A "faith" that works

[Jac3510]

To say because I submit to the church's (interpretive) authority I do not consider scripture as authoritative (or that the church, for that matter, does not consider scripture authoritative) is a fallacy. They're not mutually exclusive. It is not a matter of who is more authoritative than the other, it's a matter of who has the INTERPRETIVE authority over scripture, individuals or the church. The constitution of the United States is meaningless without the proper and, yes authoritative (judicial), body to interpret it. Does SCOTUS change the constitution in any way? No, they interpret it. Can you and I disagree with their decision? Of course we can but we must abide by their interpretation nonetheless.

I recognize all this, which is why I said, as you yourself quoted me saying, "More precisely, you submit to the RCC's interpretation of the Scripture, even if they disagree with yours, whereas I submit to my own interpretation of Scripture." I understand your position completely and totally.

But we are really getting off track here. My point in all of this is that given YOUR interpretation of John 3:16, and given that to the extent that one believes in OSAS then the ONLY logical conclusion is the one you espouse. We've discussed this many times before and I've always said (and you agreed with me) that there is absolutely no difference between believing you can lose your salvation or believing in the possibility that you might discover at some point that you've never been saved. In either case there is no absolute assurance of salvation, only a moral one. So if one does believe in OSAS and does believe in absolute assurance, then the ONLY tenable position is yours, Jac.

And, again, I appreciate the endorsement, even though you ultimately disagree with me. I'm aware that the RCC doesn't believe in absolute assurance but favors moral assurance. That's not the position of the Reformers, which is the position that most people here espouse. That's why, again, I said I respected your position but not that of others. You, my friend, are being logically consistent. I don't think others are.

God bless

This is exactly what I (and Jac) are talking about. If there is a chance that someone might discover later on that they were never saved, what does that do to absolute assurance and OSAS? The most you can hope for is a moral assurance that you MIGHT be saved (or you MIGHT NOT discover that you never were). But you have no absolute assurance at all.

Conclusion: It is either you agree with Jac or you start looking for RCIA classes at your local Catholic parish

QFT

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
If, Jac, you are correct, then why are there any of the Commandments left for us? If in fact the manner in which one is saved is belief once and then live as one pleases...why did Christ reitterate at least 9 of the 10? If it doesn't matter what we do once we believe, why is there rules at all? Why must we "remain" in Christ? (John 14:21, 15:10) What is this about?

Maybe it's me you speak of as being logically inconsistent...?
.
.

[FFC]

Of course I know you are talking about someone who flat out doesn't want God in their life anymore. To me that is an indicater that they never were saved.

This is exactly what I (and Jac) are talking about. If there is a chance that someone might discover later on that they were never saved, what does that do to absolute assurance and OSAS? The most you can hope for is a moral assurance that you MIGHT be saved (or you MIGHT NOT discover that you never were). But you have no absolute assurance at all.

Conclusion: It is either you agree with Jac or you start looking for RCIA classes at your local Catholic parish .

But we can, and I do have absolute assurance! I trust that God is not a liar and I take him at His word that once I believe in him I have life that lasts forever. According to the scriptures I'm washed by the blood, and sealed til the day of redemption, and no one can snatch me from the Fathers hand. I'd say that is pretty eternally and totally secure.

[Jac3510]

If, Jac, you are correct, then why are there any of the Commandments left for us? If in fact the manner in which one is saved is belief once and then live as one pleases...why did Christ reitterate at least 9 of the 10? If it doesn't matter what we do once we believe, why is there rules at all? Why must we "remain" in Christ? (John 14:21, 15:10) What is this about?

Maybe it's me you speak of as being logically inconsistent...?

To remain in God's favor, to be blessed, to enjoy His approval, to receive rewards, to remain in fellowship with Him, to have our prayers answered, to avoid judgment, to avoid chastisement, to bear good witness so that others may come to be saved, because we love God, plain old fashioned gratitude . . . I can think of a few good reasons to serve God other than to avoid Hell.

It's rather sad that people think they have to serve God so that He doesn't send them to Hell.

[Byblos]

But we can, and I do have absolute assurance! I trust that God is not a liar and I take him at His word that once I believe in him I have life that lasts forever. According to the scriptures I'm washed by the blood, and sealed til the day of redemption, and no one can snatch me from the Fathers hand. I'd say that is pretty eternally and totally secure.

What do you say to the former Christian who said the exact same words but today is an atheist? You would say well, he was never saved. But while he thought he was saved, he had absolute assurance. But was it (absolute)? Unless you say (as Jac does) that he IS saved REGARDLESS of what he is now or will ever be, then NO ONE has absolute assurance. I believe this is the point Jac is trying to hammer in and I agree with him because it is the only logical conclusion of OSAS.

[FFC]

But we can, and I do have absolute assurance! I trust that God is not a liar and I take him at His word that once I believe in him I have life that lasts forever. According to the scriptures I'm washed by the blood, and sealed til the day of redemption, and no one can snatch me from the Fathers hand. I'd say that is pretty eternally and totally secure.

What do you say to the former Christian who said the exact same words but today is an atheist? You would say well, he was never saved. But while he thought he was saved, he had absolute assurance. But was it (absolute)? Unless you say (as Jac does) that he IS saved REGARDLESS of what he is now or will ever be, then NO ONE has absolute assurance. I believe this is the point Jac is trying to hammer in and I agree with him because it is the only logical conclusion of OSAS.

I'll go with what God promises and let him sort it out.

[Jac3510]

BTW, Biblos, I'm sure you will be SHOCKED to find that the Catholic Church has already made your exact point:

Most fundamentalist writers state the assurance of salvation in a slightly different way. They do not emphasize the logical consequence of their position, that later sin, no matter how great, cannot undo one's salvation. They agree . . . that assurance can be absolute, but instead of arguing that “no personal breaking of God's or man's laws or commandments can nullify” that assurance, they emphasize that someone who has been saved will not, in fact, sin as frequently as he did before accepting Christ as his personal Savior . . . . Most fundamentalists [are] satisfied to say that the saved man either will not sin or will not sin grievously.
.
.
.
How can any fundamentalist know his salvation experience was real, that it “worked”? He cannot. Leading a good life immediately after being born again proves nothing, since one might sin grievously at a later time.

This from Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 10, 173.

Also, note that Erasmus, a contemporary of Luther, argued that his doctrine of faith alone was NO DIFFERENT from the Catholic doctrine he condemned as salvation by works, saying: “Whether works justify or faith justifies matters little, since all allow that faith will not save without works.” See E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio, 1999), 162.

Evangelicals have to decide if they are Catholics or not. If they are, they will embrace OSAS and its logical implications and reject the final perseverance of the saints. Otherwise, they may as well start attending mass. There's simply no way around this if one wishes to be logically consistent.

[BavarianWheels]

To remain in God's favor...

Odd considering your stance.

It's rather sad that people think they have to serve God so that He doesn't send them to Hell.

No one has to do anything...it's a choice.
.
.

[Byblos]

BTW, Biblos, I'm sure you will be SHOCKED to find that the Catholic Church has already made your exact point:

Most fundamentalist writers state the assurance of salvation in a slightly different way. They do not emphasize the logical consequence of their position, that later sin, no matter how great, cannot undo one's salvation. They agree . . . that assurance can be absolute, but instead of arguing that “no personal breaking of God's or man's laws or commandments can nullify” that assurance, they emphasize that someone who has been saved will not, in fact, sin as frequently as he did before accepting Christ as his personal Savior . . . . Most fundamentalists [are] satisfied to say that the saved man either will not sin or will not sin grievously.
.
.
.
How can any fundamentalist know his salvation experience was real, that it “worked”? He cannot. Leading a good life immediately after being born again proves nothing, since one might sin grievously at a later time.

This from Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 10, 173.

Also, note that Erasmus, a contemporary of Luther, argued that his doctrine of faith alone was NO DIFFERENT from the Catholic doctrine he condemned as salvation by works, saying: “Whether works justify or faith justifies matters little, since all allow that faith will not save without works.” See E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio, 1999), 162.

Evangelicals have to decide if they are Catholics or not. If they are, they will embrace OSAS and its logical implications and reject the final perseverance of the saints. Otherwise, they may as well start attending mass. There's simply no way around this if one wishes to be logically consistent.

I've heard it's a great book, haven't read it yet. Just to clarify, Karl Keating does not speak for the Catholic Church, only the church does (through its magisterium, its councils, and its catechism).

[Jac3510]

I've heard it's a great book, haven't read it yet. Just to clarify, Karl Keating does not speak for the Catholic Church, only the church does (through its magisterium, its councils, and its catechism).

I'm aware. Just typing in a hurry and didn't see the need to be more nuanced in saying "RCC apologists . . ." as such. But for those who perhaps didn't know, thanks for the clarification.

Too bad he doesn't believe the Gospel . . . OH ZING!!!

[Byblos]

Too bad he doesn't believe the Gospel . . . OH ZING!!!

If he doesn't then he may be backsliding into his reformist roots. .

[B. W.]

We can learn a lot in from Paul's Letters to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12-16, "...Let no one despise your youth, but become an example of the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, attend to reading, to exhortation to the doctrine. 14 Do not be neglectful of the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with laying on of the hands of the elderhood. 15 Give care to these things; be in these things in order that your progress may be plain in all. 16 Give attention to yourself and to the doctrine; continue in them, for doing this, you will both deliver yourself and those hearing you." LITV

Paul was writing to Timothy, who in age was young but in 2 Timothy 2:15 it reveals Timothy from childhood knew the Lord. He was young in age but qualified also as an elder in the Lord. Timothy was well versed in the word and able to teach.

Notice what Paul tells him to adhere too: Be an example to the Believers in the Word, in conduct, love, temperament of spirit, faith, purity, attend to the reading of the Word, and exhortation (teaching) of the doctrine. Doing these things Timothy would be able to deliver himself and those hearing him from straying.

Here is what I see in the modern Church. These principles Paul has laid out to Timothy are not adhered too in many congregations today. Some do, but it is a sad fact is that far too many do not.

Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." ESV

The sound teaching from the word in many cases is sadly neglected, not taught, or relegated as not applicable unless used to build human self esteem in the modern Church. Some of this bad teaching induces Christians to back slide. When you teach the truth of believing in Christ and neglect the principles of what it means to be a believer in the word, is it any wonder the bride of Christ is not very beautiful today?

Believe in Christ is what saves because of God's Grace alone displayed. After relishing in this central truth of sound doctrine many people are then are taught such things like, moral growth and conduct are not important, doing good and loving others also is equally unimportant because even the heathen do these. That ones conduct, love, temperament of spirit, faith, and purity of life are no indicators one is saved. That reading the bible is not essential because all you need is to just believe and you are in. Is it any wonder that those that are taught to thus stagnate really progress no further and rarely find the deliverance that Christ promises?

Paul writes in Ephesians 6:15 for believers to have their feed shod with the gospel of peace. However, many Christians are taught to wear only one shoe. Is it any wonder so many go about limping and have so many blisters, injuries, and calluses because they've been taught only half the gospel? What is more amazing is that all this limping about is now taught as the hallmark of being Christian! Does a two legged person wear one or two shoes? Sadly many Christians are taught to wear only one.

Listen to the principle laid out by Paul the Apostle:

2 Timothy 4:1-2, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." ESV

2 Timothy 3:16-17; "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." ESV

1 Timothy 4:12-16, "…set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching… 15 Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save (deliver) both yourself and your hearers.” ESV

We are called to make disciples that reflect Christ like virtues. This comes about by devoting oneself to Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching, and by practice and immersing ones self in this endeavor. Doing so, people will notice our progress seeing that men and women of God are indeed competent and well equipped for every good work God desires to accomplish through his people.

When we fail to do this then do not expect victory in our lives. As our faith is, so be it. The bride of Christ remains shabby, a little wanton, and is not very beautiful nowadays. Do not expect any results if we are not a followers as well as a doer of the Word which teaches, reproves, corrects, and trains in righteousness…

It is true, once you believe you are saved and that doing good works (or keeping the law) does not in no way keep a person saved. Once you are saved, the Lord will never let you go, never ceases to woo you back, and never ceases to teach, reprove, correct, and train us in righteousness. Sometimes it takes much affliction to realize we were wearing only one shoe and not two
-
-
-