Eusebius Erasmus

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Show it to me, man.

 

tractor

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I agree friend. Most often I see the whole Catholic\Protestant clash on this issue as simple semantics. Most Bible believing born again Christians, and I would include the notable men of the Reformation, don't in any way believe that if you just say a prayer you're saved. You might be saved, but you might not be. Works must follow. Change must occur. The individual himself, and others, will see a marked change in the person without which it is most likely he's not saved (I say most likely as fruit can take time to appear, yet the individual himself should notice change at least internally). So yes, good works most definitely follow salvation. They don't procure Salvation, that comes by faith in Christ, but are evidence of salvation.

As Hermetic Seal pointed out in the previous pages, this "faith alone" doctine sells good. That's the point of it. Who would care about Luther & co and the numerous protestant denominations, if they wouldn't have come up with "something new"?

So, sola fide is basically a raison d'etre of many prot churches. Without it, you're no competitor to Catholics/Orthodox. And it's much easier to recruit parishioners with "no strings attached". If Roosh would've become a protestant, I'm sure he would continue fornicating without any sense of guilt cos he'd been "saved".
 
Precisely. This is kindergarten stuff to make life an easy box and show off to the rest of the bunch for emotional reasons, and also be part of the crowd. Forgive me, but it is and it must be treated as such because it is really bad theology.

If you don't think repentance is faithfulness to God, by the way, or you aren't seeing it, I'm sad to say you are blind.

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but at least speaking for myself I never said that. In fact, in the examples I gave you, I specifically highlighted repentance in 2 of them as attributes evident in faith. Is repentance the same thing as faithfulness? No, its not, although there may be an element of faithfulness in repentance. But you can't equate the 2 as being synonymous, which is what it appears to me you are trying to do.

The point is, I'm not comfortable translating 'faith' as 'faithfulness', because I don't believe that's correct. And more importantly, it's a red flag for me based on Hebrew Roots theology that I've seen before that tends to lead to a deemphasis on the finished work of Jesus on the cross and the emphasis on keeping of law.

Now, if you want to say that 'faith' includes repentance, I think I agree.
 
So, sola fide is basically a raison d'etre of many prot churches. Without it, you're no competitor to Catholics/Orthodox. And it's much easier to recruit parishioners with "no strings attached". If Roosh would've become a protestant, I'm sure he would continue fornicating without any sense of guilt cos he'd been "saved".
I'm not a protestant, I consider myself to be non denominational, but your final sentence is absolute nonsense.
The word of God is crystal clear on chastisement, and most of us that know God know that He is no one to play games with. If a man or a woman is in sin and not under chastisement, then they are likely not saved in the first place.
 

mjbravo

Pigeon
I'm not a protestant, I consider myself to be non denominational, but your final sentence is absolute nonsense.
The word of God is crystal clear on chastisement, and most of us that know God know that He is no one to play games with. If a man or a woman is in sin and not under chastisement, then they are likely not saved in the first place.
Do you know how many Protestants who do have a love of God and profession of faith are running around fornicating bc they don’t think it’s a sin that separates them from God? And they can all too easily find a pastor of one of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects that would tell them as much or they can find a “Christian” article with some modern Greek scholar telling them that we’ve all been misinterpreting “porneia” for centuries.

Sacred scripture left to each man’s interpretation has not been shown to be anything close to crystal clear, particularly including sin, let alone mortal vs venial sin. Jesus is crystal clear and emphatic in John chapter 6, yet thousands of Protestants still decide to deny his body and blood.
 

tractor

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I'm not a protestant, I consider myself to be non denominational, but your final sentence is absolute nonsense.
The word of God is crystal clear on chastisement, and most of us that know God know that He is no one to play games with. If a man or a woman is in sin and not under chastisement, then they are likely not saved in the first place.

Yet, so many protestants believe just that what you just called nonsense. Sola fide is what it is - "faith alone", no works at all.

Yes, I believe once saved always saved. I could commit a gazillion sins, I could kill someone and still go to Heaven. Again, because it's not about my performance but what Jesus did on the cross.
 

tychomaz

Sparrow
Do you know how many Protestants who do have a love of God and profession of faith are running around fornicating bc they don’t think it’s a sin that separates them from God? And they can all too easily find a pastor of one of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects that would tell them as much or they can find a “Christian” article with some modern Greek scholar telling them that we’ve all been misinterpreting “porneia” for centuries.

Sacred scripture left to each man’s interpretation has not been shown to be anything close to crystal clear, particularly including sin, let alone mortal vs venial sin. Jesus is crystal clear and emphatic in John chapter 6, yet thousands of Protestants still decide to deny his body and blood.
If a church member is fornicating, in adultery etc.(a public sin) then they should be booted from the church until they are restored. This is the topic of 1 Corinthians 5.
 

mjbravo

Pigeon
If a church member is fornicating, in adultery etc.(a public sin) then they should be booted from the church until they are restored. This is the topic of 1 Corinthians 5.
No argument here, though that’s another topic.

Church discipline isn’t remotely happening in most mainline protestant denominations, or most Catholic Churches to be fair.
 

mgill0600

Pigeon
Such a great topic. While I'm a believer of faith instead of works, I certainly agree with many of the points made in this thread about them being inextricably linked (one leads to the other).

What I think is a little more fuzzy is the once saved always saved doctrine. While I find there to be many passages providing examples of salvation not requiring works, my personal favorite being Luke 23:42-43 regarding the thief on the cross next to Jesus, there appears to be far less direct biblical evidence for once saved always saved. Or at least, it's not ever called out so directly as the faith vs works argument in my opinion.

However, the once saved always saved doctrine is one I really WANT to believe is true. I think it does have potential justification given how we are taught God is our heavenly Father, Luke 11:11-13 being one of my favorite depictions.

An example I posit- A son is born to a King. By virtue of that birth the son is royalty. A privilege inherited simply by being born the son of the King. Let's liken this to being born again in the spirit of Christ through Faith. Now the child gets older and one day decides they don't want to be a prince anymore, it's hard work learning to speak properly, read well and play politics (let's liken this to "good works" in this example) and all his friends get to have fun playing in the mud. So the prince renounces his birthright b/c he wants to be able to play in the mud too.

While the foolish prince may be choosing to not inherit the privileges his birthright entitles him to, and may also be abdicating his responsibilities to that birthright (learning to speak properly, read well and politic i.e. do "good works") it does not change the FACT that he is still the King's son. However much he may deny it to be true, however much he may try to prove that it isn't true, the King knows that it is true, and the privileges of being the King's son can only be taken away by the person that gave them, the King himself. Even if the prince really deserves to have those privileges taken away, only the King can decide to do so.

So if we liken the King in my example above to our Father in Heaven, does He really want to strip us of the birthright we inherit (salvation) becoming His child if later we claim to not be His child? Does our denial or renunciation of Christ after once having accepted Him change our status as a Child of Christ?

My heart leans to the side that no, our own self destructive choices to remove ourselves from Christ's grasp having once come to Him are not a reason for Him to let us go. Once we call him Lord, He is our Lord forever whether we like it or not at a later point in time.

Sure it seems logical to say God would never force us to be with Him if we really didn't want to be. But I also think human desires are incredibly baseless and fickle and change like the wind. It's comforting to me to believe that if just once, we make the correct choice in the most important decision of our lives (to believe that Jesus died for our sins on the cross, was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of the Father) God won't let us later screw that decision up. It would be a blow to His integrity and even His power to let one of His own separate themselves from Him.
 

tychomaz

Sparrow
No argument here, though that’s another topic.

Church discipline isn’t remotely happening in most mainline protestant denominations, or most Catholic Churches to be fair.
God wouldn't want them kicked out if they weren't saved. Therefore you can publicly sin and still be saved.
 

mjbravo

Pigeon
God wouldn't want them kicked out if they weren't saved. Therefore you can publicly sin and still be saved.
From what authority are you making these statements. I don’t have the knowledge to know what God would want in that particular manner as neither do you. It’s just an empty assumption. There are a lot of people who have been disciplined and kicked out only to come to know Christ more deeply as part of his plan.
Regarding public sin I’m not disagreeing if the person is penitent, but I don’t believe that’s your context. And while I don’t claim to know who is and who is not saved....I do know what both scripture and 2,000 years of tradition and saints have taught to this day about eternal security and sin and it’s certainly not what is being parroted by Pastors Jim and Bob from the local Baptist and Presbyterian Calvinist churches who both claim to know it all down pat yet can’t even agree on baptism.
 

mjbravo

Pigeon
Such a great topic. While I'm a believer of faith instead of works, I certainly agree with many of the points made in this thread about them being inextricably linked (one leads to the other).

What I think is a little more fuzzy is the once saved always saved doctrine. While I find there to be many passages providing examples of salvation not requiring works, my personal favorite being Luke 23:42-43 regarding the thief on the cross next to Jesus, there appears to be far less direct biblical evidence for once saved always saved. Or at least, it's not ever called out so directly as the faith vs works argument in my opinion.

However, the once saved always saved doctrine is one I really WANT to believe is true. I think it does have potential justification given how we are taught God is our heavenly Father, Luke 11:11-13 being one of my favorite depictions.

An example I posit- A son is born to a King. By virtue of that birth the son is royalty. A privilege inherited simply by being born the son of the King. Let's liken this to being born again in the spirit of Christ through Faith. Now the child gets older and one day decides they don't want to be a prince anymore, it's hard work learning to speak properly, read well and play politics (let's liken this to "good works" in this example) and all his friends get to have fun playing in the mud. So the prince renounces his birthright b/c he wants to be able to play in the mud too.

While the foolish prince may be choosing to not inherit the privileges his birthright entitles him to, and may also be abdicating his responsibilities to that birthright (learning to speak properly, read well and politic i.e. do "good works") it does not change the FACT that he is still the King's son. However much he may deny it to be true, however much he may try to prove that it isn't true, the King knows that it is true, and the privileges of being the King's son can only be taken away by the person that gave them, the King himself. Even if the prince really deserves to have those privileges taken away, only the King can decide to do so.

So if we liken the King in my example above to our Father in Heaven, does He really want to strip us of the birthright we inherit (salvation) becoming His child if later we claim to not be His child? Does our denial or renunciation of Christ after once having accepted Him change our status as a Child of Christ?

My heart leans to the side that no, our own self destructive choices to remove ourselves from Christ's grasp having once come to Him are not a reason for Him to let us go. Once we call him Lord, He is our Lord forever whether we like it or not at a later point in time.

Sure it seems logical to say God would never force us to be with Him if we really didn't want to be. But I also think human desires are incredibly baseless and fickle and change like the wind. It's comforting to me to believe that if just once, we make the correct choice in the most important decision of our lives (to believe that Jesus died for our sins on the cross, was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of the Father) God won't let us later screw that decision up. It would be a blow to His integrity and even His power to let one of His own separate themselves from Him.
So I assume you don’t believe in the free will? I don’t think God’s integrity is going to be affected because someone who believed in him decided to not keep running the race.

John 15 pretty clearly refutes what conclusions you are coming too.

I want to note, written form can seem harsh and I hold no ill will to any I disagree with and I thoroughly respect your love for the King and desire to know him fully.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Orthodox
Now, if you want to say that 'faith' includes repentance, I think I agree.
Yes, I'd actually say all of the above. For the English speaker, the translation of "pistis" to faithfulness is by far the most accurate. That's the point, and why there is so much mental assent, one and done, "saving" going on in protestantism that leads people astray.

Again, the ancient christian church never had this idea that faith and works were opposed. It's an anti-RC innovation by protestants, for whatever reason, good or bad - but to get back at the imposing, corrupt RCs.
 

tychomaz

Sparrow
From what authority are you making these statements. I don’t have the knowledge to know what God would want in that particular manner as neither do you. It’s just an empty assumption. There are a lot of people who have been disciplined and kicked out only to come to know Christ more deeply as part of his plan.

1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

“for the destruction of the flesh” — so during the time they are not congregating they will be chastened. God doesn’t necessarily chasten non-believers:

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

What would be the point of kicking them out if they weren’t a part of the spiritual body of Christ and if they weren’t saved? It would be a waste of time because Hebrews 12:7-8 would not apply to this person.

Regarding public sin I’m not disagreeing if the person is penitent, but I don’t believe that’s your context. And while I don’t claim to know who is and who is not saved....I do know what both scripture and 2,000 years of tradition and saints have taught to this day about eternal security and sin and it’s certainly not what is being parroted by Pastors Jim and Bob from the local Baptist and Presbyterian Calvinist churches who both claim to know it all down pat yet can’t even agree on baptism.
There’s no good news in the Gospel if you cannot know that you yourself are saved. If you trusted in Christ for your salvation, and not look to your own works(or anyone other than Jesus Christ) at one point in time in the past then you’re saved.
 
Yes, I'd actually say all of the above. For the English speaker, the translation of "pistis" to faithfulness is by far the most accurate. That's the point, and why there is so much mental assent, one and done, "saving" going on in protestantism that leads people astray.

Again, the ancient christian church never had this idea that faith and works were opposed. It's an anti-RC innovation by protestants, for whatever reason, good or bad - but to get back at the imposing, corrupt RCs.
I think a big part of the problem are the words themselves and how they are viewed. For example, 'works': What exactly does 'works' mean? If we equate 'works' with the keeping of law, then I emphatically disagree that works are necessary for salvation. This is very clearly laid out by Paul in Galatians. And btw, there are going to be a whole lot of believers very disappointed on judgment day if I'm wrong about that, because imo entire denominations violate the law as a matter of policy.

If we equate 'works' with repentance, that's a different story. Now, do works follow salvation- like the fruits of the Spirit? Yes, they do.

If we could step outside the academic for a moment- a part of the reason that I'm so passionate about this subject is that my testimony is that I committed heinous sins after salvation, yet God did not abandon me. Chastening and discipline? Yes. But He did not walk away. I identify with this Scripture:

The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
Psalm 118:18


And now I look up years later, and God by His grace has removed most of those sins from my life. I still struggle at times, but nothing compared to how I used to. And God gets the glory for that.
 

Aloha50

Sparrow
As Hermetic Seal pointed out in the previous pages, this "faith alone" doctine sells good. That's the point of it. Who would care about Luther & co and the numerous protestant denominations, if they wouldn't have come up with "something new"?

So, sola fide is basically a raison d'etre of many prot churches. Without it, you're no competitor to Catholics/Orthodox. And it's much easier to recruit parishioners with "no strings attached". If Roosh would've become a protestant, I'm sure he would continue fornicating without any sense of guilt cos he'd been "saved".
No. When the chosen of God becomes born again, the Holy Spirit indwells that person (and never leaves). The Holy Spirit convicts of sin; causes the believer to hate sin and want to do the will of God. The true regenerate child of God doesn't think\say 'aha....now I'm saved....eternally secure.....I'll now sin with impunity' or thoughts to that effect. The ones that do say that we call 'false converts' as their lives are evidence that indeed they are false converts. Now consider the other side of the coin. Liturgical church member born into whatever liturgical church, never born again but in their mind they're good and going to Heaven as they were baptized as infants and later confirmed. Countless of these people....probably majority of the world population for the last 500 years (speculation of course).

You say the 'faith alone' doctrine sells good. Perhaps, but more so I say faith + works sells better. The fallen human condition is such that we want to do something to show our worthiness to God. All false religions follow this pattern. I'll say hail mary's, or abstain from something, do something so then God will favor me or forgive me. You see, it's easier to do some token act to assuage your conscience than to actual get on you knees and cry out to God and to do the difficult work of actual repentance. I say it 'can' be, doesn't have to be. No doubt there are many sincere Catholics that do these things as born again believers. I'm speaking to the Catholic that is not born again an is only fooling himself. He's doing 'works' as an unsaved person; same as the Protestant who thinks he's saved because he said a salvation prayer once, yet clearly isn't saved.


If you're born again (and if you are you know it) then you are a brother, whatever branch of Christianity you follow.
 

mjbravo

Pigeon
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

“for the destruction of the flesh” — so during the time they are not congregating they will be chastened. God doesn’t necessarily chasten non-believers:

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

What would be the point of kicking them out if they weren’t a part of the spiritual body of Christ and if they weren’t saved? It would be a waste of time because Hebrews 12:7-8 would not apply to this person.


There’s no good news in the Gospel if you cannot know that you yourself are saved. If you trusted in Christ for your salvation, and not look to your own works(or anyone other than Jesus Christ) at one point in time in the past then you’re saved.
There isn’t any purpose for us to debate church discipline if we hold different views on salvation and sin/penance

Regarding being saved we’ll have to disagree. Your view would have been heretical the to the very people that gave you the scriptures. Not to mention Paul. It is possibly to have an assurance yes, if you’ve met the conditions scripture lays out. But to know as an absolute is self-deception. Eternal security with no fear of being one of the vines that gets cut in John, isn’t Gospel.

God bless you on your faith journey.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Orthodox
I think the thing our friends here cannot (because they are unwilling to) understand is that we are saying all of the above, we just don't make these exclusionary principles or false dichotomies. It really is that simple. Can someone know if he is saved? Of course not, in the sense that he somehow knows the final judgment - this is self evident - no one knows the mind of God. But he can know what God is doing, he can have hope in God, he can know the saving acts of Jesus Christ, and he can pray for God to have mercy upon him and ask the God of the living (the Israel of God, the Church) to help him with his struggles.

It's just a centuries old RC vs Protestant food fight, I'm sad to say. And it was never a debate or misunderstanding for the ancient christian church. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
There’s no good news in the Gospel if you cannot know that you yourself are saved.

That's just emotional rhetoric. The Good News is that God defeated sin and death, ending the curse upon us and opening the door to salvation and unity with God. But that doesn't entail putting a gun to your head and marching you through the door. The offer is there, but God's not forcing you to take it.

The problem with "knowing you yourself are saved" is that it leads to pride and complacency. This demand for forensic certainty says much more about the mentality of modern rationalist westerners than it does God. I have noticed a vast difference in temperament between the Orthodox community of which I'm now a member, and the protestant ones I left.

In the latter, there's little urgency to strive for holiness because there's nothing at stake. They were all social clubs, for the most part, and thought about spirituality was mostly limited to detached, rationalistic discussion of abstract theological points and positions that was pretty much the same thing as debating sports, or pickup truck brands, or other stuff where guys pick a "team" they "play" for. I'm a Calvinist, you're a Lutheran, let's "fight." Let's debate the sermon and what the pastor got right over the course of expositing two verses from Galatians for fifty-five minutes. At the end of the day it was all just mental gymnastics that didn't really affect your relationship with God.
 
Top