Faithful Ag, thanks for your couple of replies, they were helpful. I think things are becoming a little more clear to me now. (You haven't converted me, don't get excited, haha, but I do appreciate it)
Catholics Take On This Teaching of Justification
8,491 Views |
261 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
Faithful Ag said:Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
Acts 2:38
The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious and uncharitable insults you have at Catholics.
The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
What is this cut and paste nonsense? Can't you tell me yourself? Is the R&P board a place where people discuss their beliefs or cut and paste stuff someone else said?
What does faith without works is dead mean?
You talk about how the Bible is plain English and easy to understand and how convoluted the Roman Catholic Church is, and then post a novel about a 6 word sentence from the Bible.
Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
We've just gone through how you have to trust men to believe the scriptures are what they are, and yet you are blind enough to say that you need no one. All I can do at this point is pray for you and hope that the readers of this can benefit in some way.
Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
What is this cut and paste nonsense? Can't you tell me yourself? Is the R&P board a place where people discuss their beliefs or cut and paste stuff someone else said?
What does faith without works is dead mean?
You talk about how the Bible is plain English and easy to understand and how convoluted the Roman Catholic Church is, and then post a novel about a 6 word sentence from the Bible.
I believe every bit of what I posted. That's why I posted it. I could explain it, but this guy did a pretty good job. In detail.
Acts 2:38
The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
We've just gone through how you have to trust men to believe the scriptures are what they are, and yet you are blind enough to say that you need no one. All I can do at this point is pray for you and hope that the readers of this can benefit in some way.
I do hope people believe the gospel, and receive salvation. But I didn't trust a mere man to save me. I was saved from reading the gospel of John 25 years ago. I didn't need a priest to tell me what it meant, or what to believe. It was supernatural.
Acts 2:38
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
What is this cut and paste nonsense? Can't you tell me yourself? Is the R&P board a place where people discuss their beliefs or cut and paste stuff someone else said?
What does faith without works is dead mean?
You talk about how the Bible is plain English and easy to understand and how convoluted the Roman Catholic Church is, and then post a novel about a 6 word sentence from the Bible.
I believe every bit of what I posted. That's why I posted it. I could explain it, but this guy did a pretty good job. In detail.
So now it is not faith alone? But SAVING faith alone, which does require works, but the salvation is not from the works, but from the Saving Faith, which you can tell is salvific because it has the word "saving" in front.
Faith bereft of action is not salvation, it's just an intellectual belief like the demons have, but action is not a work, it's just action, and it's faith alone, just not faith bereft of action alone?
Quote:
Faith bereft of action is not salvation, it's just an intellectual belief like the demons have
Hey we agree, we can go home now
Pierow said:
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You forgot this one:
"53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves" John 6:53
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
The books were never omitted. Even the Hebrews didn't have it in their canon. It was added so that the Catholic Church could support some of their beliefs. And again, you're adding to with a doxology.
Acts 2:38
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
We would all still be either orthodox or Catholic, if they hadn't gone absolutely crazy with adding to the scripture. Don't eat fish on Fridays, rosary beads, selling indulgences, holy water, saying the laity can't marry… and many others.
Acts 2:38
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
What is this cut and paste nonsense? Can't you tell me yourself? Is the R&P board a place where people discuss their beliefs or cut and paste stuff someone else said?
What does faith without works is dead mean?
You talk about how the Bible is plain English and easy to understand and how convoluted the Roman Catholic Church is, and then post a novel about a 6 word sentence from the Bible.
I believe every bit of what I posted. That's why I posted it. I could explain it, but this guy did a pretty good job. In detail.
So now it is not faith alone? But SAVING faith alone, which does require works, but the salvation is not from the works, but from the Saving Faith, which you can tell is salvific because it has the word "saving" in front.
Faith bereft of action is not salvation, it's just an intellectual belief like the demons have, but action is not a work, it's just action, and it's faith alone, just not faith bereft of action alone?
Even the saving faith that anyone has in Christ, is a gift from him.
Acts 2:38
FIDO95 said:Pierow said:
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You forgot this one:
"53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves" John 6:53
Context is key! Who is he talking to? Why was he talking to them?
Acts 2:38
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
His claim is actually even bolder, sadly. He's even greater than our first pope, who writes in his second letter that parts of scripture are hard to understand, and that private interpretation is something to be careful with. It's genuinely concerning that there are Christians believe this, not just because historically it's been impossible for 90% of Christians, but because it's assuming so much about the power and ability one has.
The Banned said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
His claim is actually even bolder, sadly. He's even greater than our first pope, who writes in his second letter that parts of scripture are hard to understand, and that private interpretation is something to be careful with. It's genuinely concerning that there are Christians believe this, not just because historically it's been impossible for 90% of Christians, but because it's assuming so much about the power and ability one has.
I think it's very odd that none of you quote scripture to support your claims. I'm very familiar with the passage that you are talking about. It's Peter trying to explain Paul's writings. How it is difficult to understand. But he basically supports everything Paul says. It has nothing to do with whether we understand scripture or not. Or need a Pope to delineate what we've read. The people that he is speaking to are being taught by people who've actually seen the risen Christ. They received instruction from the risen Christ. Know anybody like that today? Or even since Christ's last appearance?
Acts 2:38
Pierow said:The Banned said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
His claim is actually even bolder, sadly. He's even greater than our first pope, who writes in his second letter that parts of scripture are hard to understand, and that private interpretation is something to be careful with. It's genuinely concerning that there are Christians believe this, not just because historically it's been impossible for 90% of Christians, but because it's assuming so much about the power and ability one has.
I think it's very odd that none of you quote scripture to support your claims. I'm very familiar with the passage that you are talking about. It's Peter trying to explain Paul's writings. How it is difficult to understand. But he basically supports everything Paul says. It has nothing to do with whether we understand scripture or not. Or need a Pope to delineate what we've read. The people that he is speaking to are being taught by people who've actually seen the risen Christ. They received instruction from the risen Christ. Know anybody like that today? Or even since Christ's last appearance?
Yes. Paul's writings are hard to understand. You know, the writing that became scriptures? So parts of scripture are hard to understand, according to the head apostle himself. But not you. You have asserted 1000 times over that it's simple to understand.
And I don't quote scripture because as you said, you understand that I'm referencing a scripture quote, and I don't need to gum up the board with a wall of text when you have a bible you can search.
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
The books were never omitted. Even the Hebrews didn't have it in their canon. It was added so that the Catholic Church could support some of their beliefs. And again, you're adding to with a doxology.
Why do we care what the Hebrews had in their canon? The Bereans had it in their canon, the Greek speaking Jews like St. Paul had it in their canon.
You're saying that St Augustine and St Paul considered them Canon, but the old Hebrews didn't, so you're siding with the Jews against the Christians?
Also, how did we add them? The Orthodox, who split 500 years before the Protestants have them in their Bible, so how did we add them?
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
We would all still be either orthodox or Catholic, if they hadn't gone absolutely crazy with adding to the scripture. Don't eat fish on Fridays, rosary beads, selling indulgences, holy water, saying the laity can't marry… and many others.
I have no clue what you're talking about and I don't think you do either. Don't eat fish on Fridays? Saying the laity can't marry?
Do you smell burning toast right now?
Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
The books were never omitted. Even the Hebrews didn't have it in their canon. It was added so that the Catholic Church could support some of their beliefs. And again, you're adding to with a doxology.
Why do we care what the Hebrews had in their canon? The Bereans had it in their canon, the Greek speaking Jews like St. Paul had it in their canon.
You're saying that St Augustine and St Paul considered them Canon, but the old Hebrews didn't, so you're siding with the Jews against the Christians?
Also, how did we add them? The Orthodox, who split 500 years before the Protestants have them in their Bible, so how did we add them?
Let's not forget the Oriental Orthodox who split in the 400s
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Why would you want to make it so complicated and convoluted? Jesus makes it very simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
What does "faith without works is dead" mean?
"I won't defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it's clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, "God justifies the ungodly." Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:18; Gal. 3:69).
Salvation, as Paul elsewhere demonstrates, is "by grace" and "through faith" (Eph. 2:89). Works are excluded as the basis of salvationotherwise people could boast about what they have done. Salvation by grace through faith highlights the amazing and comforting truth that salvation is the Lord's work, not ours.
But does Paul contradict James?
Justification by Works in James
James 2:1426 repeatedly argues that faith without works doesn't save on the last day. Those who claim to have faith but lack good works aren't saved by such a claiming faith (Jas. 2:14). James compares such faith to "words of love and comfort" given to someone who is cold and hungry. Such words are meaningless if not accompanied by actions to feed and clothe the person in need (2:1516). So also, faith without works is "dead" and "useless" (2:17, 20, 26).
Faith that is merely intellectual, or faith that claims to believe but is bereft of any action, is no better than "the faith" of demons. After all, they subscribe to the orthodox belief that "God is one," and they "shudder" in terror (2:19). James highlights that Abraham was "justified by works" in offering up Isaac (2:21), and Rahab the prostitute was "justified by works" in receiving the spies and protecting them from danger (2:25).
Intellectual Belief Doesn't Save
At first glance, it might seem James rejects justification by faith alone, but first glances aren't enough when reading the Scriptures. We are called to read deeply and canonically. James doesn't deny that faith saves; he rejects the notion that a particular kind of faith savesa faith that doesn't produce works. In short, faith that is merely intellectual assent is not saving faith.
Again, demons professed that Jesus is "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), but their belief in that truth didn't save them. Even though they knew who Jesus was, they hated him. Saving faith, then, is the act of the entire person. It includes the will and the emotions, such that those who believe in Jesus give themselves to him.
Not the Foundation
Let's think of it another way. Faith alone justifies, but only the kind of faith that inevitably produces good works. Now, such good works aren't the basis of justification; indeed, they can't be, for one sin makes you a lawbreaker (Jas. 2:1011). Good works can't function as the foundation of our justification because God demands perfection, and even after we are converted we continue to sin.Lightstock
James, in fact, says this very thing in the next passage after discussing justification by works: "We all stumble in many ways" (3:2). The word "stumble" means "sin," as the parallel text in James 2:10 shows. Every one of us without exceptionincluding James ("we all")continue to sin.
Is he saying we sin only occasionally? Absolutely not. He says we all sin "in many ways." We don't just sin in a few ways, but in many. Since sin continues to characterize the lives of believers in remarkable ways, and since God demands perfection, works that justify can't form the basis of our justification.
Fruit, Not Root
How should we understand the works James requires? Certainly good works are necessary, for without them we will not be justified, but we have seen that they aren't the necessary basis or foundation.
The best solution is to say they are the result and fruit of faith. True faith expresses it in works. Paul actually says the same thing, teaching what ultimately matters is "faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6, NIV).
The concept isn't hard to understand. If I said the room you were in was about to blow up in one minute, and you believed me, desired to live, and were physically able to leave, you would hurry to exit. True faith would lead to works! Leaving the room would be the result of your faith. So it's right to say, as the Reformers did, that we are justified by faith alone, but that true faith is never alone. I would suggest James is teaching this very idea.
It isn't as if our works save or justify in the sense that they qualify us to enter God's presenceas if our virtue wins us God's favor on the last day. James teaches that there is an organic relationship between genuine faith and works. If we truly trust Christ, that trust shows up in how we live. Works evidence our faith.
Complementary Truths
Why do Paul and James sound so different? Why does it appear at first glance they contradict? We need to remember that letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them.
Paul counteracts legalism, while James corrects antinomianism.
Of course, Paul rejected antinomianism as well: "I am warning you about these thingsas I warned you beforethat those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). He also believed good works were necessary for eternal life, but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith, not the root.
In the beauty and completeness of God's Word, Paul and James teach complementary, not contradictory, truths."
What is this cut and paste nonsense? Can't you tell me yourself? Is the R&P board a place where people discuss their beliefs or cut and paste stuff someone else said?
What does faith without works is dead mean?
You talk about how the Bible is plain English and easy to understand and how convoluted the Roman Catholic Church is, and then post a novel about a 6 word sentence from the Bible.
I believe every bit of what I posted. That's why I posted it. I could explain it, but this guy did a pretty good job. In detail.
So now it is not faith alone? But SAVING faith alone, which does require works, but the salvation is not from the works, but from the Saving Faith, which you can tell is salvific because it has the word "saving" in front.
Faith bereft of action is not salvation, it's just an intellectual belief like the demons have, but action is not a work, it's just action, and it's faith alone, just not faith bereft of action alone?
Even the saving faith that anyone has in Christ, is a gift from him.
Why did you add the qualifier saving? It is now no longer faith alone, but it is now SAVING faith alone?
Pierow said:FIDO95 said:Pierow said:
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
You forgot this one:
"53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves" John 6:53
Context is key! Who is he talking to? Why was he talking to them?
Is this one of the parts that isn't plain English and you have to have a road map to understand?
Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:Vox Clamantis said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:Pierow said:The Banned said:
You don't even know why you believe those particular books are divinely inspired. If you can't answer that, I could see why the rest seems convoluted to you, and rather simple to the rest of us.
Nice strawman. It's plain English. It's beautiful, and simple. It's a free gift. Not through works lest any man should boast.
It's not a strawman. You have yet to explain why you think that God divinely protected these guys. You say 'of course God got His word out" but that still doesn't answer why you think THESE PARTICULAR words are His. Why not the Quron? Why not the BoM?
So let me help you: The men who officially recognized the canon are the men who said they had divine protection through the apostolic tradition, handed down to them through apostolic succession via ordination. The claim of divine protection comes from them. The bible does not say it. You put your trust in their word.
Hopefully you're capable of seeing that. And to be clear, I don't think that a bad thing. I do it too, but it's because I believe Jesus gave them authority to lead His Church into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
That has no bearing on salvation, how you acquire it, and why it is kept by the believer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You either believe it, or not.
Dude. You say these words are how we can KNOW we have salvation. Whether or not these are the actual words of God have 100% EVERYTHING to do with salvation in that context
You have spent 20 years studying something without having any idea of why you think it is what it is, which explains why you would lob the serious insults you have at Catholics.
I don't like exercises in naval gazing. I was given the promised gift of, and received, the Holy Spirit. He guides me through all scripture. I trust no man.
Pope Pierow I claiming to have private revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have one Pope, Protestantism has millions.
Oddly enough, Pope isn't mentioned in scripture anywhere. Neither is Pontiff, Cardinal, nun, that it has to be based anywhere on a particular piece of property in Rome, or anything else. It appears you take the Bible as secondary. To protestants, it is the only thing. God's word is not man's to embellish.
Except for the doxology added to the KJV, no? And the books that you removed from the Old Testament. And the books the original Protestant Luther tried to remove from the New Testament. Yes, very sacred to Protestants.
Didn't you mention that the word "trinity" is never mentioned in scripture earlier?
Forget Rome though, can you show me your ancient Protestant Churches in the Holy Land? Why are all these Churches, which have been saying the same Mass over 1000 years before the reformation, all Catholic or Orthodox?
We would all still be either orthodox or Catholic, if they hadn't gone absolutely crazy with adding to the scripture. Don't eat fish on Fridays, rosary beads, selling indulgences, holy water, saying the laity can't marry… and many others.
Bro...
Fish Fridays... Abstaining from meat. Friday penance is great. Unite yourself to our Blessed Lord and His Holy Passion.
My rosary is a HR-15. A weapon for our times.
Indulgences... Yeah, simony is a sin and the German bishops were way off base with that. And dangit, why is it always the German bishops?
Holy Water... Highly recommend you get some Epiphany water.
Laity here... Been married 24 years. Parents, grandparents, and further and further back... all laity... and get this, they were married as well. Eldest daughter (also laity) is engaged to be married.
In saecula seculorum...
Howdy, it is me! said:
This is a short teaching on Rome's view of justification. Curious Catholics thoughts. Did he get anything wrong?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7KRlmt9TLD6IVx15asGITP?si=d4KtChsvStqO7UE13uAhBA&utm_source=copy-link
R.C. Sproul is the literal worst.
Reformed theology spent five centuries arguing against Roman Catholic legalism by inventing an equally novel hyper-juridical legalism of its own.
From the Orthodox perspective the entire Protestant v. Catholic debate is just two sides of the same late-medieval Latin coin.
The protestants correctly sensed Rome had introduced innovations, but their "solution" was to invent an entirely new theological paradigm from scratch pulled straight from their smelly, dark age asses.
I'm trying to do better about being less inflammatory and combative on Texags but come on man you brought up RC Sproul. This isnt on me…
The verses you quote are PRESENT TENSE meaning the individual is in a current state of belief and relationship with God. If this is what you are saying then we might be able to find some agreement.Pierow said:Faithful Ag said:Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.The Banned said:dermdoc said:Faithful Ag said:CWeezy17 said:Faithful Ag said:Howdy, it is me! said:
Is it true that Catholics believe they lose their justification if they commit mortal sin?
Is it true that if that happens, you must be re-justified through the sacrament of penance - genuine confession to a priest who then absolves you and then complete works of satisfaction?
Terminology is a MAJOR issue here. Your question implies we have the same understanding/meaning/
usage/definition of the word Justification. We do not.
This is exactly what I meant when I said RC Sproul is conflating Justifaction with Catholic teaching on salvation. He is wrong.
ETA: Salvation is not something we possess or can lose because we are not judged until we die. Salvation is a process.
To me this just sounds like trying to sidestep the question. We can use words differently, but you understand what the point is. Catholics believe if you die in a state of mortal sin you would not go to heaven right away, thus you are not saved at that moment, correct? Use whatever terminology you want.
Catholics believe that if you die in a state of mortal sin you have chosen to separate yourself from God and have turned away from God, placing your own salvation in jeopardy. What God ultimately decides is for God in His perfect justice and mercy alone to know.
Our eternal judgment is only either Heaven or Hell. There is nothing in between. None of us can know with certainty where we will be while we are still living, but rather that is made known to us at the moment of our death. Any attempt to lay claim to heaven before that day comes for you is presumptuous and leads many to a false sense of security. Live today for God and don't take tomorrow for granted. When tomorrow comes live that day for God too. And so on and so on. Finish the race and persevere to the end with God.
So Catholics believe judgement occurs at the time of death? And not when Jesus returns?
At death is your particular judgement.
Judgement day is the final judgement/general judgement.
Everyone not living at the last day goes through both. This counters the idea that there is some kind of soul sleep where the dead aren't currently in heaven yet and are asleep until that day
Is there any reason why catholic beliefs are so difficult and convoluted? It is actually quite simple.
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
It says HAS, not might have, could possibly have, or will have in the future.
""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
Same here.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
Same here.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
Same here.
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"God has given". Present tense.
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
"that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life".
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
On the other hand, if you think that because you prayed the prayer at a junior high summer camp your salvation is eternally secured and cannot be lost or rejected then we are miles apart.
Look at the verses you quoted and their current, present tense. Slow down and read the actual verses…
I will bold what you seem to be glossing over
Quote:
"He who believesin the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.""
John 3:36 NASB1995
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."
John 5:24 NASB1995
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
John 6:47 NASB1995
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
John 10:28 NASB1995
"The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
1 John 5:10-11 NASB1995
"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
1 John 5:13 NASB1995
How can someone be given anything eternal, but it proceeds to have an end?
The promise is made to those who believe. As in currently believing and not past belief. This is the Catholic teaching.
Featured Stories
See All
16:35
6h ago
2.1k
SEC Round-Up: Texas meets Ohio State in marquee matchup
by Olin Buchanan
8:10
2h ago
733
16:44
2h ago
704
Week 2 predictions from around the SEC
by Connor O'Gara