Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?

[JohnDeereFan]

Thanks for saying I am not smart.

Thanks for nitpicking my posts to death.

But leaving your personal comments aside, justification in theology and Scripture does not mean that you no longer serve sin. It means that God has declared you to be righteous.

Larry, I appreciate your need to be right about everything, but given the context I said it in, I stand by it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

It is no small matter to misdefine it, no matter what the context. So yes, when it comes to justification, defining it properly is not a "quibble." It is at the heart of the biblical gospel.

Actually, I didn't misdefine it. I simply said that being justified does not mean that you can sin with impugnity, but that when one is justified, the result is that he receives a new nature that no longer seeks to serve sin.

Please feel free to twist my words.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thanks for nitpicking my posts to death.

I am not nitpicking your words. Historically, for the last 500 years, there have been significant debates about justification. To misuse it, particularly in a discussion that includes Catholics is at best unwise. It is misleading as well.

Larry, I appreciate your need to be right about everything, but given the context I said it in, I stand by it.

I don't have to be right about everything. I am not right about everything. But I am right about some things.

Actually, I didn't misdefine it.

Can you show any place in Scripture that uses dikaiow the way that you used it, as "you no longer serve sin"?

I simply said that being justified does not mean that you can sin with impugnity, but that when one is justified, the result is that he receives a new nature that no longer seeks to serve sin.

I didn't see that anywhere in the discussion. Can you point me to where you said that?

Please feel free to twist my words.

If I have twisted your words, my apologies. Please show where. I have no intent to do that.

As I said, I responded merely because "justification" is at the heart of the distinction between Catholics and Biblical Christianity. If we mess that up, we have messed up the evangel, the gospel, the good news. That's why it deserves more than a passing smart aleck response to those who are concerned about the way that we use it.

You see Catholics do not deny justification. They simply define it differently. And when we use it improperly, we lend credence to their wrong use of it.

So it is important. It's not personal. I was merely clarifying the issue. Do not take offense at it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I am not nitpicking your words. Historically, for the last 500 years, there have been significant debates about justification. To misuse it, particularly in a discussion that includes Catholics is at best unwise. It is misleading as well.

I'm sorry you feel that it's "misleading" and "misusing" to explain to someone that justification is not a license to sin.

Can you show any place in Scripture that uses dikaiow the way that you used it, as "you no longer serve sin"?

First of all, as you well know, I was not defining justification, but defending justification from the idea that justification is a lisence to sin, so I'm not going to play your game of giving you ammo to claim that I "misdefined" it, when I never defined it as such in the first place.

Second, yes, Romans 6:1-7 does support my assertion that those who are jstified no longer serve sin.

If I have twisted your words, my apologies. Please show where. I have no intent to do that.

Right. And so, not meaning to twist my words, you naturally "accidentally" accused me of "misdefining" justification.

As I said, I responded merely because "justification" is at the heart of the distinction between Catholics and Biblical Christianity. If we mess that up, we have messed up the evangel, the gospel, the good news. That's why it deserves more than a passing smart aleck response to those who are concerned about the way that we use it.

Yes or no: do those who are justified serve sin?

So it is important. It's not personal. I was merely clarifying the issue. Do not take offense at it.

Then stop accusing me.

 

[EdSutton]

So how do you deal with the problem of sin after Justification?

What about it?

Being justified doesn't mean you don't sin. It means that you no longer serve sin.

Not actually. It means that you have been declared to be righteous.

True, but in the context of the statement I was responding to, it means that you no longer serve sin.

If you really want to quibble over that, OK, but I trust that everyone else is smart enough to understand what I was saying.

I have no interest in getting into any personal squabbles, and I think (or at I would hope) I'm smart enough to understand what you are saying. However, I have to agree with Pastor Larry here, who has given the proper meaning of "justified" and I have to disagree with your conclusion, for the Bible simply never says what you are implying. Hence your argument, as I see it, is a non sequitur, at best.

It may "sound good" and appealing to say that once one is justified, one will no longer serve sin, but the Bible simply does not say this, at least as far as I have seen.

Ed

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I have no interest in getting into any personal squabbles, and I think (or at I would hope) I'm smart enough to understand what you are saying. However, I have to agree with Pastor Larry here, who has given the proper meaning of "justified" and I have to disagree with your conclusion, for the Bible simply never says what you are implying. Hence your argument, as I see it, is a non sequitur, at best.

It may "sound good" and appealing to say that once one is justified, one no longer serves sin, but the Bible simply does not say this, at least as far as I have seen.

Ed

So how do you explain Romans 6:1-7?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And if you ask me when I was in Catholicism I would have opined the same, there are none so blind than those who refuse to see and that was me at that point. The RCC does not teach Salvation by Faith in Christ alone, Trent calls people who believe that accursed, but by what we do. In RCC one must go to Mass, Confession and in Christianity these works are not needed or necessary.

Indeed Salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast, nothing can save us. Not Mass, not praying to Mary hoping one gets taken to Heaven and misses purgatory. None of this stuff will save us, only the shed blood of Christ and faith in Him alone will.

So, If I have faith in Jesus. I don't need to go to church. I don't need to feed the poor, I don't need the help the sick, I don't need help the orphan or the widow. I just need faith? Right?.

BTW Catholics believe that they are saved by Faith but a faith in action which James speaks about:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James seems pretty clear. Faith must be one of Action. Just having faith is pointless with out the action. Even the theif on the cross had action:

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]"

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

He proclaimed the truth before the assembly! I think its presumptious to say I need faith alone but can do anything I want and be saved. This is clearly what James was speaking agianst. I'm still looking for where the CC is not proclaiming the gospel. There are a lot of Ad Hominem attacks on the CC but no evidence. Because there are people who are Catholic and probably do all the things you accuse them of the are those who don't and the CC doesn't teach it. The church I attend teaches against adultery yet I know for fact there are baptist involved in that practice! Should I judge the Baptist by these? I Know there are baptist that get toasted drinking. Should I likewise judge the church they go to by their behavior? No. I can look at what they teach its up to the members on how they live. The Martyrs described in Revelation knows they have not yet been avenvenged. So they are clear on what is happening here. By the way that was a Good question about John the Apostle looking at himself. But the point is that when we die we are not dead. We are still performing functions. BTW DHK quoted a verse that says "we shall be like him for we will see him face to face" We will be like Christ. And what does that mean? Jesus was the servant and taught us to serve. Here's the point. "This new commandment I give to you that you love one another" Which means service. Therefore, does my service die when my body does? God forbid! In heaven we will glorify the lord and participate in his body. Now does that mean praying for those here left in this world of sin? I don't know but its not a big jump. Can God tell me who to pray for? I'm certain. God tells me now who to pray for. Will all that stop when I die?

 

[EdSutton]

First of all, as you well know, I was not defining justification, but defending justification from the idea that justification is a lisence (sic) to sin, so I'm not going to play your game of giving you ammo to claim that I "misdefined" it, when I never defined it as such in the first place.

Second, yes, Romans 6:1-7 does support my assertion that those who are jstified (sic) no longer serve sin.So how do you explain Romans 6:1-7?

No. 1., I do not recall anyone claiming (at least on this thread) "that justification is a license to sin' in the first place, this oft-erected "straw-man" notwithstanding.

No. 2, Rom. 6:1-7 does not even mention "justified" or "justification" but rather says this.

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. (Rom. 6:1-7 - NKJV)

Paul is exhorting "holy living" in vs. 1 & 2; referring to our position 'in Christ' in vs. 3 - 4b, & 5; using this position as the basis for other exhortations to a 'godly walk' in 4c & 6c, by referring to the results (5a & b); and making the conclusion that we are freed from sin, in our standing in vs.7. The phrase "του μηκετι δουλευειν ημας τη αμαρτια" carries the idea of being a slave or "bond-servant" (which incidentally, Tyndale recognized, rendering it as "that hence forth we shuld not be servauntes of synne" even though this somehow seemed to get lost in the shuffle with Coverdale and following, for about 3 1/2 centuries), and refers to one's 'standing' or position, and not merely to one's 'actions' in acquiescing to sin.

There is a subtle idea that seems to get carried into our Biblical understanding that somehow, one 'must' have some undefined better lifestyle when one is a Christian. While I (and the Bible) agree that we definitely should have this better lifestyle, as it were, it simply does not follow that one must have this, in order to be a Christian. That "should" (or our works) is the basis for numerous exhortations to holy living, throughout both the OT and the NT. Yet our justification is said to be on the sole basis of believe/faith, and that totally apart from our works, as per Rom. 4:1-8. Back to the main point.

I believe the NKJV, and the other versions that carry this import in Rom. 6:6 are more accurate, here. At least, that is how these opening verses of Rom. 7 generally seem to read, as I see them.

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have no interest in getting into any personal squabbles, and I think (or at I would hope) I'm smart enough to understand what you are saying. However, I have to agree with Pastor Larry here, who has given the proper meaning of "justified" and I have to disagree with your conclusion, for the Bible simply never says what you are implying. Hence your argument, as I see it, is a non sequitur, at best.

It may "sound good" and appealing to say that once one is justified, one will no longer serve sin, but the Bible simply does not say this, at least as far as I have seen.

Ed

This is true but Paul says to strive to be perfect. I think many "once they believe" fail to stive so much. And I'm still thinking that the greek term can mean to be made righteous.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

No. 2, Rom. 6:1-7 does not even mention "justified" or "justification"

OK: do people who have been justified serve sin or not? It's a simple question. There are only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".

While I (and the Bible) agree that we definitely should have this better lifestyle, as it were, it simply does not follow that one must have this, in order to be a Christian.

Really? So then we can continue to serve sin?

What happened to the new nature we were supposed to receive when we were born again?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I'm sorry you feel that it's "misleading" and "misusing" to explain to someone that justification is not a license to sin.

I don't think that is misleading or misusing justification. As I read, that's not what you said. I asked where you said that.

First of all, as you well know, I was not defining justification

I don't know what. All I know is what you said. That's what I responded to, and it wasn't to attack you (as you seem bent on doing to me), but to clarify.

Second, yes, Romans 6:1-7 does support my assertion that those who are jstified no longer serve sin.

I think the point technically is that those who are justified are no longer under sin's dominion. We can "serve" sin if we present our members to sin. But that passage is not about justification, per se, but about the results of union/identity with Christ.

Right. And so, not meaning to twist my words, you naturally "accidentally" accused me of "misdefining" justification.

You said, "Justification does not mean ..." The word "mean" often speaks of a definition of something.

Yes or no: do those who are justified serve sin?

They can; they don't have to.

Then stop accusing me.

I didn't. I think I have been pretty clear here that I was clarifying the issue of justification.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Really? So then we can continue to serve sin?

Romans 6:12-13 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

What happened to the new nature we were supposed to receive when we were born again?

Nothing. The old man (who we were in Adam) is dead. The old nature is not. We now have a new nature and an old nature. This is why Paul tells us to "put off" the things of the old way and put on the new way.

As Rom 6 makes clear, it is still possible for a believer to serve sin. But unlike an unbeliever, he has another option. He does not have to serve sin.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

They can; they don't have to.

The Bible says they can't.

I didn't. I think I have been pretty clear here that I was clarifying the issue of justification.

And I think I was very clear about what I was saying.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Romans 6:12-13 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Nothing. The old man (who we were in Adam) is dead. The old nature is not. We now have a new nature and an old nature. This is why Paul tells us to "put off" the things of the old way and put on the new way.

As Rom 6 makes clear, it is still possible for a believer to serve sin. But unlike an unbeliever, he has another option. He does not have to serve sin.

Sorry, but 1 John says different:

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

 

[EdSutton]

OK: do people who have been justified serve sin or not? It's a simple question. There are only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".

The 'problem' is not with the answers, the 'problem' is with the question. I'll illustrate with three questions of my own to you, all of which have only the same two possible answers.

1.) "Are you still boot-legging?"

2.) "Have you finally stopped beating your wife?"

3.) "Did you ever get caught for the robbery of that bank?"

What is wrong with these questions, here? All of them have 'only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".'

Really? So then we can continue to serve sin?

See above.

What happened to the new nature we were supposed to receive when we were born again?

We did receive that new nature, when we became a new creation. However, that new nature is not in the business of 'improving' the old nature, even one whit. Rather, they are in a continual state of war, one with another. Read the rest of Rom. 6 and 7. Note especially (NKJV, unless noted):

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. (Rom. 6:15)

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom. 7:14-25)

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Gal. 5:16-17, 25 )

1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, (Eph. 4:1)

Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit[b]is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. (Eph. 5:8b-10)


11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, (I Pet. 2:11)

7Children, let no man lead you astray; he that practises righteousness is righteous, even as *he* is righteous. 8He that practises sin is of the devil; for from [the] beginning the devil sins. To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil.
9Whoever has been begotten of God does not practise sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.
10In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. Whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, and he who does not love his brother.(I Jn. 3:7-10 - DBY)

Seems clear enough to me.

Ed

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Bible says they can't.

So why does Paul say "Don't do it" if they can't? Why does Paul present a clear situation in which they can? What do you think Rom 6:12ff. mean?

... Sorry, but 1 John says different:

Actually 1 John doesn't say that.

First, in 2:1, John plainly admits that we can sin. Second, the passage you refer to is either talking about the consistent practice of sin (which experience would lead us away from this interpretation), or using a wisdom type statement, much like when a father says to his child "You can't talk to your mother that say." Well, the child can talk to his mother that way; in fact, he just did. But the father means, "That's not acceptable."

The verse the way you read it would lead to sinless perfection. We konw that it doesn't mean that.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The 'problem' is not with the answers, the 'problem' is with the question. I'll illustrate with three questions of my own to you, all of which have only the same two possible answers.

1.) "Are you still boot-legging?"

2.) "Have you finally stopped beating your wife?"

3.) "Did you ever get caught for the robbery of that bank?"

What is wrong with these questions, here? All of them have 'only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".'See above.

Gotta love liberals.

The difference, of course is that each of those are loaded questions, intended to trap the answerer into giving a pre-determined answer.

The only two answers to the question I asked were "yes, a justified person can still serve sin" or "no, a justified person cannot serve sin".

 

[JohnDeereFan]

So why does Paul say "Don't do it" if they can't? Why does Paul present a clear situation in which they can? What do you think Rom 6:12ff. mean?

Actually 1 John doesn't say that.

Actually, it does. I quoted it verbatem.

First, in 2:1, John plainly admits that we can sin. Second, the passage you refer to is either talking about the consistent practice of sin

Of course. You said that we can continue to sin, and so I quoted a passage that talks about ongoing sin. It ain't exactly rocket science, Larry.

(which experience would lead us away from this interpretation)

"Experience"? Really? I guess I'm not familiar with the "experience" school of hermeneutics.

The verse the way you read it would lead to sinless perfection. We konw that it doesn't mean that.

No, what it would lead to is the understanding that one cannot continue to serve sin and have any assurance of his salvation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, it does. I quoted it verbatem.

Yes, but did you quote it as John intended it? You got upset when you thought I used your words wrongly. But did you use his rightly?

Of course. You said that we can continue to sin, and so I quoted a passage that talks about ongoing sin. It ain't exactly rocket science, Larry.

It's certainly not. But I have to admit that I missed the word "ongoing" in that passage. Can you help me find it?

"Experience"? Really? I guess I'm not familiar with the "experience" school of hermeneutics.

Paul used it in Rom 7 to make the very point I am making. He also made it theologically in Romans 6 (which you haven't addressed ... What do you think Romans 6:12ff mean?).

No, what it would lead to is the understanding that one cannot continue to serve sin and have any assurance of his salvation.

Notice how you just changed the topic. Your question was can a believer serve sin. Now you changed it to having assurance. I agree that a believer can't have assurance of salvation while involved in ongoing, unrepentant sin. But that wasn't what you were talking about.

Perhaps we should have started with a more foundational question: What does it mean to "serve sin"? What exactly are you talking about?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes, but did you quote it as John intended it? You got upset when you thought I used your words wrongly. But did you use his rightly?

It's certainly not. But I have to admit that I missed the word "ongoing" in that passage. Can you help me find it?

Paul used it in Rom 7 to make the very point I am making. He also made it theologically in Romans 6 (which you haven't addressed ... What do you think Romans 6:12ff mean?).

Notice how you just changed the topic. Your question was can a believer serve sin. Now you changed it to having assurance. I agree that a believer can't have assurance of salvation while involved in ongoing, unrepentant sin. But that wasn't what you were talking about.

Perhaps we should have started with a more foundational question: What does it mean to "serve sin"? What exactly are you talking about?

OK. I thought you were sincere, but now I see that you're just playing games.