I am a little old and I am a little slow are you saying you can be justified by Christ but still not savedTruly Justified, but not Saved. How much clearer can it be that the Two are Distinct? 1 single counterexample disproves it.
I am a little old and I am a little slow are you saying you can be justified by Christ but still not savedTruly Justified, but not Saved. How much clearer can it be that the Two are Distinct? 1 single counterexample disproves it.
Dear XJLI, you are basing your doctrine on a misunderstanding lots of verses. ps: which single verse am I misunderstanding?
I guess you mean all the verses you CLAIM mean opposite of the "one verse" I use.
The best study method is found in Acts 17:11, where the Bereans "searched the Scriptures daily to see if what XJLI says is true". And I have found that what you claim is not found in Scripture.
Since I use the Berean study method, I'm way ahead of you on that.
It really doesn't take much discernment to easily understand what Jesus was talking about in John 15. When He spoke of "abiding", He was talking about fellowship. And those who will bear fruit must be in fellowship with Him. Those believers who are not in fellowship cannot bear fruit. Real simple.
btw, "burned in the fire" in this agricultural metaphor refers to being discarded from use. To the Jews during Jesus' time, such an idea would have been horrible, since they were so proud of being God's chosen people for service. To be discarded from service would shock them.
Once again, nothing about losing salvation. And how silly anyway. Those who claim salvation can be lost simply strongly disagree with the very clear words of John 10:28, where Jesus said that recipients of eternal life shall never perish.
Same concept as in John 15:1-6.
Jesus didn't lie in John 10:28. Your opinion cannot be true given what He said.
You just don't have any idea what Peter was talking about. Believers who return to "the world" will have a worse life until their death. It has nothing to do with eternity, as you wrongly opine.
I explained what "cut off" meant to 1st Century Jews. Sorry you didn't like it.Just look at how you dealt with Romans 11:22: "22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." You ignored completely what it clearly teaches. It teaches that those who apostatize into unbelief will be cut off from Christ just like those who never believed.
Of course it is a metaphor. The whole passage is based on an agricultural metaphor. That is real clear.This is exactly the opposite of what you believe, yet you find some excuses to claim it is just a "metaphor" etc!
Well, I'm sorry that you have completely missed the fact that I AM following it to a T.Sorry, you're not following the Berean method at all
OK, I'll take this real slow.The Bereans heard the Apostle Paul, searched the Scriptures, understood what he was saying was true, and accepted his authority as an Apostle sent to them by God to teach them.
What I claim is what Jesus claimed. Recipients of eternal life CANNOT perish.Exactly what you claim can never happen.
It is very clear that you do NOT even understand what Jesus says about eternal security.Your claims are proved false by the Lord's Word Himself more than once.
Again, you are completely clueless about what Jesus taught. He plainly taught that recipients of eternal life shall never perish. But you refuse to accept that.False, absolutely false, and just an OSAS way of escapism from what Jesus plainly taught.
OK, so you believe that Jesus was confused apparently and contradicted Himself on occasion. Pitiful.Jesus is teaching that those who do not continue in communion with Him are cut off and fall away into hellfire: "6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."
What do you mean by "according to you'? I never said such garbage. It is YOUR opinion that makes Jesus contradict Himself.According to you, Jesus Christ contradicted Himself from John 3 to John 6, then again from John 10 to John 15.
Prove that John 10:28 doesn't teach eternal security.According to me, and other NON-OSASers, He absolutely did not.
He never did. He always taught that salvation is based on trusting in HIM alone for salvation.He always taught Salvation based on Perseverance in Faith.
Well, now you've moved the goal posts. Crowns in heaven are EARNED, unlike salvation which is by grace through faith. Eph 2:8You have to abide in Him, the Vine, until the end, in order to receive the eternal crown in Heaven.
Since you are so clueless about the Bible, I'll help you out. Crowns are part of eternal rewards, which by definition, are earned. Salvation, which is grace by faith is unearned.Rev 2:10: "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."
According to you, there is no need to be faithful unto death. Christ says there is. I'll go with Christ, thanks.
Of course, IF your interpretation is correct, then it would clearly DENYYou ignored completely what it clearly teaches. It teaches that those who apostatize into unbelief will be cut off from Christ just like those who never believed.
And why do you PRESUME or ASSUME that "takes away" means loss of salvation? On what basis?FreeGrace2 said:
Dear XJLI, you are basing your doctrine on a misunderstanding lots of verses. ps: which single verse am I misunderstanding?
I guess you mean all the verses you CLAIM mean opposite of the "one verse" I use.
I explained what "cut off" meant to 1st Century Jews. Sorry you didn't like it.
Of course it is a metaphor. The whole passage is based on an agricultural metaphor. That is real clear.
Well, I'm sorry that you have completely missed the fact that I AM following it to a T.
OK, I'll take this real slow.
Paul SAID things about Scripture. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to "see IF what Paul SAID was true". And, of course, it WAS true.
That's how I evaluate EVERY poster. Are they SAYING what the Bible SAYS? Or not?
Can you explain plainly how you think I am not following the Berea method at all?
[QUOE]It doesn't take much discernment to see Jesus taught the opposite of what you are claiming: He said branches that do not bear fruit are taken away by His Father: "2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away"
Hi Phil. Thanks for the response.
What I mean by post-justification is good works done AFTER justification. In Augustinian theology, which I follow, all good works done before justification (such as those unbelievers do) are merely natural good works and don't have a supernatural reward in Heaven. But the Good Works Christians do, after being justified by faith in Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit, are supernaturally meritorious and do earn/merit an eternal reward. Thus, those who labor more for the Lord will be rewarded more, according to: "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour" (1 Cor 3:8)
Could you please clarify if you agree or disagree? Thanks.
Catholic and Lutheran theologians recently signed a joint declaration agreeing that initial justification is by grace through faith and love, and normally happens in Baptism: "25.We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it." From: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification-2356
The Biblical basis for Baptismal Regeneration are passages like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21 etc etc.
Just quoting one such passage below.
"16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
Initial Justification happens by Grace through Faith, and not of works, but in Baptism. Now, if a person legitimately can't be Baptized, then he can make an act of faith in Christ and repentance for his sins, and he will be forgiven. But normally washing away of sins, as the above passage indicates, happens in Baptism.
And similarly, we believe Continual Sanctification happens through Holy Communion, as John 6 indicates, and if we make use of this means of sanctification, we will be sanctified faster by God, bear more fruit, and finally receive Perseverance.
Jn 6:56: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
Jn 15:5: "He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."
If God intended us to rely on faith alone, and e.g. never go to our churches for Baptism, Communion etc, why did He institute them in the first place? Any thoughts on that? Grace through Faith, yes, but Grace through Faith in the ordnances/sacraments of baptism, communion etc.
God Bless.
Romans 1
Hi Xavier,
Thanks for taking the time to reply, you asked if I agreed with your statement, and the answer is no.
After reading your post I think your answer to my question is that you believe (as Rome) that the instrumental cause of justification is baptism. The problem with this is that there is no biblical warrant for this (I did a quick check of the scriptures you provided). So your left with faith plus works for your salvation, partly Christ's, partly yours and in the final analysis if you still have not worked enough and still have some sin you can work it of in purgatory.. This is not good news for anyone. Especially since purgatory does not exist, hell does! It's a whole system of works that traps you.. Of course it's not Christ who free's you from the bondage of sin, it's you through works and holy communion with Rome.
The Gospel view is that the ground for justification is Christ's righteousness.
The instrumental cause of justification is faith. Its a declaration from God that those who have faith in Christ are declared just. Christ's righteousness is imputed to them and are declared just not by their meirts but by Christ's merits alone through faith alone and all by grace alone.
The righteousness is God's not man's but is appropriated by man by faith (Romans 3:21-26; Romans 4:5-8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). The fore by Faith people are declared just. Justification is a declaration. The man is created anew secure in Christ and lives his life in obedience to Christ.
And yet,
Obedience itself is a work of the Spirit that bears fruit and not meritorious unless one should boast. Bearing fruit are the good works that man does. And thankfully the Holy Spirit works these in us.
For by grace you have been saved a through faith. And this is b not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).
To put it simply Xavier. If there is no imputation, there is no sola fide, and if the is no sola fide there is no gospel.
I hope you think about it. There is a real freedom to the gospel.. There is liberty, set free from bondage from sin and our own self efforts. Its all by grace, by faith alone, in Christ alone.
So Luther believed Grace, through Faith Alone, but in Baptism
knowing only a few Condemned Humans full of Sin will Follow God does not mean He still did not die for the entire WORLD. because He did say, He was sent to DIE for the WORLD!
That is a self-contradictory statement. If Christ died for all, it means that all are eligible for salvation. So if God were to pick and choose some to be saved, He would be undermining Himself and Christ. Do you see the absurdity of such a belief?He died for the entire world simply means that everyone is eligible and that God can choose anyone to receive salvation.
It does not mean that! His dying for all of humanity means what it says: whoever believes will have eternal life and shall not perish.He died for the entire world simply means that everyone is eligible and that God can choose anyone to receive salvation.
No one is "predestined" to salvation.Many are called to receive the message but few are chosen ( or predestined) to accept it.
This is an oft-debated question in Christian circles, but I'd like to bring up a particular situation. Rather than the case of losing salvation through a certain sin or sins, what about when a once-believer loses belief in God/ Jesus - as in - eg - Matt Dillahunty, who was devout Christian and later became an atheist?
This is an oft-debated question in Christian circles,
Okay so framed in this way, this question becomes a question of Free will vs No free will and the whole Calvinism thing you mentioned (which I don’t like).Rather than responding to specific posters, I've decided to make a general answer.
As for the people who fall away never having had faith in God - many have, or at least claimed to have. I refer to someone like Matt Dillahunty of "The Atheist Experience".
For 20-odd years - someone who was born into a Southern Baptist family, gave himself to (God/ the cause of Christ), was a faithful follower, was intent on taking up the Ministry, in line with instruction from 1Peter 3:15 and the like, and, to paraphrase him, could not find justification to support the claims in the Bible. He then became an atheist.
However valid or invalid his findings were, I find it unfeasible that he never really believed. Was he pretending all those years?! Was this a (childhood-thru-20s) scam? There are apparently other, former colleagues to can testify to his (at least apparent) walk with Christ.
As for the seed planted and then being whisked away - this seems to allude to Christ's parable. I don't know how long it would take for the seed to "drift away" -30 years seems a long time.
Okay so framed in this way, this question becomes a question of Free will vs No free will and the whole Calvinism thing you mentioned (which I don’t like).
‘If we have no free will (and Calvinism is true) then this would explain why one person believes in God when is faced with the mystery of existence and the other doesn’t.
‘This also comes to a bit of a contradiction with the notion of a “man raised by the wolves in a forest” because the man will naturally seek for a higher meaning and a Creator.
So it’s all a big mystery in the end.
TI was born again as a teenager and walked on and off with the Lord for many years, mostly off. I finally returned three and a half years ago and haven't looked back.
People try to tell me I was never truly born again but I know better. It's a horrifying experience to have been born of God and then to turn your back on Him; having tasted the good things of the Kingdom and then walk away. There's no doubt in my mind that if I had died in my rebellion where I would've ended up.
2 Peter 2:20 says: "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." If I was never born again to begin with, how would the latter state be worse than the first? I'd simply return to my old life and be none the worse for it. No, this is talking about someone who was born again then abandoned their faith.
I may be missing something, but I don't see how this issue is a free-will v no-free-will issue or Calvinistic. I can see from a Calvinistic (which I don't have) position, man has no input into whether he believes - it's all God's work, but the issue here is - if a person believes, can he lose his belief? I don't know if you've known any cases such as Dillahunty's - in person or "remotely" - but I'd be interested in any opinion you'd like to mention as to whether it's possible to lose belief.