Atheists are hard to convert

[Byblos]

That's right, they are works of the law. Is baptism a work of the law? Evidently not because it is an outward sign of this inner faith I have from God. Is repentance a work? Of course not, it is the means God left us to confess our sins and have them forgiven. Is receiving the Lord's Supper a work? Of course not since it is an outward sign commemorating Christ's death and resurrection. In other words, faith in Christ leads one to keep the covenant between us. No one can boast about any of it because its source is not us, it is Christ. Do you see what I'm getting at Rick?

If all these were done properly, as signs of what they symbolize, then there's no problem, and they're not works, done to gain or keep salvation. When these things are done, as necessary for salvation, as your Church teaches, then they become "works". Can't you see the difference?

Maybe you hold these symbols to mean the same thing that I believe they mean. I'm sure you do, because you've said it. But, that is in stark contrast to what your church teaches. How can you not see, from their own words, that the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is needed for salvation? What you said above, leads me to believe, that you believe in what the bible says about baptism. How can you reconcile that with what the Catholic church teaches?

Lol, we are talking past each other, we need to slow down.

You've answered my question so thank you.

As to how I can reconcile it with what the Catholic Church teaches it's because I do not see any contradiction with what it teaches and what I believe Christ instructed us to do.

[RickD]

I understand what you're saying Rick and we don't need to branch into a discussion on the necessity of baptism (and why it's not a work because we believe we are commanded to do it). For the sake of our discussion here, I am asking you to put aside what the RCC has to say about the necessity of baptism and to consider that it really is an outward sign of an inner faith. If you do that, then baptism is not a work. My question to you is, is there anything else that you might deem to be a "work" if we are commanded to do it as part of our covenant with God or if it is an outward sign of the inner faith?

How can I possibly "put aside" what the Catholic Church teaches about baptism? Your whole argument is based on the Catholic Church's infallibility, when it comes to interpreting scripture. Byblos, I agree with you that it's an outward sign of an inner faith. My Friend, my Brother in Christ, can't you see that what you're saying is in absolute contrast, to what the Catholic Church teaches? How can you believe what both of us are saying, and the bible teaches, and still hold to Catholicism? Byblos, you need to really look at this, my Friend.

[RickD]

As to how I can reconcile it with what the Catholic Church teaches it's because I do not see any contradiction with what it teaches and what I believe Christ instructed us to do.

Byblos, on one hand, you say:

Evidently not because it is an outward sign of this inner faith I have from God.

And on the other hand, you submit to the Catholic authority that says:

Thus, as there are no substitutes for the water, then the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation is no longer of a relative or hypothetical nature, but of an absolute nature. And so, we see that Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Council of Trent both teach explicitly that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for Salvation. And when it is absolute it is for “everyone without exception.”

Byblos, you need to think about whom you believe. Do you believe what the bible says, as you claim? Or, do you believe what the Catholic Church teaches, which is in contrast to what you're saying? I think you know what you believe. You've said it yourself. Can't you see that God is showing you, that there is a contradiction in beliefs here? You can't logically believe both. Surely, you can see that. Can't you?

[Byblos]

As to how I can reconcile it with what the Catholic Church teaches it's because I do not see any contradiction with what it teaches and what I believe Christ instructed us to do.

Byblos, on one hand, you say:

Evidently not because it is an outward sign of this inner faith I have from God.

And on the other hand, you submit to the Catholic authority that says:

Thus, as there are no substitutes for the water, then the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation is no longer of a relative or hypothetical nature, but of an absolute nature. And so, we see that Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Council of Trent both teach explicitly that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for Salvation. And when it is absolute it is for “everyone without exception.”

Byblos, you need to think about whom you believe. Do you believe what the bible says, as you claim? Or, do you believe what the Catholic Church teaches, which is in contrast to what you're saying? I think you know what you believe. You've said it yourself. Can't you see that God is showing you, that there is a contradiction in beliefs here? You can't logically believe both. Surely, you can see that. Can't you?

Rick, I agreed with you on the baptism issue only for the sake of the argument and to illustrate a point regarding what works really are (which you haven't defined as of yet). That doesn't mean I disagree with what the RCC teaches. What I am contending is that you are mistaken in classifying what the RCC teaches about baptism as a work even if they teach the necessity of baptism simply because that is what Christ commanded. What Christ commanded cannot be classified as a work.

[RickD]

As to how I can reconcile it with what the Catholic Church teaches it's because I do not see any contradiction with what it teaches and what I believe Christ instructed us to do.

Byblos, on one hand, you say:

Evidently not because it is an outward sign of this inner faith I have from God.

And on the other hand, you submit to the Catholic authority that says:

Thus, as there are no substitutes for the water, then the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation is no longer of a relative or hypothetical nature, but of an absolute nature. And so, we see that Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Council of Trent both teach explicitly that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for Salvation. And when it is absolute it is for “everyone without exception.”

Byblos, you need to think about whom you believe. Do you believe what the bible says, as you claim? Or, do you believe what the Catholic Church teaches, which is in contrast to what you're saying? I think you know what you believe. You've said it yourself. Can't you see that God is showing you, that there is a contradiction in beliefs here? You can't logically believe both. Surely, you can see that. Can't you?

Rick, I agreed with you on the baptism issue only for the sake of the argument and to illustrate a point regarding what works really are (which you haven't defined as of yet). That doesn't mean I disagree with what the RCC teaches. What I am contending is that you are mistaken in classifying what the RCC teaches about baptism as a work even if they teach the necessity of baptism simply because that is what Christ commanded. What Christ commanded cannot be classified as a work.

Byblos, Please open your eyes to what God is showing you. I know you can see the contradiction. You are a Holy Spirit filled believer. God is speaking to you. Don't sweep away the Holy Spirit's admonishment. Let go of the religion that has you captive. Byblos, don't shut out the Holy Spirit. He is leading you. Follow Him, alone.

[Byblos]

Byblos, Please open your eyes to what God is showing you. I know you can see the contradiction. You are a Holy Spirit filled believer. God is speaking to you. Don't sweep away the Holy Spirit's admonishment. Let go of the religion that has you captive. Byblos, don't shut out the Holy Spirit. He is leading you. Follow Him, alone.

Thank you Rick, I really mean that. I believe you are as sincere as can be. When I look at the journey of my faith Rick, I see a period of acceptance due to birth and tradition, I see a period of doubt, doubt about not only Catholicism but my faith in general. And I see the current period I am in, which is, after much studying and research, a complete rebirth in the faith I was born into. I do not cling to this faith out of some sense of nostalgia Rick. It's funny how I did not truly discover my faith until I almost lost it. I am completely and irrevocably convinced that Catholicism is the most consistent, the most logical theistic system there is. It answered every question I had and put to rest every doubtful thought that ever crept into my mind to my full satisfaction. I believe with all my heart that is where the Spirit has lead me.

[RickD]

Byblos, Please open your eyes to what God is showing you. I know you can see the contradiction. You are a Holy Spirit filled believer. God is speaking to you. Don't sweep away the Holy Spirit's admonishment. Let go of the religion that has you captive. Byblos, don't shut out the Holy Spirit. He is leading you. Follow Him, alone.

Thank you Rick, I really mean that. I believe you are as sincere as can be. When I look at the journey of my faith Rick, I see a period of acceptance due to birth and tradition, I see a period of doubt, doubt about not only Catholicism but my faith in general. And I see the current period I am in, which is, after much studying and research, a complete rebirth in the faith I was born into. I do not cling to this faith out of some sense of nostalgia Rick. It's funny how I did not truly discover my faith until I almost lost it. I am completely and irrevocably convinced that Catholicism is the most consistent, the most logical theistic system there is. It answered every question I had and put to rest every doubtful thought that ever crept into my mind to my full satisfaction. I believe with all my heart that is where the Spirit has lead me.

I am completely and irrevocably convinced that Catholicism is the most consistent, the most logical theistic system there is.

Byblos, there is no need to follow any religious system. Follow Christ. You cannot justify a system that you can clearly see contradicts the bible, and the Witness inside you. You can brush aside what I say. You can attempt to justify your religious system's beliefs to yourself. But, you cannot ignore the Holy Spirit in you, when He speaks to you. He has shown you this clear contradiction between the bible, and Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is speaking to you, Byblos. He is leading you on the path of freedom, in Christ, my Brother. Give up your religious system, and follow the only One who gives freedom.

[Byblos]

Byblos, Please open your eyes to what God is showing you. I know you can see the contradiction. You are a Holy Spirit filled believer. God is speaking to you. Don't sweep away the Holy Spirit's admonishment. Let go of the religion that has you captive. Byblos, don't shut out the Holy Spirit. He is leading you. Follow Him, alone.

Thank you Rick, I really mean that. I believe you are as sincere as can be. When I look at the journey of my faith Rick, I see a period of acceptance due to birth and tradition, I see a period of doubt, doubt about not only Catholicism but my faith in general. And I see the current period I am in, which is, after much studying and research, a complete rebirth in the faith I was born into. I do not cling to this faith out of some sense of nostalgia Rick. It's funny how I did not truly discover my faith until I almost lost it. I am completely and irrevocably convinced that Catholicism is the most consistent, the most logical theistic system there is. It answered every question I had and put to rest every doubtful thought that ever crept into my mind to my full satisfaction. I believe with all my heart that is where the Spirit has lead me.

I am completely and irrevocably convinced that Catholicism is the most consistent, the most logical theistic system there is.

Byblos, there is no need to follow any religious system. Follow Christ. You cannot justify a system that you can clearly see contradicts the bible, and the Witness inside you. You can brush aside what I say. You can attempt to justify your religious system's beliefs to yourself. But, you cannot ignore the Holy Spirit in you, when He speaks to you. He has shown you this clear contradiction between the bible, and Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is speaking to you, Byblos. He is leading you on the path of freedom, in Christ, my Brother. Give up your religious system, and follow the only One who gives freedom.

That's just it Rick, you see a contradiction where I see none. And by following Catholicism I am not simply following just any religious system, I am following THE religion as intended and as established by Christ himself. So how could I not be following Christ when it is His Church I follow?

I know you mean well, Rick, but believe me brother, you are preaching to the choir (sorry, is that too Catholic? ).

[RickD]

How can you not see a contradiction, Byblos. You and I agree that water baptism, when performed in its proper context, is an outward symbol of the true, saving baptism of the Holy Spirit, that believers receive when they believe the gospel of Christ. And, as a symbol, water baptism is an outward sign of what saves us. Meaning, it symbolizes what saves us, it isn't necessary for salvation. It's just a symbol of how we are saved.

And the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism isn't just a symbol. According to Catholic doctrine, water baptism has a part in salvation. And, not a small part.:

The Necessity of Baptism:

Christ Himself ordered His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize those who accept the message of the Gospel. In His encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." For Catholics, the sacrament is not a mere formality; it is the very mark of a Christian, because it brings us into new life in Christ.

The Sacrament of Baptism, the first of the sacraments of initiation, is our entrance into the Church. Through Baptism, we are cleansed of Original Sin and receive sanctifying grace, the life of God within our souls.

Thus, as there are no substitutes for the water, then the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation is no longer of a relative or hypothetical nature, but of an absolute nature. And so, we see that Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Council of Trent both teach explicitly that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for Salvation. And when it is absolute it is for “everyone without exception.”

Is There Any Case When Baptism of the Holy Spirit Without Actual Reception of Baptism of Water Can Be Sufficient for Salvation?

Now that we have considered the defined truths which must be believed, namely, the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of membership in the Catholic Church, the absolute necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff, the absolute necessity of baptism of water, for salvation, there remains but one point to examine; that is, whether there is any case where a man can be saved without actually receiving the water of baptism on his head.

At this point, we have to depart from infallibly defined dogma and must rely on the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors, because it has never so far been defined that any human being can be saved who was not actually baptized, except for those who lived before the coming of Our Lord, and except for the martyrs.

What is the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors? Some Fathers deny that there is any case in which a man could be saved without the actual reception of the water of baptism (with the exception of the martyrs alone). But most of them agree in saying that there is one case, and only one case, when a man could be saved without having been actually baptized with water. It is the case of a catechumen who confesses the Catholic Faith, who is sorry for his past sins, who is burning with desire to be baptized and to join the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but who, having been kept without baptism by the Church until he has been fully instructed, is overtaken by death suddenly and is incapable of receiving baptism. Such a catechumen, it is believed, can be saved, if he makes an act of perfect charity. 85

In answer to our third question, therefore, we shall say that, according to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled:

First, that person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)

Second, he must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an “entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus.” 86

Third, he must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only “perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. ” 87 St. Augustine says that he must have “faith and conversion of the heart. ” 88 St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for “if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. ” 89 St. Bernard says that “right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity” must be present. 90

Fourth, he must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.

Fifth, he must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, “may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. ” 91 In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, “whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state.” 92 Also, St. Thomas says, “It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re), as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto, as it is in the martyrs and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum); or in figure, as in the ancient Fathers,” — that is, in those before Christ. 93

Now that we have shown in what sense a person who has the desire for baptism can be saved, let us enumerate again Father Donnelly’s three doctrines which we listed at the beginning of Part III, namely, (1) that a person can be said to have desire for Baptism while being totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith and ignorant of the Baptism of water; (2) that a person can be said to have a desire for Baptism while knowing the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith and refusing both; (3) that a person can be said to have a desire for Baptism while knowing the Baptism of water and refusing it. From the evidence we have presented, it must be clear that these doctrines are erroneous and cannot be held.

Byblos, the contradiction is as clear as day. Those with eyes to see, will see.

[Byblos]

How can you not see a contradiction, Byblos. You and I agree that water baptism, when performed in its proper context, is an outward symbol of the true, saving baptism of the Holy Spirit, that believers receive when they believe the gospel of Christ. And, as a symbol, water baptism is an outward sign of what saves us. Meaning, it symbolizes what saves us, it isn't necessary for salvation. It's just a symbol of how we are saved.

And the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism isn't just a symbol. According to Catholic doctrine, water baptism has a part in salvation.

Rick, please, take a moment and listen to what I'm saying. I am not agreeing with you that water baptism is a symbol, I did that only for the sake of moving the discussion forward and only in an attempt to identify what works really are. What I am telling you is that it doesn't make a difference if water baptism is or is not necessary. Even if it is necessary, it STILL would NOT be classified as a work because it was a COMMAND instituted by Christ himself, as far as our understanding of scripture is concerned. It is this disagreement with said interpretation that may allow you to classify baptism as a work but only because there is such a disagreement and not because baptism is actually a work. We do not see it as such and there is no contradiction Rick. Baptism is not a work, it is a sacrament. Sacraments are not works, they are commandments instituted by Christ who has sole possession of their efficacy on us, nothing is traceable to us, so how could it be a work we can boast about? We are prompted to get baptized by the Holy Spirit through faith, which, in and of itself, is also a gift from God. We get baptized based on this prompting and based on Christ's command, and God declares us born again in Christ. Where is the work Rick, what have we done that we could claim it was of ourselves so we can boast about it and say: 'hey look, I got baptized and saved myself'. You say that in any Catholic church and you'll be laughed out before you finish the sentence.

I think we've taken this as far as we can take it Rick. From my side, I've said what I set out to show and am comfortable leaving it where it is. Over to you for any last comments.

[RickD]

What I am telling you is that it doesn't make a difference if water baptism is or is not necessary.

It absolutely make a difference. Either we are saved by God's grace, through faith in the finished work of Christ, or things done by the hands of men(water baptism) are a necessary addition to faith.

Even if it is necessary, it STILL would NOT be classified as a work because it was a COMMAND instituted by Christ himself, as far as our understanding of scripture is concerned.

Ok, then where did Christ Command water baptism, as necessary for salvation?

Baptism is not a work, it is a sacrament. Sacraments are not works, they are commandments instituted by Christ who has sole possession of their efficacy on us, nothing is traceable to us, so how could it be a work we can boast about?

How are these sacraments performed? Does God baptize us in water, Himself? or, is a member of the Catholic Church the one doing the baptizing?

Now that we have considered the defined truths which must be believed, namely, the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of membership in the Catholic Church, the absolute necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff, the absolute necessity of baptism of water, for salvation, there remains but one point to examine; that is, whether there is any case where a man can be saved without actually receiving the water of baptism on his head.

Not only is water baptism necessary for salvation according to Catholicism, but one must also be a member of the Catholic Church, and submit to the Roman Pontiff.Cultic doctrine, Cultic doctrine,Cultic doctrine Any color you want to paint it, it's not biblical.

We are prompted to get baptized by the Holy Spirit through faith, which, in and of itself, is also a gift from God. We get baptized based on this prompting and based on Christ's command, and God declares us born again in Christ. Where is the work Rick, what have we done that we could claim it was of ourselves so we can boast about it and say: 'hey look, I got baptized and saved myself'. You say that in any Catholic church and you'll be laughed out before you finish the sentence.

Byblos, you just described true, saving baptism, performed by the Holy Spirit of God Himself. Not water baptism, performed by the hands of men.

One last thing I ask, is for you to show me where Christ commanded water baptism, as necessary for salvation.

[Byblos]

One last thing I ask, is for you to show me where Christ commanded water baptism, as necessary for salvation.

You know what they are Rick, come on. And we all know what your response is going to be, but only because you asked

Matthew 28:19-20 (pay close attention to 20)
John 3:5
1 Peter 3:21
Acts 2:38, 22:16
Romans 6:3–4
Col. 2:11–12

[DannyM]

Brother Neo,

My problem lies with the assumption that we can just accept Christ and then do nothing about it.

Whoever made such an assumption, Neo?

Brother Danny, this is the underlying assumption. This is what you are saying, you have to do nothing to get saved, except beleive in Jesus Christ. Once you are done, you are saved, sealed and forever assured. You have to do nothing else, if you sin, you don;t even have to ask forgiveness, since all future sins price is already paid too. Isn't this what you have been saying or did I get something wrong?

Neo, this is not an underlying assumption at all. Whoever said “we can just accept Christ and then do nothing about it”? Please give me the source of such an outrageous assumption. Is this in Christian or apologetic literature?

Predestination with respect to OSAS.

Neo, predestination means you were predestined. Assurance is the natural flow from predestination.

‘OSAS’ sounds so crass. It sounds like a bad Rock band. =_=

and many people believe they can act however they want once they've "accepted Christ".

I would say None. The onus is on you to show us a saved Christian who owns such an attitude.

Let’s take your adulterous man who died during sex with his mistress. Do you know his heart? What of he was a model Christian up until his affair began? What if his sin/not sin scales were well in credit, say 10/90 before he embarked on his affair? What about the man’s innermost being? How do you know that he had an “I can act how I want” attitude? How do you, brother Neo, penetrate a man’s heart?

Rom. 7:15-25
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing.

20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law;

23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

25 Thanks be to God— through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

A lot of people Brother Danny, a lot. Of course they are misguided but my point is that the reason they don't care is because they are OSAS.

Neo, I’m yet to see you show me one Christian who “believes they can act however they want once they've "accepted Christ".” These are just assertions, brother. I have not seen one iota of evidence that shows a born again believer will have this kind of attitude.

Why would your sin, which was completely overlooked when He gave you life, suddenly become a stumbling block to God?

Agreed brother, my only point of contention is, this overlooking is not a merit to sin, since it will be overlooked as well.

Precisely. And no one ever said otherwise, bro. It is you saying this and not any proponent of absolute assurance, including Jesus Christ.

This means an ongoing process rather then a one time. because he rightly points out that we do sin, and if we say we have no sin in us, then we are lying. 'If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Exactly. Sanctification is a process.

Yet this flies direct in the face of OSAS. The question is, should we not, confess our sin and ask forgiveness, and go on sinning. Then is there something to be afraid of? does this not challenge OSAS?

How on earth does this fly in the face of assurance? Brother Neo, please elaborate here.

I however still believe that we can outright walk away from God, lose our inheritance and this become lost, sin too much, do not repent and become sinners AGAIN, BY CHOICE after coming to Christ.

Neo, this is a no-goer. Why would anyone want to walk away from freedom? Why would a born again believer want to walk away? Once you know Christ why would you want to un-know Him? How would this even occur? Please show me a coherent argument for this “walking away”. Where is this biblical, bro?

Brother Neo, you don’t “become” a sinner “again”. You always were a sinner, and you’ll be a sinner until the day of redemption.

I believe that a walk in the spirit means a walk contrary to walk of the flesh. That is my point. Are we sinners after Christ blood washed us? do we continue sin, cuz we will sin, anyway and we will be saved, nonetheless?

Neo, are you free from all sin? If not, then I fail to see how you have a point here. No disrespect, bro, but you sound like judge and jury all rolled into one here.

What you are saying here Bro, is directly opposite of the reference you quoted "1 John 3:9,

No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Brother Neo, do you think 1 John 3:9 is really saying you will remain completely sinless once born of God? If so, what are you going to do with Romans chapter 7? 1 John is an exhortation to Christians. It now goes against the Christian’s innermost principles to sin. When the born again believer thinks deeply about it, he is repulsed by his sin nature, and he hates it when he commits sins. As a matter of practice, no one in this world lives a sinless life. So the question must follow: how much sin is acceptable to you, brother? Can you lay out the ratio?

If I am a sinner in God's eyes, I receive Christ and is saved, then am I still considered a sinner in front of God? You say, no, you are sealed, saved, child of God, yet you say, that I will remain a sinner always. Why would a sealed, saved, child of God, a true believer could also be considered a sinner all through life, in front of God? Unless he goes on sinning, but then that means he is not saved, was never saved.

Your sins did not matter when God chose you, so why would they matter now? Sanctification is a process for every born again believer, and there is no stipulation telling us ‘how much’ sanctification is ‘required’.’ If the Spirit dwells in you, then you are saved. Once you know you are a child of God, your whole attitude towards sin changes.

Neo, I don’t think you are fully grasping the effects of sin in man.

On a serious note Brother Danny, I can see that we can sin, but it doesn't mean it is ok to sin. But the OSAS makes this trivial, since you are saved. As for my point, to ask for forgiveness, really must not be a "feeling sorry" but a realization that God has ordained us to be holy and that we should remain holy. 1 cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?..."

Assurance makes nothing trivial, bro. No proponents of absolute assurance are making sin trivial; it is you who seems to be doing this.

I can never imagine to go to God and say, I did these works I am entitled to this. Far from it. But unless I ask for forgiveness of things that I have done wrong, I am accountable to God for them.

Oh but you are, Neo. You are attempting to set up a line that one must not cross; trouble is you have not told us where this line is.

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins (Mt. 6:14,15).

And how does this negate absolute assurance, brother?

It would be wrong for God to accept people who persist in sin and call themselves filled with the Spirit

Whoa whoa whoa. Why would it be “wrong”? Neo, are you seriously presuming to tell God what is right and what is wrong? Was it wrong for God to pluck you out of nowhere when you were already dead in your sin? No? According to your thinking here, why the hell not? You really need to start looking at the gift as a gift, brother.

a good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree does respectively. I think that scriptures make it clear. I think the work Christ did was meant for us to sin less and less with passing time. So that we can learn to walk more in the spirit and less in the flesh, with each passing day.

No. The work of Christ was atonement for our sins. What could be more beautiful than that? Do you honestly believe Christ came, gave His life, so you might “sin less and less”, and ‘perhaps’ be saved? Like it not, brother, your sins are forgiven! No born again believer throws this back in Christ’s face. If I sin, it is not I that sins, but my sinful nature. I don’t ‘want’ to sin; I try hard sometimes not to, and other times show tremendous weakness. Am I really to deduce that I might not be saved? Am I really to deduce that Christ’s work on the cross was so flaky that it left everything hanging in the balance and leaves every ‘saved’ person not really sure of their salvation? Did Christ ‘not really’ conquer our sins, but hey, He gave it a good go? How many out of 10 shall we give Him for effort?

Some verses from 1 John 2
(1 John 2:3-6 NIV) [3]"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. [4] The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: [6] Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."

Exhortation to the brothers and sisters. Otherwise you have a lot to live up to here, Neo. Can you walk as Jesus did?

9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.

Exhortation to the brothers and sisters. These are all good instructions, brother.

15 "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[d] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."

Amen.

These are some of the conditional verses brother Danny, they have conditions which are to be met, not by perfect Christians but by people are meant to transform in the image of Christ with passing time. That is a big goal, but we are told to pursue it with whatever we have. We can always say, I am saved, but do we truly act like we are saved or are we comfortable with sin?

No, brother Neo, they are not “conditional” at all, and if they were you’d be bang in trouble! Neo, I love you, brother, but you sound like a legalist here.

But your last paragraph gives the game away. It would take a “perfect Christian” to accomplish all your demands, brother. In other words, it would take Jesus Christ to accomplish all your demands. Think again, please bro.

God bless

[Byblos]

Predestination with respect to OSAS.

Neo, predestination means you were predestined. Assurance is the natural flow from predestination.

We've had this conversation many times Danny. In fact if I recall, this line of thinking is exactly what precipitated the Secured Salvation thread. Danny, it is simply logically contradictory to state that one can have absolute assurance and in the same sentence state that one can prove they were never saved. If one can prove they were never saved then by definition absolute assurance is negated since no one can be sure what the future holds and if at some point they will prove they never were saved. It is inescapable.

The only absolute assurance that is truly absolute and is logically consistent is the one that states once you are saved, you are always saved NO MATTER WHAT. There is no such thing as proving one was never saved, no matter how heinous the deeds.

[DannyM]

Neo, predestination means you were predestined. Assurance is the natural flow from predestination.

The only absolute assurance that is truly absolute and is logically consistent is the one that states once you are saved, you are always saved NO MATTER WHAT. There is no such thing as proving one was never saved, no matter how heinous the deeds.

Exactly. Thank you, John. Hence I have no contradiction.