Faith Alone

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Nov 28 2004, 01:12 AM']



[/quote]
[quote]I just want to jump in for a second to reiterate that I AM DENYING that Icthus or anyone knows the mind of God enough to determine the state of any soul's "legal status" when standing before God...even his own.[/quote] What, then, of John 3:18-24?

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, [b]and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us[/b]. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
21Dear friends, [b]if our hearts do not condemn us[/b], [i]we have confidence before God[/i] 22and receive from him anything we ask, [b]because we obey his commands and do what pleases him[/b]. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. [b]And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. [/b]

So, then, St. John enumerates two ways in which we may know our status before God.

1. By the inner witness of the Spirit that He gave us.
2. If we obey His commandments and do what pleases Him.

[quote]Aside from dying immediately after a valid baptism or sacramental confession, such a view is just the sin of presumption.[/quote] Hrrrm, really? I'm reminded of something the great Dr. J.I. Packer said in his book "Knowing God" -

"While assurance ([i]of salvation[/i]) is a sin in Romanism, and a duty in Protestantism, in the New Testament it is simply a fact"

If you want to talk about the assurance of salvation more, I would be happy to. But for now, I digress (however, I would like to quote something from a Roman Catholic apologetics site first)

[quote name='http://www.catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp']Places where Scripture speaks of our ability to know that we are abiding in grace are important and must be taken seriously. But they do not promise that we will be protected from self-deception on this matter. Even the author of Can Anyone Really Know for Sure? admits that there is a false assurance: "[b]The New Testament teaches us that genuine assurance is possible and desirable, but it also warns us that we can be deceived through a false assurance[/b]. Jesus declared: ‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 7:21)." [/quote]

[quote]It all goes back to the protestant position: "False faith is only possible for others. I'm saved because I've got a true faith."  OSAS is so funny.[/quote] Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you did not mock my beliefs. Secondly, I'd prefer if you'd refer to what you call "OSAS" as "Eternal Security" or "Perseverance of the Elect", since the monniker "Once-saved, always-saved" is associated with a mindless mantra quoted by people who, though they profess to believe in Eternal Security, have no idea what the full doctrine entails.

On to the substantiative issue you pointed out, the supposed "Protestant position" - "False faith is only possible for others. I'm saved because I've got a true faith." This is a strawman - sort of. We know that we have true faith because we "make certain our calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10) and we have the inner witness of the Spirit, as well as keeping God's commandments.

Does that clear up some issues?

[Brother Adam]

Hmm...I have to agree with ICTHUS to a certian degree. We can have absolute assurance at any given time about our relationship with God and where we stand in the economy of salvation, the only thing we cannot know with absolute assurance is if we will endure to the end.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 28 2004, 05:32 PM'] Hmm...I have to agree with ICTHUS to a certian degree. We can have absolute assurance at any given time about our relationship with God and where we stand in the economy of salvation, the only thing we cannot know with absolute assurance is if we will endure to the end. [/quote]
Which is why we must strive to make certain our calling and election, Bro. Adam.

It seems that Roman Catholicism does not put enough credance in the ability of God to safeguard those whom He claims as His in Christ. From dialoging with you folks, that's the impression that I get - that the reason you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer is that you don't have enough trust in God to take seriously the statements of Jesus and St. Paul that 'no one can pluck us out of the Father's hand' and that 'he who began a good work in you will complete it'

[Brother Adam]

Once again, I'd have to disagree. There are two considerations which must be made in our new covenant, the covenant which is established by Christ. Using our poor modern English language I can easily take "no one can pluck us out of the Father's hand" to mean anything I want, including OSAS, but that does not make it correct.

The Catholic Church puts the correct emphesis that if we remain in the grace of God we will be eternally secure. IF. Thus we can choose to go prodigal. It does not remove us as adopted children of God, but puts our eternal life in heaven with God at risk.

When it comes to the covenant- what happened between God (The Father) and God (The Son) will never be broken. The covenant is final and everlasting. However, we can choose to be members of this covenant or not. Free will.

God (unbreakable covenant) ---------- The Cross ------------ God (unbreakable covenant)

God (offers grace) ----------------- Man (chooses to be in grace or not to be in grace)

Our free will does not cease with adopted sonship. If we choose to remain in the grace of God - if we do not mortally sin, then God will keep his end of the bargain- nothing will keep us from Him. If we choose to mortally sin, then God continues to keep his end of the bargain, he is immutable and uncorruptable, we however have not. It is possible to understand these verses in light of what the Church teaches us. And when we do so, we realize that not only does it show the intimate harmony of the scriptures, but it is a fuller answer than any pious person can offer. A Baptist scholar recently admitted to me that he often has trouble making all the scriptures harmonize, in his understanding they often seem to clash. I had to admit to him I had the same problem as a protestant, but now, within the Tradition and teaching of the Church, there does not exist a "difficult" verse.

Remember also that it takes an entire paradigm shift to go from the liturgical/familial understanding of our covenant relationship to the contractual understanding of a "faith alone" process of salvation.

Blessings,
Bro. Adam

Edited November 29, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Krush2k2]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 28 2004, 05:32 PM'] the only thing we cannot know with absolute assurance is if we will endure to the end. [/quote]
Agreed-thats what i was trying to say

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM'] What, then, of John 3:18-24?

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, [b]and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us[/b]. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
21Dear friends, [b]if our hearts do not condemn us[/b], [i]we have confidence before God[/i] 22and receive from him anything we ask, [b]because we obey his commands and do what pleases him[/b]. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. [b]And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. [/b]

So, then, St. John enumerates two ways in which we may know our status before God.

1. By the inner witness of the Spirit that He gave us.
2. If we obey His commandments and do what pleases Him.[/quote]

It sounds like Protestants would accuse St. John of salvation by works, just as they judge Catholics.

Seriously, though, this does not undermine the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we should be on guard against the sin of presumption.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM'] What, then, of John 3:18-24? Hrrrm, really? I'm reminded of something the great Dr. J.I. Packer said in his book "Knowing God" -

"While assurance ([i]of salvation[/i]) is a sin in Romanism, and a duty in Protestantism, in the New Testament it is simply a fact"[/quote]

I've never heard of the Great Dr. Packer. Is he a Green Bay native? dUSt would like him.

Here's a "New Testament fact": assuming eternal security can lead a person into the sin of presumption. Here's another "New Testament fact": [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/philippians/philippians2.htm#v12"]Philippians 2:12[/url]

As I mentioned before, the typical protestant who holds such a belief (i.e. assured salvation) usually only believes it applies to himself and few others (e.g. the members of his own denomination).

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM'] If you want to talk about the assurance of salvation more, I would be happy to. But for now, I digress (however, I would like to quote something from a Roman Catholic apologetics site first)
[/quote]

I think we already talked about this topic in another thread.

I appreciate your quote from the Catholic.com site. It cites a key verse (Matt. 7:21) in the Holy Bible, describing to a "T" those who believe themselves to be eternally secure--those who say "Lord, Lord" certainly presume on God's mercy and assume themselves to be saved.

Both the Gospels and the Epistles are full of warnings against people who presume on God's mercy and assume they have "true faith," even when they are [b]un[/b]faithful. Another clear passage is [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm#v31"]Matthew 25:31-46[/url]. Those being condemned thought they had "true faith." Scattered through the New Testament, the warnings are made to people who think they are eternally secure...until they find out that they aren't.

When the Scriptures repeatedly show examples of people who presume they were saved until they find out they are not, would a Protestant of any flavor believe that such examples are the result of God not keeping His promise? I'm just shaking my head trying to figure out how my examples and warnings can be wrong, when they are nothing more than the parroting of the warnings contained in the Bible itself.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM'] Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you did not mock my beliefs. Secondly, I'd prefer if you'd refer to what you call "OSAS" as "Eternal Security" or "Perseverance of the Elect", since the monniker "Once-saved, always-saved" is associated with a mindless mantra quoted by people who, though they profess to believe in Eternal Security, have no idea what the full doctrine entails.  [/quote]

First, if you believe my identifying the hypocrisy of those who believe in this particular man-made doctrine to be "mocking," I don't know what else to say. I'm just sharing my personal experiences. The Lord mocked those who couldn't see the log in their own eye. In my opinion, there's a clear parallel, because I've experienced "eternally secure" protestants who question the "true faith" of other "eternally secure" protestants.

Second, if you're going to be the champion of sensitive debating technique, why don't you stop using anti-Catholic terms that are the religious equivalent of racist slurs? Historically, it was terms like these that inspired the massacres of Catholics by various Protestant sects, especially in the English-speaking world. Here's your chance to stop with the slurs and practice the sensitivity that you are now preaching.

On the topic of Eternal Security, I reiterate that you don't know the mind of God enough to make a judgment on who is eternally secure, even if God knows in eternity.

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM']On to the substantiative issue you pointed out, the supposed "Protestant position" - "False faith is only possible for others. I'm saved because I've got a true faith." This is a strawman - sort of. We know that we have true faith because we "make certain our calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10) and we have the inner witness of the Spirit, as well as keeping God's commandments.

Does that clear up some issues? [/quote]

Well, I suppose you are right to add the adjective "supposed" to Protestant position, because protestantism holds no truth uniformly. But, if we view the set of protestants who believe themselves eternally secure, it takes no time at all to see some groups questioning the "true faith" of other groups.

Outside the Church, Protestants have revised and reinvented the teachings of Jesus, just as it was predicted in the New Testament. So the question arises: can someone be saved by belief in a false Jesus? And, if you have no authority other than your own (and maybe some like-minded theologians), how can you be sure whether your Jesus is really Jesus at all?

If you and your like-minded theologians can question the "true faith," the "calling," and "election" of a single other "eternal security" Protestant, then he and his like-minded theologians more than likely will question yours. This is the unfortunate consequence of the man-made doctrine of eternal security.

God bless!

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 28 2004, 07:37 PM'] Which is why we must strive to make certain our calling and election, Bro. Adam.

It seems that Roman Catholicism does not put enough credance in the ability of God to safeguard those whom He claims as His in Christ. From dialoging with you folks, that's the impression that I get - that the reason you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer is that you don't have enough trust in God to take seriously the statements of Jesus and St. Paul that 'no one can pluck us out of the Father's hand' and that 'he who began a good work in you will complete it' [/quote]
There are two extremes:

1) Despair: losing hope in God's grace; and
2) Presumption: presuming on God's grace.

Both extremes are sinful, and (to my knowledge) both extremes are condemned by the Holy Bible and the Holy Catholic Church. In my opinion, there is a middle way, in which we (1) trust in the grace of God to work in us while (2) avoiding the presumption that we cannot fall into sin which kills our soul (1 John 5:16, Rom 6:23).

It just happens that someone who is subject to one extreme might incorrectly group everyone else into the other extreme.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 28 2004, 10:36 PM']





[/quote]
[quote]Once again, I'd have to disagree. There are two considerations which must be made in our new covenant, the covenant which is established by Christ. Using our poor modern English language I can easily take "no one can pluck us out of the Father's hand" to mean anything I want, including OSAS, but that does not make it correct.

The Catholic Church puts the correct emphesis that if we remain in the grace of God we will be eternally secure. IF. Thus we can choose to go prodigal. It does not remove us as adopted children of God, but puts our eternal life in heaven with God at risk. [/quote] This does not address my original objection. The Roman faith, as I have seen it displayed in the words of many here, and the actions, words, and attitudes of many Roman Catholics whom I know in person, does not put credance in God's ability and willingness [b]to safeguard those whom He claims in Christ. [/b]
[quote]When it comes to the covenant- what happened between God (The Father) and God (The Son) will never be broken. The covenant is final and everlasting. However, we can choose to be members of this covenant or not. Free will.

God (unbreakable covenant) ----------  The Cross ------------ God (unbreakable covenant)

God (offers grace) ----------------- Man (chooses to be in grace or not to be in grace)[/quote] I don't see how this is consistent with a text like Romans 8:28-39

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 [b]For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.[/b]

And let's not forget Phillipians 1:3-7 (KJV)

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy,
5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;
[b]6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:[/b]
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

[quote]Our free will does not cease with adopted sonship.[/quote] Of course not - we do what we will, but those who persevere in the Faith [i]will[/i] to persevere to the end because God, in His mercy, moves their wills, through the inspiration of His Spirit, to finally persevere.

[quote] If we choose to remain in the grace of God - if we do not mortally sin, then God will keep his end of the bargain- nothing will keep us from Him. If we choose to mortally sin, then God continues to keep his end of the bargain, he is immutable and uncorruptable, we however have not.[/quote] I don't agree.

I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can [i]neither totally nor finally fall away[/i] from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

III. Nevertheless, they (the [i]elect[/i]) may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

If you wish proof texts for the points above, I can provide them.

[quote]It is possible to understand these verses in light of what the Church teaches us. And when we do so, we realize that not only does it show the intimate harmony of the scriptures, but it is a fuller answer than any pious person can offer. A Baptist scholar recently admitted to me that he often has trouble making all the scriptures harmonize, in his understanding they often seem to clash. I had to admit to him I had the same problem as a protestant, but now, within the Tradition and teaching of the Church, there does not exist a "difficult" verse. [/quote] The problem is that many Baptists believe in a version of [i]solo scriptura[/i], which completely rejects the constant testimony of the Church through the ages. [b]Sola Scriptura[/b], while affirming that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of doctrine which we have, affirms that the Councils of the Church, Church Fathers, etc, are important aids in our understanding of the Faith, but always answerable to the Scriptures.

[quote]Remember also that it takes an entire paradigm shift to go from the liturgical/familial understanding of our covenant relationship to the contractual understanding of a "faith alone" process of salvation.[/quote] Indeed, and this is where [i]many[/i] evangelicals have gone awry. Dr. Packer, in his book "[i]Knowing God[/i]", makes no small mention of this. Justification, though in itself an excellent thing wherein guilty sinners are counted as innocent in God's court, is not the primary blessing of the Holy Gospel - rather, it is that of covenantal adoption - as St. John writes "see what love the Father has given us - that we should be called [i]sons[/i] of God - and so we are!"

Alleluia!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Nov 29 2004, 01:36 AM']



















[/quote]

[quote]It sounds like Protestants would accuse St. John of salvation by works, just as they judge Catholics.[/quote] Not at all. St. John merely gives criterion for knowing whether or not we are in the grace of God. The passage above is a catechesis on [i]how to know we are in Christ[/i], not how to be saved.

[quote]Seriously, though, this does not undermine the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we should be on guard against the sin of presumption.[/quote] Define the sin of 'presumption'. To me, it sounds like you consider having full trust in the grace and mercy of God to enable a person to persevere unto salvation, to be a sin. Is this so?

[quote]I've never heard of the Great Dr. Packer.  Is he a Green Bay native? dUSt would like him.[/quote] Very funny. Dr. Jim Inell Packer, a Reformed Anglican, is from England, and a Board of Governers prof. of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is also a world-renowned author - his most known work being the best-seller "Knowing God", a classic which has been in print for over 25 years and which I highly recommend.

[url="http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=120"]http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=120[/url]

[quote]Here's a "New Testament fact": assuming eternal security can lead a person into the sin of presumption.[/quote] We'll have to define what 'presumption' is, first, before we argue this point. I suspect there may be some confusion in my mind as to what exactly it is.

As for Phillipians 2:12, the infamous 'fear and trembling' verse', John Calvin explains it thusly

[b]With fear and trembling. [/b] - In this way he would have the Philippians testify and approve their obedience -- by being submissive and humble. Now the source of humility is this -- acknowledging how miserable we are, and devoid of all good. To this he calls them in this statement. For whence comes pride, but from the assurance which blind confidence produces, when we please ourselves, and are more puffed up with confidence in our own virtue, than prepared to rest upon the grace of God. In contrast with this vice is that fear to which he exhorts. Now, although exhortation comes before doctrine, in the connection of the passage, it is in reality after it, in point of arrangement, inasmuch as it is derived from it. I shall begin, accordingly, with doctrine.

I do not think he explains it adequately, however. To explain this verse, I would look elsewhere in the New Testament, such as 1 Cor 10:12

Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
[b]12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.[/b]13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Falling, as we are told, is a very real danger, and if we fall we shall incur God's displeasure. Yet we who are justified, even if we fall, will not continue in that fallen state unto death - nevertheless, we are exhorted to persevere in good works. It is a perverted and Godless mind indeed who thinks that the gospel of free grace is a license to sin without fear!

[quote]As I mentioned before, the typical protestant who holds such a belief (i.e. assured salvation) usually only believes it applies to himself and few others (e.g. the members of his own denomination).[/quote] Define 'typical protestant' - can you find documentation of a protestant writing of this belief? On the contrary, one can have a pretty good idea of whether one's brother is in God's grace - if that brother is obeying God's commandments, and knows himself, by the internal witness of God's spirit, to be in Christ.

[quote]I appreciate your quote from the Catholic.com site.  It cites a key verse (Matt. 7:21) in the Holy Bible, describing to a "T" those who believe themselves to be eternally secure--those who say "Lord, Lord" certainly presume on God's mercy and assume themselves to be saved.  [/quote] I disagree. Our Lord says to them something which I judge crucial to the understanding of the passage.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; [b]but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.[/b]22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Those who do either do not 'do the will of the Father' and/or assume that their good works can earn them a place in God's kingdom, are the ones that Christ has in view here. A person can easily apply St. John's 'test of faith' to themselves to see whether or not he is in Christ - and woe to him if he is not!

[quote]Both the Gospels and the Epistles are full of warnings against people who presume on God's mercy and assume they have "true faith," even when they are [b]un[/b]faithful.  Another clear passage is [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm#v31"]Matthew 25:31-46[/url].  Those being condemned thought they had "true faith."  Scattered through the New Testament, the warnings are made to people who think they are eternally secure...until they find out that they aren't.[/quote] Yet again, the 'goats' obviously did not apply St. John's test to themselves. The basis on which Our Lord condemns them is that they professed the true religion, yet did not do the works which their Father commanded - they fed not the hungry, clothed not the naked, visited not the imprisoned, etc. If only such as our Lord describes [i]had examined [/i] themselves and found themselves disobedient of God's commandments, and subsequently repented and amended their lives, they would not have come under condemnation.

[quote]When the Scriptures repeatedly show examples of people who presume they were saved until they find out they are not, would a Protestant of any flavor believe that such examples are the result of God not keeping His promise?  I'm just shaking my head trying to figure out how my examples and warnings can be wrong, when they are nothing more than the parroting of the warnings contained in the Bible itself.[/quote] On the contrary - such examples are the result of men not obeying God. Obviously, such men are not among the elect, for if they were, they would have examined themselves, found themselves wanting of true faith, and repented.

[quote]First, if you believe my identifying the hypocrisy of those who believe in this particular man-made doctrine to be "mocking," I don't know what else to say.  I'm just sharing my personal experiences.  The Lord mocked those who couldn't see the log in their own eye.  In my opinion, there's a clear parallel, because I've experienced "eternally secure" protestants who question the "true faith" of other "eternally secure" protestants.[/quote] Well, I assure you that I would not question the faith of a person who professes to trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins, unless they show signs of living in unrepentant sin - in which case, I would direct them to a passage such as St. John's 'test of faith'.

[quote]Second, if you're going to be the champion of sensitive debating technique, why don't you stop using anti-Catholic terms that are the religious equivalent of racist slurs?  Historically, it was terms like these that inspired the massacres of Catholics by various Protestant sects, especially in the English-speaking world.  Here's your chance to stop with the slurs and practice the sensitivity that you are now preaching.[/quote] I will, when people stop using a double standard for Roman Catholics and Protestants on this site, with people like Ironmonk getting away with mocking Aaron (Broccolifish), assuming that he had never heard of the Church Fathers, when in fact Aaron is a youth minister with a degree in religious studies who has, in fact, some knowledge of the Fathers.

[quote]On the topic of Eternal Security, I reiterate that you don't know the mind of God enough to make a judgment on who is eternally secure, even if God knows in eternity.[/quote] Of course not, and I never said I did. We can only judge the veracity of a persons faith by their actions - which I have been advocating all along.

[quote]Well, I suppose you are right to add the adjective "supposed" to Protestant position, because protestantism holds no truth uniformly.  But, if we view the set of protestants who believe themselves eternally secure, it takes no time at all to see some groups questioning the "true faith" of other groups.[/quote] Which groups? Could you substantiate this with examples? I've never seen, for instance, a Presbyterian minister who believed that all Anglicans were going to Hell, nor vice-versa. The belief you are describing is a characteristic of some very right-wing, fundamentalist sects of the Baptist church (Missionary Baptists, for instance), but these organizations are often considered cults by much of mainline Protestantism, for they often err in other important matters of faith.

[quote]Outside the Church, Protestants have revised and reinvented the teachings of Jesus, just as it was predicted in the New Testament.  So the question arises: can someone be saved by belief in a false Jesus?  And, if you have no authority other than your own (and maybe some like-minded theologians), how can you be sure whether your Jesus is really Jesus at all?[/quote] "My Jesus" - there is only one Jesus, and He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Certainly, one may evaluate the Gospels, in addition to the Councils of the Church and the Creeds, and determine whether or not the Christology one believes in is orthodox - for instance, if one is an Arian, a monophysite, etc.

[quote]If you and your like-minded theologians can question the "true faith," the "calling," and "election" of a single other "eternal security" Protestant, then he and his like-minded theologians more than likely will question yours.  This is the unfortunate consequence of the man-made doctrine of eternal security.[/quote] Not really. As I said above, a person may apply the test that St. John eludicates to himself or, if his brother is living in unrepentant sin, to his brother (and in so doing, endeavour to warn him of the consequences of his sin). I don't see where you are getting this idea from.

Pax,
Ryan

[mark3200]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 26 2004, 05:09 PM'] I hear you, Delivery Boy. We are justified by faith in Christ, and we have peace with the Father thereby, not by how many times we go to Mass in one month. [/quote]
I don't think the point was that the danger is in depending on Mass attendance for salvation.

The problem I see is that we're dealing with an issue of Catholic faith in Protestant terms. Base truth is that any of us attend Mass first and foremost to receive the Eucharist. Now, as a former Protestant, this is for me the bottom line. If I'm not going to receive a legitimate Eucharist, why bother? To hear a 45 minute sermon? Don't think so...

Proposal: partaking in the Sacraments (any of them) is in itself faith in action. Of course, the base charge on this one is that the Sacraments are a means God uses to impart His grace to us (note use of the singular article "a" - I don't want to suggest that God can't use any means He wishes).

That's the whole problem with the "us vs them" and "faith vs works" deal. It simply doesn't wash when you try to translate it from Protestant to Catholic terms. It won't. Not until there's a common understanding of what the Sacramental life of the Church really means. Protestantism (by this I'm refering to mainstream evangelicalism) simply doesn't have the same approach to the Sacraments, typically doesn't understand Sacramental life and sees it as some extra stuff we do that we really don't need. Until there's an acknowledgement that our faith in Christ as Christians (and Catholics) and our participation in the Sacraments are inseperable, the result of this flavor of discusion will always be a null set. Not that it's not valuable, but telling Catholics that Mass attendance isn't a sin, because justification comes through faith is like telling a fish he needs to learn to ride a bike to be a better swimmer: it makes no sense.

I participate in the Sacramental life of the Church "in faith", not out of fear that God will yank the salvation rug out from under my feet.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='mark3200' date='Dec 3 2004, 04:30 AM'] I don't think the point was that the danger is in depending on Mass attendance for salvation. 

The problem I see is that we're dealing with an issue of Catholic faith in Protestant terms.  Base truth is that any of us attend Mass first and foremost to receive the Eucharist.  Now, as a former Protestant, this is for me the bottom line.  If I'm not going to receive a legitimate Eucharist, why bother?  To hear a 45 minute sermon?  Don't think so...

Proposal: partaking in the Sacraments (any of them) is in itself faith in action.  Of course, the base charge on this one is that the Sacraments are a means God uses to impart His grace to us (note use of the singular article "a" - I don't want to suggest that God can't use any means He wishes).

That's the whole problem with the "us vs them" and "faith vs works" deal.  It simply doesn't wash when you try to translate it from Protestant to Catholic terms.  It won't.  Not until there's a common understanding of what the Sacramental life of the Church really means.  Protestantism (by this I'm refering to mainstream evangelicalism) simply doesn't have the same approach to the Sacraments, typically doesn't understand Sacramental life and sees it as some extra stuff we do that we really don't need.  Until there's an acknowledgement that our faith in Christ as Christians (and Catholics) and our participation in the Sacraments are inseperable, the result of this flavor of discusion will always be a null set.  Not that it's not valuable, but telling Catholics that Mass attendance isn't a sin, because justification comes through faith is like telling a fish he needs to learn to ride a bike to be a better swimmer: it makes no sense. 

I participate in the Sacramental life of the Church "in faith", not out of fear that God will yank the salvation rug out from under my feet. [/quote]
This is the issue. Protestants do not believe we are justified by covenantal faithfulness, we are justified by [i]faith[/i]. God isn't going to yank the salvific rug out from under us if we miss Church or eat a big mac on a Friday - we have [i]peace[/i] with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ - peace - a total cessation of hostilities, not just a temporary cease-fire.

With that said, it is of course a sin to neglect the means which God has provided to further our sanctification, but it is not a sin which will beaver dam us - indeed, there is no sin too strong to beaver dam the person who is truly justified in Christ. Note that this is not a defense of going out and sinning all you like, rather, it is a belief that God will, in the end, claim those whom He foreknew and predestined as His own, and that even if a person be a greivous sinner till the last moment of their lives, if God has elected that person to faith, they will come to faith and be saved.

Edited December 5, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Archangel]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 5 2004, 01:47 PM']Protestants do not believe we are justified by covenantal faithfulness, we are justified by [i]faith[/i].[/quote]
James 2:24 teaches that we justified by our faith and works and not by faith alone: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 7 2004, 06:01 AM'] James 2:24 teaches that we justified by our faith and works and not by faith alone: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." [/quote]
And we do not deny that a faith that is barren of works (unless, of course, a person is converted and dies before they have a chance to do any said works) can save - we are justified by faith as the [i]alone instrument of justification[/i], not a faith that is alone.

[Guest Aluigi]

works are an instrument of faith though. works do not have any bearing directly onto justification, but insomuch as they have a beariung on faith and faith has a bearing on justification are they related

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 8 2004, 04:37 PM'] works are an instrument of faith though. works do not have any bearing directly onto justification, but insomuch as they have a beariung on faith and faith has a bearing on justification are they related [/quote]
No - they act as a litmus test of faith, nothing more.