and therefore salvation???

The Apostle Paul seemed to have a confidence about others when he wrote to the 1 Thessalonians 1:4 .

Again, every brethren who heard those words was necessarily among the elect? That's quite the wooden interpretation there. Have you heard of hyperbole? Literary devices?

Well if it's any consolation, I did not state such. I take the singular route to predestination. However, we have to accept that God knows in advance everyone He will cast into hell. His knowledge however should not be equated with predestination, because predestination involves election which involves active selecting by God, from the foundation of the world.

Good to hear. Really

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So Peter offers some churches advice and encouragement on making efforts to make their calling and election sure (as if the possibility for failure is assumed BTW), and you make the case that everyone who heard those words are guaranteed of perseverance and therefore salvation???

Nope, he means by "sure", the elect in Christ can have confidence, without mixture of doubt.

Again, every brethren who heard those words was necessarily among the elect? That's quite the wooden interpretation there. Have you heard of hyperbole? Literary devices?

Faith comes by hearing...and the Apostle uses the equivalent of "knowing", not in shades of grey, not maybe, perhaps, or might, but to know. I really did not give an exposition, I merely responded to you with Scripture, but you seem to be keen and quick to assumptions. What I do not read in the apostles is the sort of doubt about salvation that you've expressed. What I do read is exhortation to walk with confidence and assurance, not fear and doubt.

 

[fhansen]

Nope, he means by "sure", the elect in Christ can have confidence, without mixture of doubt.



Faith comes by hearing...and the Apostle uses the equivalent of "knowing", not in shades of grey, not maybe, perhaps, or might, but to know. I really did not give an exposition, I merely responded to you with Scripture, but you seem to be keen and quick to assumptions. What I do not read in the apostles is the sort of doubt about salvation that you've expressed. What I do read is exhortation to walk with confidence and assurance, not fear and doubt.

Of course, we're exhorted, and encouraged, and admonished and warned, very often throughout the NT. Because of the very real possibility of falling back. Either way, apparently my "assumptions" were correct.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Of course, we're exhorted, and encouraged, and admonished and warned, very often throughout the NT. Because of the very real possibility of falling back. Either way, apparently my "assumptions" were correct.

More like because of the very real possibility that not everyone sitting in a pew, who partakes of services, is actually saved. Your assumptions are just that.