Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

[Thinkingstuff]

I did no such thing! I have simply followed YOUR LEAD in this matter and responded to YOUR STATEMENTS in regard to the very same things you have charged me with believing. I have never even used the word "Protestant" as that was your expression in a post I responded to. Go back and look, I quoted you every time and simply responded to what you said..

Certainly, you quoted me. That is true. However, that does not mean you kept on track, answered my questions, proposed and idea related to my question, or changed definitions to suit your need. I'm sorry but that is not done by an honest broker. On one hand you say Faith is not a lone but stands amid a merriad of other things that are part of salvation and then you claim thats not what you said. Or that works are an out pouring of faith already attained and then indicate that is not what you are saying. Then you limit my response capability to either yes or no which as I've explained is an attempt to trap me into your paradigm. These tactics are not those of a true broker for discussion. I am simply answering the questions put forth by Jeremiah as he asks me. My answers are clear. Such as when he asked that if a Catholic were to do all the things the church requires would he be saved? My succinct answer is not if he does not have faith. Because faith is the crux of the issue. Certainly there are superstitious Catholics that have no faith but legalistically hold to the precepts of the Chruch. These no more benefit from sacraments or grace or salvation than any other person undisposed towards God. Works do not save. Faith does. But Faith does not stand alone it is just one part of a greater whole. Faith has its natural and necissary fruit which are good works ie feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison. You keep insisting we are speaking about ceremonial works that Paul discurages in the NT and I keep insisting that is not it. If someone has faith and didn't get baptized but wanted to be baptized they can still be saved. I've been clear.

Again, you falsely accuse me of being dishonest. I forgave you for the past but you keep on falsely accusing me and keep on adding more falsehoods.

I'm glad you can forgive me. However, I'm a straight shooter and I have just explained in the above paragraph why I believe you were being dishonest. If I am wrong then please explain why on your insistance on my acceptance of your definition which seemed to change with each post. As I said, I believe you were confused. Why use the Cheep trick of only accepting a yes or no in a faulty paradigm? The pharasees attempted these things to trick Jesus like with should be pay taxes to Caesar Yes or No? Jesus answered neither yes or no but simply said give to Caesar what is his and give to God what is his. I'm not Jesus but certainly I can use his example.

The next time you falsely accuse me, I will go back and get every quote you made and show that I simply responded to your lead, I followed YOUR LINE OF THINKING and YOUR ACCUSATONS.

Please do and we will go through each one.
For instance lets look at this progression. In post 12 I said

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith

Which says nothing of faithfulness but look at how you change and modify what I mean by how you ask the question in your post 13

Does Ephesians 2:8 say "by grace are ye saved BY FAITHFULNESS that bestows salvation upon us as a gift"? Or does it say "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God"????

My statement is clear. Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith. Did I distinguish between faithfulness or even such a thing as this verse even responded to? No. You change the intent of what I said by asking a question falsly (yes thats right FALSLY? indicating I've said something I hadn't. In short you beg the question that was never asked to begin with. Look further into the very same post I said specifically in post 12

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

and your response does the exact same thing it begs the question or answers a statement never made to begin with look at what you said in post 13

So you make no distinction between "faith" that may be placed in someone or something and "faithfulness" which is descriptive of your own person?

at what point in our conversation did I say I make no distinction between faith and faithfulness? I never implied it. I suggested that sanctification is an important part of our faith and that our actions are a natural and necessary out flow from our faith. You answers by begging a different question and that is not honest. And to add insult to injury based on statements never made or suggest other than by your insinuation you summerize your belief as though it were fact based on the non existant conversation!!!! Would you like me to show you more? This is what I find problematic with our (you and I) discussion. Again. I've attempted no more in this thread than to answer questions. I don't like the attempt to be lead by the nose (yes and no questions) or putting what I said in a totally different context other than what I've said. Which is why I made those statements to you about not being an honest broker for discussion.

You have yet to answer the question I asked.

I don't have to answer any question you have until you wish to disucuss honestly without perverting what I said or beg questions I never asked. In fact, I would like to answer Jeremiah and I am prepared to agree to disagree but it will be based on something I actually believe not something put on to me by your suggestion.

I didn't ask what some counsel in the past said but I asked about your believe in the Catholic Catechism's expression of the church and sacaments role in salvation.

Again this question here is beyond the matter Jeremiah and I have discussed. Or again even you and I have discussed. Its seems you have a laundry list which you want me to respond to but will only take it on your terms. This question is not the same question as you asked before about how the Catholic Church looks at salvation out side the Church. So do you really want an answer or just check off your box of laundry list questions that have nothing to do with the discussion current?

Look, I have dealt with religious people long enough to know they can be so slippery like a Politician and their choice of terms that you must nail them down or else you go in circles or worse yet you accept their carefully worded foundations without challenging what those terms mean.

I have been clear to you and to everyone else. I have not hidden behind my words but explain succintly what it is I think. You seem to already have made an opinion of my condition whether saved or not, whether religious or spiritual, whether Spirit filled or not. Why then should I answer you since you've already made your mind. And since this is the case you don't want discussion but to espouse your theology. I'm clear on my intentions are you?

So you are saying that grace must be received from the Roman Catholic Church regardless if you are a member or not in order to be saved and that is what the catechism teaches? In other words, without grace received from the Roman Catholic Church you cannot be saved whether you are a member or not a member? Is that right? That is exactly how I read the Catechism

See how you miss interpret and misapply what has been clearly given to you? How can I explain anything to a person who already has an opinion? What the Catholic Church teaches is that Jesus Christ establishes one Church by which and through whom he administers grace to believers and naturally believers not members of the visible church obtain the outflows of grace that naturally outflows from the church. For instance if you believe in Trinity a teaching of the Church and you hold to the incarnation, virgin birth, death and resurrection of our Lord since this has been given to the Church and flows from it to the seperated members (protestants) that have adopted these beliefs for their own the natural grace of them (these consistently held beliefs) also flows from the church to them (protestants). Therefore reading the scriptures which has a natural grace to it as well as wisdom which is given to the chruch naturally flows to those who revere it and study it for their salvation. And yes these graces can effect salvation for those outside the visible church. That is what it is actually saying. However, by not being a part of the Church the Catholic church believes that non-members are depriving themselves of the fulness of graces available to all believers and much of the divine life is missed out on whether that person knows it or not. However, salvation is not witheld from that person.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:

Yes, but mark,

Ignatius,
“The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)”;

Irenaeus,
“It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)” …

Both, STOP, ‘divine succession’ with “THOSE presbyters who ARE in the Church who have their succession FROM THE APOSTLES”; Ignatius even BEFORE “those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession FROM the apostles”, WITH, “THE APOSTLES”.

You're going to have to explain that better. Irenaeus does not "stop" succession. But catagorizes it apart from those who don't have it and therefore are heretics. Ignatius clearly defines and accepst succession in the passage you quoted. He does not "stop" it either. Put those two passages together and it seems to say apart from succession you have heresies.

 

[The Biblicist]

Certainly, you quoted me. That is true. However, that does not mean you kept on track, answered my questions, proposed and idea related to my question, or changed definitions to suit your need. I'm sorry but that is not done by an honest broker.

After reading this post you are either confused or you are being dishonest. I quoted one aspect of your very long posts as a summary quotation of that whole post. My responses were always in keeping with YOUR WHOLE POST and I will prove it below.

On one hand you say Faith is not a lone but stands amid a merriad of other things that are part of salvation and then you claim thats not what you said.

I said no such thing! I repeatedly made a clear distinction between various aspects under the general unbrella term salvation demanding each aspect is a complete unit but has a chronological and logical relationship with all other aspects. One aspect is justification by faith and it is without works. However, another aspect is regeneration that produces good works. They are not to be confused with each other but both come under the unbrella term "salvation" and both have logical relationship with each other and in regard to time they are contemporaneous. Hence, where there is justification without works there is also regeneration producing works. The issue is the source of the works. Such good works are not inclusive of justification by faith but of regeneration.

I have told you this over and over and so there is no excuse to pretend that I made no distinction and provided no rational explanation of my position. However, that is precisely what you have done to justify yourself and that sir is the crux of dishonesty.

Or that works are an out pouring of faith already attained and then indicate that is not what you are saying.

Where have I ever said that works are "an outpouring of faith"????? I have repeatedly stated that works are the product of regeneration never of justification by faith. I have only said where there is justification by faith there is also in addition to it a regenerative condition being manifested by "good works." I don't confuse the two but I don't separate them in regard to time application as they are contemporary. I don't contribute "works" as the cause or instrumental cause for either but rather "good works" is only the consequence of new nature by new birth. I don't place justification or new birth as consequences of ordinances or sacraments. I don't place faith as consequental to sacraments/ordinances. I don't make faith, the word of God, sacraments/ordiances to be efficatious by any church. All these things are characteristic of Catholic soteriology not mine and anyone with eyes in their head can see clearly they are not one and the same but polar opposites and that is precisely the point which I demanded a "yes" or "no" from you to either embrace or deny one or the other instead of trying to play the game of "you don't understand what the Catholic church teaches" or "you are confused" etc.

Then you limit my response capability to either yes or no which as I've explained is an attempt to trap me into your paradigm.

You know fully well that my position is that works on the part of the justified, including church membership, ordinances or in your case "sacraments" play no part whatsoever in obtaining entrance into heaven or securing eternal life or passing any future judgement. You know it! You know that I believe that justificaition by faith and regeneration obtain eternal salvation RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT and that although "good" works always accompany regeneration (Eph. 2:8-10) they serve a completely different purpose in God's plan of "salvation" other than obtaining/securing eternal life.
You know fully well that this is not the case in Catholic Soteriology. In Catholic Soteriology YOUR WORKS serve a completely different purpose. Indeed, in Catholic Soteriology it is the church and its sacraments that serve to communicate justifying grace which without there is no securing/obtaining eternal life and heaven.

You know this, and you know that what I have presented is completely OPPOSITE to Catholic soteriology at this very point. However, you respond to my posts as though I don't understand Catholic soteriology in this point of difference between us and though I really don't make any clear and detailed distnction between justification without works and regeneration and though I confuse justification and regeneration or that I am denying one or the other. That sir is dishonesty and "these tactics are not those of a true broker for discussion."

You keep insisting we are speaking about ceremonial works that Paul discurages in the NT and I keep insisting that is not it. If someone has faith and didn't get baptized but wanted to be baptized they can still be saved. I've been clear.

Look at your careful choice of terms "but WANTED to be baptized." You are not denying that baptism is essential to salvation. You are only denying it is not essential IF and ONLY IF a person in good faith WANTS to be baptized but providentially is hindered. This is the kind of silly word games you play and such word games are the height of deception and dishonesty.

Rome's view of sacraments is identical in theological substance to ceremonial ordinances which were abolished by the New Covenant.

However, I'm a straight shooter and I have just explained in the above paragraph why I believe you were being dishonest.

Your explanation is simply not based upon the facts. Well, If I have not explained to you by this point in this post then no explanation will help you.

Please do and we will go through each one.
For instance lets look at this progression. In post 12 I said Which says nothing of faithfulness but look at how you change and modify what I mean by how you ask the question in your post 13 My statement is clear. Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith.

I selected your closing statement in Post 12 because it was a conclusion to your whole post. I did not want to quote your WHOLE post. You certainly did make your position clear about "salation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith" IF it is interpreted by your WHOLE post.

For example, take the phrase that just preceded your statement in post 12 followed by Jeremiahs assertion and your response:


If Faith is not expressing itself then you must question that faith. ...... Which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works.

Quote:
when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. - Jeremiah


Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

This is how you statement must be defined by its immediate preceding context. This is why I charged you with defining "faith" to be "Faithfulness."

Jeremiah charged you with adding works as a requirement of salvation and you agreed with him that works do "merit salvation" just as long as they fit your requirment that works "acting in faith." You went on to say that "sanctification is...part of faith." That sir, demands that in your definition of "faith" EQUALS "faithfulness" or is inclusive of sanctification by works.

So, it is not true when you go on to say:

 

[The Biblicist]

After reading this post you are either confused or you are being dishonest. I quoted one aspect of your very long posts as a summary quotation of that whole post. My responses were always in keeping with YOUR WHOLE POST and I will prove it below.



I said no such thing! I repeatedly made a clear distinction between various aspects under the general unbrella term salvation demanding each aspect is a complete unit but has a chronological and logical relationship with all other aspects. One aspect is justification by faith and it is without works. However, another aspect is regeneration that produces good works. They are not to be confused with each other but both come under the unbrella term "salvation" and both have logical relationship with each other and in regard to time they are contemporaneous. Hence, where there is justification without works there is also regeneration producing works. The issue is the source of the works. Such good works are not inclusive of justification by faith but of regeneration.

I have told you this over and over and so there is no excuse to pretend that I made no distinction and provided no rational explanation of my position. However, that is precisely what you have done to justify yourself and that sir is the crux of dishonesty.



Where have I ever said that works are "an outpouring of faith"????? I have repeatedly stated that works are the product of regeneration never of justification by faith. I have only said where there is justification by faith there is also in addition to it a regenerative condition being manifested by "good works." I don't confuse the two but I don't separate them in regard to time application as they are contemporary. I don't contribute "works" as the cause or instrumental cause for either but rather "good works" is only the consequence of new nature by new birth. I don't place justification or new birth as consequences of ordinances or sacraments. I don't place faith as consequental to sacraments/ordinances. I don't make faith, the word of God, sacraments/ordiances to be efficatious by any church. All these things are characteristic of Catholic soteriology not mine and anyone with eyes in their head can see clearly they are not one and the same but polar opposites and that is precisely the point which I demanded a "yes" or "no" from you to either embrace or deny one or the other instead of trying to play the game of "you don't understand what the Catholic church teaches" or "you are confused" etc.




You know fully well that my position is that works on the part of the justified, including church membership, ordinances or in your case "sacraments" play no part whatsoever in obtaining entrance into heaven or securing eternal life or passing any future judgement. You know it! You know that I believe that justificaition by faith and regeneration obtain eternal salvation RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT and that although "good" works always accompany regeneration (Eph. 2:8-10) they serve a completely different purpose in God's plan of "salvation" other than obtaining/securing eternal life.
You know fully well that this is not the case in Catholic Soteriology. In Catholic Soteriology YOUR WORKS serve a completely different purpose. Indeed, in Catholic Soteriology it is the church and its sacraments that serve to communicate justifying grace which without there is no securing/obtaining eternal life and heaven.

You know this, and you know that what I have presented is completely OPPOSITE to Catholic soteriology at this very point. However, you respond to my posts as though I don't understand Catholic soteriology in this point of difference between us and though I really don't make any clear and detailed distnction between justification without works and regeneration and though I confuse justification and regeneration or that I am denying one or the other. That sir is dishonesty and "these tactics are not those of a true broker for discussion."




Look at your careful choice of terms "but WANTED to be baptized." You are not denying that baptism is essential to salvation. You are only denying it is not essential IF and ONLY IF a person in good faith WANTS to be baptized but providentially is hindered. This is the kind of silly word games you play and such word games are the height of deception and dishonesty.

Rome's view of sacraments is identical in theological substance to ceremonial ordinances which were abolished by the New Covenant.



Your explanation is simply not based upon the facts. Well, If I have not explained to you by this point in this post then no explanation will help you.



I selected your closing statement in Post 12 because it was a conclusion to your whole post. I did not want to quote your WHOLE post. You certainly did make your position clear about "salation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith" IF it is interpreted by your WHOLE post.

For example, take the phrase that just preceded your statement in post 12 followed by Jeremiahs assertion and your response:


If Faith is not expressing itself then you must question that faith. ...... Which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works.

Quote:
when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. - Jeremiah


Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

This is how you statement must be defined by its immediate preceding context. This is why I charged you with defining "faith" to be "Faithfulness."

Jeremiah charged you with adding works as a requirement of salvation and you agreed with him that works do "merit salvation" just as long as they fit your requirment that works "acting in faith." You went on to say that "sanctification is...part of faith." That sir, demands that in your definition of "faith" EQUALS "faithfulness" or is inclusive of sanctification by works.

So, it is not true when you go on to say:

"this question here is beyond the matter Jeremiah and I have discussed.

My responses are dead on to your statements and you know it. Instead of bing a honest broker for Rome you are attempting to avoid the real issues by distracting readers with nonsensical claims that I don't understand Catholic Soteriology, I don't understand my own soteriology but am confused, I'm changing the subjects, I'm accusing you of things you don't believe, etc., etc. and other plain false accusations.

Stop playing silly word games. Stop making false accusations that I am confused and don't understand my own position or I don't understand your position. If anyone is confused or is not being an "honest broker" it is you.


If you are confused or misunderstood what I beleive then let me spell it out in language you cannot possibly misunderstand unless you intentionally are determined to pervert what I am saying.

1. Justification and regeneration are not the same in nature but occur at the same time and are both under the umbrella term "salvation."

2. Where there is justification by faith there is also regeneration as they co-exist but are different in nature and different aspects of salvation

3. Justification before God is "without works" but regeneration produces good works.

4. Justification has to do with your position "in Christ" in heaven but regeneration has to do with your spiritual condition on earth.

5. Regeneration produces good works or progressive sanctification which is neither part or parcel with justification by faith. Hence sanctification is inclusive of your works but that is not true of justification before God.

6. Regeneration, justification, progressive sanctification are all distinctly different in regard to their individual respective nature and logical relationship to each other but they do not exist apart from each other and their design and purpose is distinct from each other in the overall purpose of "salvation."


Don't forget #6 when you come back parsing what I have said.

Now, I do understand precisely what Rome teaches and let me spell it out in my own terminology.

1. The Catholic Church gives efficacy to the Word, sacraments and good works to those inside as well as outside the physical boundaries of the church.

2. There is no salvation apart from baptism except for those who would be baptized if they could be but are providentially hindered either by opportunity or instruction.

3. That justification by faith is not without works but is inclusive of our own good works rather than the product of regeneration through faithfulness or what is progressive sanctification completed in glorification.


Now, we can go forward and honestly deal with the differences or we can continue to play this silly word game and equally silly denial game.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My responses are dead on to your statements and you know it.

They are not as I have shown you but two examples. I may even continue using your self quoted long post.

Instead of bing a honest broker for Rome you are attempting to avoid the real issues

Tell me one issue I have avoided. When asked plainly and with out false paradigm (yes,no answer).

Stop playing silly word games. Stop making false accusations that I am confused and don't understand my own position or I don't understand your position. If anyone is confused or is not being an "honest broker" it is you.

I clearly haven't as anyone reading this thread knows. You are the one who detracts.

If you are confused or misunderstood what I beleive then let me spell it out in language you cannot possibly misunderstand unless you intentionally are determined to pervert what I am saying.

I understand and when I am confused or am uncertain I have asked for clarification. You have on the other hand redefined terms. this is also been recorded. You want to navigate the thread (derail it) into your sermonizing of a point which 1) is ill-conscieved 2) has nothing to do with what I have said or a response to what I have said. and 3) Is asked with a wrong premise. For instance I never said anything about regeneration. But answered Jeremiah's question succinctly. I would rather stay on track with the conversation or at least be honest and not make it seem as you are responding to me by quoting me. Just say "Well, I have questions about these aspects of the Catholic Faith. I understand it has nothing to do with this current discussion." I may even feel abliged to answer you. But at least this way you are being honest. And again don't quote me out of context.

It is clear to me you are set on pontificating. I've shown you how change the subject, beg a question I didn't ask. And you insist on continuing. Until you become and honest broker I will no longer respond to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

They are not as I have shown you but two examples. I may even continue using your self quoted long post.

Tell me one issue I have avoided. When asked plainly and with out false paradigm (yes,no answer).

I clearly haven't as anyone reading this thread knows. You are the one who detracts.


I understand and when I am confused or am uncertain I have asked for clarification. You have on the other hand redefined terms. this is also been recorded. You want to navigate the thread (derail it) into your sermonizing of a point which 1) is ill-conscieved 2) has nothing to do with what I have said or a response to what I have said. and 3) Is asked with a wrong premise. For instance I never said anything about regeneration. But answered Jeremiah's question succinctly. I would rather stay on track with the conversation or at least be honest and not make it seem as you are responding to me by quoting me. Just say "Well, I have questions about these aspects of the Catholic Faith. I understand it has nothing to do with this current discussion." I may even feel abliged to answer you. But at least this way you are being honest. And again don't quote me out of context.

It is clear to me you are set on pontificating. I've shown you how change the subject, beg a question I didn't ask. And you insist on continuing. Until you become and honest broker I will no longer respond to you.

All fine sounding accusations but where is the beef? I took your challenge on your post #12 and proved my point. Where is your evidence to back up any of your accusations???

I am the one who introduced regeneration in order to distinguish what I believe in contrast to what you believe about justification and your accusation that my definition of justificaiton was confused.

Don't you understand that in order to confront you wrong views of justification that the right views must be pointed out? Just because you didn't mention "regeneration" does not mean that my mention changes the subject but is necessary to define why your view of justification by works is erroneous.

Every one of your charges are completely baseless. The fact of the matter is that you want to determine the paradigm for discussion by restricting it to your own interpretative mold. Only a fool would stay within such boundaries to discuss DIFFERENCES of interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

They are not as I have shown you but two examples. I may even continue using your self quoted long post.

Again, accusation without evidence. It is also a false accusation as I produced the context of your statement in post 12 and showed that you defined justifying faith to be inclusive of works or what is the definition of "faithfulness"!

Again, your answer to Jeremiahs' assertion precedes and therefore sets forth the qualifying context for defining you statment which follows it. Here it is again - Here is the beef:

Quote:
when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. - Jeremiah

Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith. - TS


Jeremiah's assertion is clear as it is the same assertion I am making.

Your answer is equally clear as it proves the very ground for my charge that you define justification by faith as inclusive of faithfulness or works.

You admit that works do merit salvation just as long as they are not "APART FROM ACTING IN FAITH." You admit that this position is equal to "sanctification" as an important "PART OF FAITH."

Hence, the next statement you make when you say in response to Epheisans 2:8:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith. You can't earn it. There is no contention here with the Catholic faith about this. However, does this mean we live in continual rebelion? No. Our faith affects our sanctification and our lives are submitted in obedience. - TS

When you say "you can't earn it" you mean precisely as you previously qualified in regard to works "APART FROM ACTING FAITH" but works not apart from acting faith "do merit salvation." Hence, works "do merit salvation" and this is "PART OF FAITH." Hence, you are ultimately defining Ephesians 2:8 "by grace are ye saved through faith" to be inclusive of FAITHFULNESS or works that are "PART OF FAITH."

You are the one playing games here. Either sanctification by works is "PART OF FAITH" or it is not! Which is it? Are you going to deny that sanctification by works = faithfulness to God???????????

Quit playing word games and be honest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All fine sounding accusations but where is the beef? I took your challenge on your post #12 and proved my point. Where is your evidence to back up any of your accusations???

How by pontificating a point I never made?

I am the one who introduced regeneration

My point exactly!!!

in order to distinguish what I believe in contrast to what you believe about justification and your accusation that my definition of justificaiton was confused

Which had nothing to do with the discussion. I already explained my view. You want to redefine what I said. Thats a no go with me.

Don't you understand that in order to confront you wrong views of justification that the right views must be pointed out?

I don't know what your view of justification is because you keep changing it just to differ with me. Want me to show you that to?

Every one of your charges are completely baseless.

Not at all!!! As I have shown.

And the fact I keep answering you disappoints myself. BE HONEST MAN. JUST SAY YOU HAVE A BEEF WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND WANT TO MAKE A LAUNDRY LIST. Whether you are accurate is another question and that it doesn't apply to this thread is another. Start your own thread and list each beef and see if its responded to. and if so Bully for you. But in the End Catholics will feel that in the end your points don't resonate with the facts as they see them because some of them are your interpretation and what authority do you have?

 

[The Biblicist]

How by pontificating a point I never made?

My point exactly!!!
Which had nothing to do with the discussion. I already explained my view. You want to redefine what I said. Thats a no go with me.

I don't know what your view of justification is because you keep changing it just to differ with me. Want me to show you that to?
Not at all!!! As I have shown.

And the fact I keep answering you disappoints myself. BE HONEST MAN. JUST SAY YOU HAVE A BEEF WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND WANT TO MAKE A LAUNDRY LIST. Whether you are accurate is another question and that it doesn't apply to this thread is another. Start your own thread and list each beef and see if its responded to. and if so Bully for you. But in the End Catholics will feel that in the end your points don't resonate with the facts as they see them because some of them are your interpretation and what authority do you have?

You my friend are a very dishonest and deceptive individual as far as I am concerned. I will have no further conversation with you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm dihonest huh? Look at how you try to justify your activities

For example, take the phrase that just preceded your statement in post 12 followed by Jeremiahs assertion and your response:


If Faith is not expressing itself then you must question that faith. ...... Which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works.Quote:

You purposely left out the word sanctification because you and I know that what I said was that "Sanctification, which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works." That one word changes the whole context. You purposely did away with that.

when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. - Jeremiah


Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

I was speaking directly to faith and sanctification as it is in context with my statements about sanctifying grace you then try to redefine what it is I said

This is how you statement must be defined by its immediate preceding context. This is why I charged you with defining "faith" to be "Faithfulness."

Something I hadn't spoken to. That too is dishonest.

Jeremiah charged you with adding works as a requirement of salvation and you agreed with him that works do "merit salvation" just as long as they fit your requirment that works "acting in faith."

Aha! I never said that. You made that up! I said works do not merit salvation. and that works are a natural and necissary result of faith which leads to sanctification which is important aspect of our faith. See how you twist things?

You went on to say that "sanctification is...part of faith." That sir, demands that in your definition of "faith" EQUALS "faithfulness" or is inclusive of sanctification by works.

Quote me entirely in context Sir or you are indeed dishonest!!!!

So, it is not true when you go on to say:

As I've shown you once again how you are not an honest broker and now try to turn the tables. Admit it you are caught in your statements!!!!

 

[percho]

One Post

MO

Justification + Sanctification brings about salvation = regeneration.

 

[lakeside]

GE:

Yes, but mark,

Ignatius,
“The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)”;

Irenaeus,
“It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)” …

Both, STOP, ‘divine succession’ with “THOSE presbyters who ARE in the Church who have their succession FROM THE APOSTLES”; Ignatius even BEFORE “those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession FROM the apostles”, WITH, “THE APOSTLES”.

Gerhard, and Irenaeus also wrote this :

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

hope that clears things up for you , God Bless, barry

 

[Jeremiah2911]

I want to clarify good works do not merit salvation.

Hello again TS, finally able to read through some of your posts.....I totally agree with your statement, but can you tell me what, in the RCC's view, does merit salvation? I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9--it is grace, a gift.....works [no matter how what when or where] cannot be involved in the salvation of ones soul by Scripture definition

You need to explain how. I am not saying that my works merit salvation. But that in an effort to make me more Christ like I must work on my sanctification. Because the end - goal of Salvation is not just to get us into heaven but heaven into us.

We have a different view of definitions here.....the end goal of salvation IS Heaven--the one who does the saving WILL get us there! Sanctification is defined three different ways in the NT--by the Spirit, the Blood, and the Word.....the Spirit sanctifies us at Salvation, the Blood [judicial] at Salvation, the Word deals with our daily walk--our practical sanctification--this is what we do!
Ephesians 5:26-27 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
We must allow ourselves to be sanctified day by day--through the word and the Spirit working through the Word.....Now if you believe works have anything to do with our sanctification, I'd like to know what Scriptures you have to back that up.....again, I know what James says [faith without works is dead], he's only saying faith is an evidence of salvation, NOT a condition....

The word sanctify means: 1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To cleanse from corruption; to purify from sin; to make holy by detaching the affections from the world and its defilements, and exalting them to a supreme love to God.
We cannot do this on our own, it is NOT in our nature...this is a work of God in the life of a believer apart from salvation

I could agree with that but I know we are not saying the same thing. Yes you are saved or you are not. However, if you find a person who "backslides" and dies in that condition your response is that he was never saved to begin with which actually is beyond your knowledge therefore can only be speculative. Or you must consider the aweful and that God doesn't care about the backsliding and overlooks it eventhough that person is shaking their fist in rebelion to God saying "I will not Serve". Though Anninias and Saphirah may have something to say about that. Do you think that person can stand in the presence of God?

The only knowledge I can have is what Scripture teaches...I was raised in a Church [I mentioned this] that doesn't believe in eternal security so Iknow the MO, and I'm telling you, it is NOT scriptural!! And it is NOT historic Christianity......couple questions...how long is everlasting life? Is that promised in John 3:16? Is God a liar? Now that's simple enough, isn't it? If that isn't enough, how about:

1 Peter 1:1-5 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Now if I believe God, our inheritance is incorruptible, undefiled, and doesn't fade away! And it is kept by the POWER OF GOD, not me or any Church....

Now I will say again, a person is either saved or they aren't, and it doesn't matter what I think etc.....you are right, God knows so I don't have to worry about it....let me ask you a question since you bring up Annanias and Sapphira--are you telling me they weren't saved? How do you know? You know the Bible speaks of a sin unto death--do you suppose that means eternal death? When you read the exploits of Lot and his daughters in the OT, would you consider him a Godly man? But the Book of Hebrews tells me he was a just man--made it into the faith "hall of fame".......I won't bother getting into the doctrines of Grace and election, but I will again repeat--salvation is a work of God, man has nothing to do with it or it is tainted....

Of course Scriptures teach but I disagree with your interpretation of it. It does not mean there is no such thing as apostasy. Paul is rather clear about enduring to the end. and only after also Hebrews 12: 1-3 Hebrew 3:14 and Revelation 3:11 And many verses besides. Formost our Lord is clear about it in his many teachings In not one of those passages does it state one cannot apostate. Indeed it warns against it. And what about James 5? James isn't speaking about two different groups here but one. Backsliders. Whom bringing back saves from death. I think scriptures are clear. People can apostate and need to repent to come back.

This is Standard MO for Arminians and was my way of thinking for years......here is a simple thought process--if Salvation is by grace through faith, not works [remember something, faith itself is a fruit of the Spirit--the Bible says no man can come to the Father unless the Spirit first draws him]--how can you lose something you yourself can't "get" and then if you do lose it by doing something, how can you get it back? If a person can lose their salvation they would! How can we keep ourselves saved? We get angry, tired, forget about God when we stub our toes, etc etc.....yes, TS, he that endures to the end will be saved, do you think that involves works????? I used to as well, but let me rephrase it for you--the SAVED will endure to the end!! The reason why I say there is no such thing as an apostate is because no true born again believer will ever become one! Gods Word cannot lie. OK, by definition I'm wrong, what I mean is there is no such thing as a born again believer becoming an unborn again unbeliever

Exactly my point this is a caveat your faith creates and is not in scripture. Scripture doesn't make this distinction that about a Truly born again person. A person is born again or they are not. And how do you judge a person who backslides, repents, backslides, and repents? what do you do keep jumping from one conclusion to another. He wasn't really saved to he was to he wasn't really ad infinitum. This in fact is reading a perspective back into scripture.

Well I think I answered this pretty well above, but, again, I don't judge, so I don't worry about jumping from conclusions, the Scripture tells me what to think:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

--a born again believer will repent of their sins.....a born again believer isn't going to be happy "living in sin".....if they were truly saved, God won't allow it for long [my opinion].....someone who isn't truly born again will not "continue with us".....God bless TS....sleepy :sleeping_2:

 

[Jeremiah2911]

You should actually read stuff from the horses mouth so to speak. Ones salvation depends on faith given and living out that faith ever drawing closer to God. One of the ways to do that is participation in the Eucharist. Frankly, you shouldn't take Ironsides word for it. First of all the Mass originally is based on the jewish synagogue liturgical practice at the time of Jesus Christ and encorporates the Eucharistic meal and the reading of the NT texts. No Heathenism to it. FYI. We even take the scriptures and walk it around the church like the Jews do the Torah. However, Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism. BTW if you believe that you should take communion "oft" why only do it once a quarter? I think the real answer is that its significance is no longer viewed appropriately.

I've highlighted above a phrase that we will continue to disagree on.....what you are saying is you and I have a part in our actual salvation, and I argue that our salvation is by grace alone....a work of Christ, not man.....you believe our salvation depends upon living out that faith--that, TS, is a definition of works salvation, which is what I've always believed the RCC teaches, but leads me back to my OP in my discussion with you--you said you have had a true born again experience--my question is, why would you want to go back to a system which teaches works salvation? .....

I went to RVA as I explained earlier. I didn't have faith and treated religion like a superstition. I went, as I was required to convocation week, in which we heard evangelist guest speakers proclaim the gospel. One speaker got to my heart when he said. "There is nothing you can do of your own accord to change from your tattered sin nature. You can dress up, say the right things, look good to other people. However, no matter how much you try you are still your sinful self guilty before God and there is only one way to be freed from your sin and be made right with God. To be empowered to leave your sins behind and be the person Jesus wants you to be and that is to believe That Jesus came and died for your sins. That his blood washes away your offenses to God and you will become a new creation in Christ a new person, born again! And you will be saved and enter into Gods Kingdom!" Oh boy, I wanted that! I wanted to be changed into his image and to be friends with God and be considered righteous. The evangelist asked us to bow our heads and he asked that any one who wanted to ask Jesus into our lives should raise our hand as he lead us in a sinners prayer of repentance. After the prayer and all our heads were raised again he called those forward who prayed the prayer to an alter call to show our faith and be prayed over. Which I did. I was the very last one to walk foreward. My life significantly changed after that.

Amen! Now this is going to sound silly maybe, but why wouldn't you want to go to a Church where this Gospel is preached every week? The life changing, soul saving power of Jesus Christ....TS I'm glad you have been born again, and have had this experience, but my experience with the people [the 9 families in my Church, plus family members] who came out of the RCC is they never heard the Gospel preached

I got an NIV bible studied through it.

Sorry I had to interject here--I cannot stand the NIV, but thats my opinion! --there are much better study Bibles out there

A lot of the MK's began to dislike me at that point because every conversation had to be about Jesus and what I was learning from scriptures. I guess they had heard it all before and several were in rebellion to their parents. I loved sunday school, required bibles study class during the week and attending, an AIC church where we sang a lot of old hymns. Every morning was like a new creation and I snuck out of my room to sing praise to God. I have great memories of that time. And I learned alot. Unfortunately, one of the first things I learned was there were many forms of Christianity, disagreements about everything from Alchohol, mixed bathing (swimming), music in services, baptism required or not, tongues only for a sign to the Jews or good for today, etc... RVA represented a lot of missionaries from differing groups. And I heard about each one from all the kids I went to school with. Always like the baptist the best but even among these there were differences. There were the KJO group and legalistic dressing fundalmentalist crowd, and there were the more progressive Southern Baptist.

Your testimony is much like mine when I was saved--I couldn't get enough of Church, the Bible, fellowship, etc.....I would ask questions at Wed night Bible study that I know irritated my preacher [not to irritate him, I just had questions that didn't really have answers, like, why didn't Peter James and John write about the transfiguration--I remember the puzzled look that night and I decided not to do that again![--what goes around comes around as now I'm pastoring and getting those kinds of questions, but hey, I'm ready now! ] You are right, its sad there are so many schisms within Christianity, and this is why I will sort of agree with the RCC [they are big on their rendition of church history]--people need to study the Bible AND Church history--from an actual historic perspective--it changed my life listening to a 13 hr study, which I would be glad to get to you if you would want to hear it.....It goes through everything from the beginning till the Charismatic movement to what we have today [emerging church movement]....The important thing is for a person to continue to study to show themselves approved and to find a TRUE Bible believing Church!

Sounds like my family. Sin like the devil Monday through Friday, confess on saturday so you can go to mass on sunday and start the process over again. This is not faith and is no more Catholic that those baptist guys standing outside the church during services smoking ciggarettes and later going home and drinking more than they should but are saved because they had an experience when they were 12 went to an alter call and they are "assured" of their salvation after all once saved always saved, are baptist.
Funny! I find that I'm spending more time trying to bring Catholics to the Lord than those outside the faith into it. The problem is many Catholics don't know their own faith. Which level? He must have read Dante. The Jews believed in Levels too.

Well you are right, it isn't faith; however, is more often the norm with RCC families [my experience]; again, I KNOW there are saved people in the RCC such as yourself--I also know there are unsaved people in every denomination--the part I have to wrestle with, is which Church should I affiliate with? Again, you embrace sanctification and the process--I wish I had a Church full of people like that! But Biblical sanctification [or esp salvation] is not some process affiliated with a Church or its systems, it is an inner work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a yielded believer.....Good works are an evidence of faith.....I told you earlier I was in a Baptist Church with a Jack Hyles clone pastor who took us out "soul winning"--we asked people questions which any reprobate would agree to, and then asked them to pray and then the preacher would tell them they had been forgiven of all their sins past, present and future and that they could never lose their "salvation" etc etc :tonofbricks:.....We literally went into bars and told people that.....when we left, no person EVER actually came to Church--and I assume we left them the impression they were "saved" and never had to ever lift a finger of concern about their salvation ever again!--this is every bit as dangerous as any system of religion as far as I'm concerned--Jesus said you must be born again....the Scripture says if any man be in Christ he is a NEW creation! [Not because of what I do, but because of what Christ has done]......But TS don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.....there are Bible believing Churches out there.....true born again believers need to find one

I spend some time trying to get these Churched Catholic to be converted to Christ by showing them the actual faith.

Well maybe this is your calling and why you are in the Catholic church--I have been to mass services [when I was in college and went home with a roommate whose family was catholic]--they were/are the sweetest people! They took me in and always treated me like family! I have to be honest, the 7 or 8 times I have been to a service, there is nothing like the Bible taught or preached there.....it seems like a ritual experience where you have to know what is going on [I didn't have a program to go by!] I will end this post by saying, I have no doubt the Mom/Dad of that family are saved people, I can't judge obviously, but I can see/ feel the love of Christ in their eyes, hearts.....they were born into the RCC, never had any reason to question it, because they never studied their Bibles, they've always trusted the family tradition......in a way its easy to understand and hard all at the same time....

 

[The Biblicist]

Straight from the horses Mouth

A. According to Rome, Baptism is essential to receive faith and new birth.

168...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother. 'We beleive the Church as the mother of our new birth...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.

Rome believes that it is the Roman Catholic Church that makes baptism performed outside the physical boundaries of the Church efficaous, and thus she claims to be the mother of all who receive faith and new birth through baptism.


B. Rome interprets faith to mean obedience:

143 "By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith."

144 To obey (from the Ltin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture..." (Ibid).

The catechism goes on to quote the various acts of obedience listed in Hebrews 11 concerning Abraham as examples of their definition of faith which is inclusive and inseparable from faithfulness.

Hence, Rome defines faith to be inclusive and thus inseparable from faithfulness.

Thus Ephesians 2:8 and the phrase "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH" would mean to Rome that in baptism the Church conveys the grace of faith, which is inclusive of obedience or faithfulness to God.

CONCLUSION: Although TS accused me of perverting the Roman Catholic definition of faith when I said that Rome defines faith EQUAL to faithfulness, the reader can easily see that this is precisely how Rome defines faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

A. According to Rome, Baptism is essential to receive faith and new birth.

168...."It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: 'What do you ask of God's Church?' And the answer is: 'Faith.' 'What does faith offer you?' Eternal life.'

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother. 'We beleive the Church as the mother of our new birth...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition.

Rome believes that it is the Roman Catholic Church that makes baptism performed outside the physical boundaries of the Church efficaous, and thus she claims to be the mother of all who receive faith and new birth through baptism.


B. Rome interprets faith to mean obedience:

143 "By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith."

144 To obey (from the Ltin ob-audire, to 'hear or listen to') in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture..." (Ibid).

The catechism goes on to quote the various acts of obedience listed in Hebrews 11 concerning Abraham as examples of their definition of faith which is inclusive and inseparable from faithfulness.

Hence, Rome defines faith to be inclusive and thus inseparable from faithfulness.

Thus Ephesians 2:8 and the phrase "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH" would mean to Rome that in baptism the Church conveys the grace of faith, which is inclusive of obedience or faithfulness to God.

CONCLUSION: Although TS accused me perverting the Roman Catholic definition of faith when I said that Rome defines faith EQUAL to faithfulness, the reader can easily see that this is precisely how Rome defines faith.

Since Rome originates faith and the new birth with baptism, and since Rome defines faith to be inclusive of faithfulness, then justification by faith according to Rome is not "without works" but inclusive of works.

However, the Roman Catholic would respond just as TS did, that salvation is not merited by works APART FROM "acting in faith" which they define as the grace of God or unmerited favor. Hence, Rome beleives that grace works merit salvation and such grace comes through the church and is thus the MOTHER of all true believers.


How does this differ from the Biblical teaching?

1. Repentance and faith always PRECEDE baptism and thus new birth precedes baptism.

2. Justifying faith is the whole person submitting himself to the gospel/good news that Christ's faithfulness rather than his own faithfulness justifies him before God. Hence, the "obedience of faith" in regard to the Gospel is rejection of all personal works by the "ungodly" to be justified but complete and total embracing of the faithfulness of Christ as soley sufficient to satisfy all the righteous demands of God in behalf of the "ungodly" for eternal life. - Rom. 3:24-26

3. The new birth or new inward man is the source of all "good works" rather than justifying faith - Eph. 2:8-10

4. Where there is justification by faith there is regeneration but one is not to be confused with the other. Justification by faith has to do with Christ's faithfulness alone and regeneration in connection with the power of the indwelling Spirit of God has to do with producing faithfulness in the believer - Rom. 6; James 2

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Great to hear from you again. And you bring up points in your post that I had to work through and though I may not be able to convince you of anything at least I can explain my thoughts and what the Catholic Church actually believes rather than heresay that many Catholics themselves adhere to without knowledge of their own faith. Also I've said many things on this thread to biblicist. I want you to know based on my discussions with that poster I am suspicious of his identity and thus my responses to him were advesarial because of how he responds it seems to me that he wasn't really interested in assertaining a truth of what Catholics actually believe but wanted to air his particular beefs. I will not approach you in this fashion. Hopefully, I will give you somethings to ponder and seek further information about.

Hello again TS, finally able to read through some of your posts.....I totally agree with your statement, but can you tell me what, in the RCC's view, does merit salvation? I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9--it is grace, a gift.....works [no matter how what when or where] cannot be involved in the salvation of ones soul by Scripture definition

I agree whole heartedly that Salvation is a gift of God not merited by works. God gives it to me. I did not earn it. However, like love we can spead it over several meanings but use the same word. For instance. You've made it clear you believe Salvation is the end. Heaven. A couple of questions for you. 1) What do you believe heaven to be? 2) What need is there for sanctification?
In your theology you hold to a "covering up" point of view. The much touted view that humanity is manuer and justification is the coveing up of that manuer. In your view God just declairs us "good to go" yet the problem of being manuer hasn't really changed whether manuer is covered by snow I still rather not step in it. I believe God gives us the Holy Spirit to not just cover us but to transform us. Romans 12:1-2

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

and the plea

Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are.

In both these instances in scripture. Paul is appealing for sanctification of our lives to people who believe. It is clear that just because they believe they aren't naturally behaving well so to speak. They are still sinning and abusing their gift. Paul is asking for a real transformation that requires activity on their part or else appealing would be a waste of time. I believe that Jesus wants us to not be covered up but to be changed entirely which only happens when we submit to his will. And he doesn't just want it for the next life but for the current one. People can live with feeling bad its not motivation enough to live right. If I believe once saved always saved then what is stopping me from immorality? The conflict of my spirit? Depression over not pleasing God? Don't forget that sin is pleasing for a while but brings bitterness latter on. Just like a hangover. How many people get drunk knowing that they are going to be miserable the next day? But if the Goal is to actually be sanctified then a change of behavior is in order.

We have a different view of definitions here.....the end goal of salvation IS Heaven

Which is what to you? Nothing unclean can go before the Lord. If you go before the Lord in a state where your sins are just covered up but still manuer in reality then what benefit is that to you? You would be in missery unless all of that is changed. However, If heaven were the only Goal of Jesus Mission on earth why don't we all die the momement we are saved except for a few evangelist? Jesus' wants us to be as we should be not as we are. Our very lives should scream out at others JESUS! Salvation is inclusive of many things Election, Justification, sanctification, Glorification. To you salvation is just the glorification part.

The word sanctify means: 1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To cleanse from corruption; to purify from sin; to make holy by detaching the affections from the world and its defilements, and exalting them to a supreme love to God.
We cannot do this on our own, it is NOT in our nature...this is a work of God in the life of a believer apart from salvation

you missed out one sense to be set apart. And no we cannot do this on our own which is why God gives us graces to strengthen us to assist us. However, there are two important lessons you miss in scripture. At the battle of Jericho who had the victory? It was God. But what did God ask Joshua to do? Joshua got to participate in the victory by walking around the city and blowing trumpets. What would have happened had Joshua not done so? Another Ai possibly? All vicotry belongs to God even our victories over sin but that doesn't mean God doesn't ask us to obey him in it. Here is a verse dealing with this specifically Jesus said

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Jesus indicates a couple of things one there is the activity he requires us to do and that is remain in him. We can assume to remain in him is a discourse to "saved" people. Otherwise he would have said join to him. And this is optional "if" we remain we will bear fruit just like you said because on our own we can do nothing. But the requirement is still there "remain". What happens if we don't "remain" we are cast into the fire because we didn't bear fruit. Fire represents hell therefore to the saved who do not remain and do not bear fruit go to hell.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Cont.

The only knowledge I can have is what Scripture teaches...I was raised in a Church [I mentioned this] that doesn't believe in eternal security so Iknow the MO, and I'm telling you, it is NOT scriptural!! And it is NOT historic Christianity......couple questions...how long is everlasting life? Is that promised in John 3:16? Is God a liar? Now that's simple enough, isn't it? If that isn't enough, how about:

I understand there are thousands of denominations each with its own slant on salvation you are clear that you are a TULIP believing Christian which is actually Reformed Theology as espoused by John Calvin who did not appear until 1500 years after the church was started by Jesus and the Apostles. First off I just want to Comment about Jacob Arminius. He came after John Calvin and tried to reconsile aspects of Free will with Reformed theology because he couldn't imagine God to be the Tyrant Calvin made him to be. TULIP was a summerization of Calvin's Institutes at the synod of Dort after much debate with Arminius. Catholic Theology had been developed over a thousand years before these two men lived. Therefore I am not an Armenianist. Because there were things Jacob Aremenius held that Catholics do not nor is it an accurate representation between Catholic view and Calvins view. Catholics don't refer to the Remonstrants. FYI. As far as historical Christianity you will have to prove your point. I've read the NT, the ECF, the Eccuminical Councils and studied history. So to suggest that Calvin was historic christianity seems shallow to me. Scriptures do teach one can apostate. And in order to believe as you do you must redefine what scriptures are actually saying. Or leave out sections all together. This is one of the points that made me ponder Reformed theology. If sanctification were not necissary why appeal to it? If upon reciept of Faith I am assured eternal life no matter my choices after why care? Why am I constantly being pleaded with by scripture to be transformed? Remain in Christ? Told about the sheep and the goats where I'm compared to people who did not feed the hungry etc if that doesn't matter? Why is the person who is saved always warned of being cut off and thown into the fire which represents hell? I'm saved. Good to go. No need for all this superfulous stuff then. But its there in scriptures. Hmmmm. Also btw are you a dispensationalist or are you a covenant theologian? That will also assist in our discussion. Catholics hold to covenant theology. Now to answer your two questions

how long is everlasting life?

forever, Eterninty, never ending.

Is that promised in John 3:16?

Absolutely. However, I think where we differ is what is required in "Believe". I would say not only have an intellectual assent. 80% of the world population believes there was a Jesus. But belief is to be entirely given to jesus to obey and to remain in him. Remember John 15 the caveat is If you remain. So with that; No God did not lie. I believe you just misunderstood him

1 Peter 1:1-5 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

I agree with this entire quote yet one word evades you in this passage:"Faith". Again faith is more than intellectual assent it is actually living the faith and if you remain - John 15 this hope is a guarantee.

Now if I believe God, our inheritance is incorruptible, undefiled, and doesn't fade away! And it is kept by the POWER OF GOD, not me or any Church....

Reminder the Church is the body of Christ. The Church is supernatural and is maintained supernaturally by the Holy Spirit. But I believe the promise is as you say incorruptible, undefiled, and doesn't fade away but John 15 is still there in the back of my mind. As long as you remain in Christ.

let me ask you a question since you bring up Annanias and Sapphira--are you telling me they weren't saved?

I am telling you there was a price for their lie even after their belief. And it was mortal death. Which is why I chose them for comparison.

How do you know? You know the Bible speaks of a sin unto death--do you suppose that means eternal death?

I wansn't viewing John with Annanias. However, the passage you mention says:

16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Where the meaning of the word thanatos also includes

with the implied idea of future misery in hell

So not only seperation of the soul from the body but the future in hell. FYI this is where the Catholic Church gets the distinction between Mortal and Venial sins btw.

When you read the exploits of Lot and his daughters in the OT, would you consider him a Godly man? But the Book of Hebrews tells me he was a just man--made it into the faith "hall of fame".......I won't bother getting into the doctrines of Grace and election, but I will again repeat--salvation is a work of God, man has nothing to do with it or it is tainted....

I don't think Lot made it to Hebrews 11 or "The Hall of Faith". However, did not the angel say not to look back? What happened to Lots wife? Did not Lot have to leave the city? And if you read Hebrews 11 Didn't each of those people act on their faith? I think the verse you are refering to is 2 Peter 2:7

and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—

Which is in a discourse about punishing those who live after the flesh and saving those who do not. And why was Lot righteous in this passage? Because he was disturbed by the depraved conduct of the Lawless. Was he "saved"? Unknown. He may very well be. But that is the context of that passage.

This is Standard MO for Arminians and was my way of thinking for years

again I am not Armenianist!

.....here is a simple thought process--if Salvation is by grace through faith, not works [remember something, faith itself is a fruit of the Spirit--the Bible says no man can come to the Father unless the Spirit first draws him]--how can you lose something you yourself can't "get" and then if you do lose it by doing something, how can you get it back?

Very easy. You throw it away. However, Catholics do believe in Election. I'm given gifts that I get rid off all the time.

If a person can lose their salvation they would!

Let me put it this way. I can never undo what Jesus did for me. However, I don't have to repent and follow him either.

How can we keep ourselves saved?

We don't Keep ourselves saved. We remain in salvation. God provides the graces to keep us. We are required to remain there by following Jesus Christ.

We get angry, tired, forget about God when we stub our toes, etc etc.....yes, TS, he that endures to the end will be saved, do you think that involves works?????

No. Works are a natural and necissary fruit of my faith. Enduring to the end means remaining in him.

I used to as well, but let me rephrase it for you--the SAVED will endure to the end!!

Yes or they wouldn't be saved. Or let me put it this way. They wouldn't have made the fullness of salvation which includes the end result: Heaven. But those who don't remain are cut off and thown into the fire.

Gods Word cannot lie. OK, by definition I'm wrong, what I mean is there is no such thing as a born again believer becoming an unborn again unbeliever

This is true once someone is born again they are marked for life but that doesn't mean they can latter turn a deaf ear to the Holy Spirit. Or reject God and leave salvation. Hebrews indicates that people in this state are better off never having been born again.

The reason why I say there is no such thing as an apostate is because no true born again believer will ever become one!

Passage and verse please. You still using the phrase "true born again" there is no such distinction made in scripture. If by it you mean one who will remain to the end then say so. There is no verse that says true born again believer.

Well I think I answered this pretty well above, but, again, I don't judge, so I don't worry about jumping from conclusions, the Scripture tells me what to think:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Yes they would purposely have "continued with us" Ie remain.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since Rome originates faith and the new birth with baptism, and since Rome defines faith to be inclusive of faithfulness, then justification by faith according to Rome is not "without works" but inclusive of works.

However, the Roman Catholic would respond just as TS did, that salvation is not merited by works APART FROM "acting in faith" which they define as the grace of God or unmerited favor. Hence, Rome beleives that grace works merit salvation and such grace comes through the church and is thus the MOTHER of all true believers.


How does this differ from the Biblical teaching?

1. Repentance and faith always PRECEDE baptism and thus new birth precedes baptism.

2. Justifying faith is the whole person submitting himself to the gospel/good news that Christ's faithfulness rather than his own faithfulness justifies him before God. Hence, the "obedience of faith" in regard to the Gospel is rejection of all personal works by the "ungodly" to be justified but complete and total embracing of the faithfulness of Christ as soley sufficient to satisfy all the righteous demands of God in behalf of the "ungodly" for eternal life. - Rom. 3:24-26

3. The new birth or new inward man is the source of all "good works" rather than justifying faith - Eph. 2:8-10

4. Where there is justification by faith there is regeneration but one is not to be confused with the other. Justification by faith has to do with Christ's faithfulness alone and regeneration in connection with the power of the indwelling Spirit of God has to do with producing faithfulness in the believer - Rom. 6; James 2

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, THE FAITHFUL are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC (emphasis mine)

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC (emphasis mine)

Can you get it much clearer? "the response of faith" is "inseparable from baptism" and that baptism is the "sacrament of faith" because it is the "entry" into the "life of faith."

Now, notice how they associate the "response of faith" with the "proclamation of the Word of God." The proclamation of the word of God merely "enlightens" the candidate which only "elicts the response of faith" but not apart from baptism as they say this "response of faith is "inseparable from baptism."

However, the very reverse is not only taught by the Scritpures but there are examples in scripture that contradict this chronological order by Rome.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Rome says that new birth and faith are received "IN" baptism but Philip demanded faith in Christ BEFORE he would administer baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblical meaning of faith - Heb. 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Much to the confusion of Rome, this is the only passage in the scripture that gives a definition of what faith "IS"? No other passage of scripture has been provided to define what faith "IS"! This is it?

There is a great deal of difference between what faith "IS" versus what a person can do "BY" faith. They are not the same. Rome confuses what faith "IS" versus with what can be done "BY" faith. Hebrews 11 distinguishes between both in a cause and effect relationship.


1. What Faith "IS"?

a. It "IS" the substance of things hoped for. In common language it is inseparable from whatever you base your hopes upon.

Now the term "hope" does not mean "wish" but rather "confident expectation."

For example, what is the basis for confident expectation that you will rise from the Grave? Or that you will go to heaven? Or that Jesus is coming again, Or......?

Bottom line it is God's promise as found in his Word. God's word is the substance for confident expectation.


b. It "IS"....the evidence of things not seen" - Whatever is hoped for is something not seen as we need no "hope" for things seen (Rom. 8:24-25).

Hence, faith "IS" taking God at His word without any visible evidence. Here is the etymological concept of "faith" as simple trust IN someone or something without the need of visible proof.

The first example Paul gives the creation of the present world as an example:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

We have nothing but God's Word that says the world came into existence by things we cannot see or examine. Hence, His Word is the only "evidence" of things "not seen."

Therefore, faith in regard to the saints "IS" inseparable from God's Word as the sustance for our confident expectation and the evidence we trust IN without the need to prove it by any visible tangible proofs.

However, this defintion of faith "IS" not merely intellectual assent but confident expectation based upon God's Word. Or as Paul told the Thessalonians that the gospel did not come to them in "word only" but "in power and in the Spirt and IN MUCH ASSURANCE."


2. "By" faith - - What is done "by" faith is not faith but the by-product of faith.

So faith "IS" not merely intellectual assent, but total confidence IN God's Word as the basis of hope.

Second, it is "BY" such complete confidence IN God and His Word (faith) that we manifest this faith through obedience to His Word.

What is done "by" faith is not faith but the product of faith. Everything we do should be a by product of our faith in God and His Word. This is what it means to walk BY faith.

Paul goes on to give many examples of many saints and what they DID "by" faith. What a person does "BY" faith = faithfulness = progressive sanctification.


CONCLUSION: Justying faith is "IN" the Person and work of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26) rather than "BY" what we do or don't do (Rom. 4:5-6). Rome confuses the two and makes them inseparable thus mixing faith with faithfulness or justification and sanctification or confuses what faith "IS" versus what is done "BY" faith.

Obedience to the Gospel means that your complete basis for hope of eternal life is trusting IN the Person and faithfulness of Jesus Christ to be the full and complete "propitiation" (satisfaction) of all God's demands of righteousness in your behalf. Those who make this their complete confidence for the hope of eternal life are also "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

True repentance is repudiation of your own works as any basis for hope of eternal life ("repentance from dead works") - Heb. 6:1 and complete faith "IN" God's provision of Jesus Christ and His faithfulness for justification before God.

Where there is justification by faith there is also regenerative "good works" which are produced by the Indwelling Spirit of God "by" faith according to the "measure of faith" given to each child of God.

We are justified before God by what our faith is "IN" but we are sanctified by what we do "BY" faith = faithfulness.