Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/faith_a.htm ^ | 1996 | James Akin

[Petrosius]

Justification by Faith Alone

by James Akin

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Why, then, do Catholics not use the formula faith alone in everyday discourse? There are two reasons:

First, whenever a theological tradition is developing, it must decide which way key terms are going to be used or there will be hopeless confusion. For example, during the early centuries it was decided that in connection with Jesus identity the term God would be used as a noun rather than as a proper name for the Father. This enables us to say, Jesus is God and be understood. If the term God were used as a proper name for the Father in this regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term "God" when used in this context.

Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.

A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit." The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the definition Catholics use for "hope."

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:

Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts

The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.

When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:

"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.

"We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).

If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today

"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say in all truth: Catholic doctrine does not overlook what Protestant faith finds so important, and vice versa; and Catholic doctrine does not maintain what Protestant doctrine is afraid of, and vice versa.

"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."

During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.

Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:

"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."

I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone"

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than it could equall confusing formulas. This formula can be given an orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German) and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they connote intellectual assent.

This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term "God" in connection with Jesus' identity could be overturned.

What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith, hope, and charity."

It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others' theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.

(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)

The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term "faith."

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.

---

Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

---

[Quester]

I don't mind challenging you on your beliefs, but I can see my last post upset you.

Hmmm ... presumptive and provocative.

Do you think that Jesus is pleased with such as this ?

Is this the best that Catholics have to offer ?

If so (or even if not)... I believe that I'll pass.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hmmm ... presumptive and provocative. Do you think that Jesus is pleased with such as this ? Is this the best that Catholics have to offer ? If so (or even if not)... I believe that I'll pass.

There is nothing presumptive about it, neither any intention of being provocative. Indeed, you haven't been remiss in doing so in the rest of this thread, what's different now? In fact, not content with being given the final word when you said you had ended your participation at post 187, you pinged me three days later when you returned to comment again upon my previous posts. So Quester, no need to point fingers at me and then make sweeping generalizations to all Catholics, while asking if Jesus would be pleased with such as this. We are having a discussion about Scripture on Free Republic, aren't we? If I'm in error, show me where I have read the Scriptures incorrectly. If you're not willing to do that, so be it.

I will, however, say it again, Quester, the Bible does not say we are saved by Faith alone, rather that doctrine is explicitly contradicted by Scripture. You and I both know that, correct?

All who seek the Truth are in some sense seeking Jesus, who is Truth itself. All who hide from the Truth do not have faith in Jesus.

Jesus explicitly says if we would inherit eternal life, to keep the Commandments. Without this, there is no assurance of Salvation. If we do not persist in believing what he has told us and in following His Commandments, we can make no claim upon His promise of Salvation for those who would be His disciples, because we have chosen to put our faith elsewhere than in Him. Correct?

Bashing Catholics or retreating to a litany of allegations against Catholics will accomplish nothing, the doctrine that people are saved by faith alone is still unscriptural and error-prone. Replacing the Church of St. Francis and Mother Theresa, or for that matter, Gregor Mendel, with a prejudiced collection of anti-Catholic lore adds nothing to your position. It's simply an attempt to argue that while salvation by faith alone is a flawed proposition in the context of a religion based upon the Bible alone, one's appeal to personal prejudice will suffice to convince that one can do no better than a flawed, illogical, and irrational position. Or perhaps you would care to elaborate on the contradictions which this position has lead you, the ones for which I have asked clarification in the last two posts? I would certainly be interested in a response.

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** Petronius Maximus, we are not talking about the parousia, we're talking about salvation.***

The Parousia is an example of a Biblical concept of an event being already present but not yet fully fulfilled - The Kingdom has come and yet will come. Salvation has come and yet will come.





***Divine help comes to us in Christ through the moral law that guides us and the grace of God that sustains us. ***

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.





*** Good, so with regards to salvation it is a promise, not a fait accompli, correct?***

My friend, anything that God promises is a fiat accompli.





***I, on the other hand, will remind you that God is not indifferent to our actions, and in fact, we will be judged not according to what we believed, but according to our actions.***

We will not be judged based on our action but on who we know.

"Depart for me - I never knew you."

Part of the promise of the new covenent...

"And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD."







If we are judged based soley on actions then how could Paul say...

"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."


Selling all, dying as a martyr - both are worthless without the divine love of God in our hearts.

Where do we get that kind of love my friend?




*** I do not see this. The guarantee of salvation is in the Promises of Christ,***

You need to look at those passages harder. Paul clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is the down payment or the "engagement ring" of the salvation of the believer.

*** My translation actually reads quite a bit differently, it does not say guarantee.... "Now the one who has prepared us for this is God, who has given us the Spirit as a first installment." (2 Corinthians 5) ***

First installment is a fine translation. What God has put a down payment on, He will surely redeem. Can you imagine Him defaulting.



***It is the same story as the covenants made with God in Scripture. Man indeed makes covenants with God, but man is left free to break those covenants.***

I found this interesting passage of a Jewish Christian site...


"AN UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT

The Abrahamic Covenant has been described as "unconditional." This means that God's promises will be without qualification; that is, that the covenant promises will be completely fulfilled in spite of man's success or failure to keep whatever conditions or commandments may be contained in the covenant. Fulfillment is dependent upon God and not man. God intends to fulfill the terms of the covenant regardless of whether man fulfills his obligations. Abraham may have had some obligations to fulfill, but even if Abraham failed to fulfill those obligations, God's promises to him would still have been kept.
THE "CUTTING OF THE COVENANT"

In Genesis 15 animals were slaughtered so as to solemnize a blood covenant. Afterwards the animals were cut up and its pieces were lined up in two parallel rows. [In Hebrew, it is common language usage to "cut a covenant." The very phrase brings to mind the picture of animals being sacrificed as seen in Genesis 15. Not every covenant is "cut" however; a different word is used in Genesis 6:18 when God says "I will establish my covenant with you."]


In the culture of that day, if the contract being made was a conditional covenant, there were certain things that the parties to the agreement would do. In a situation (like that described in Genesis 15) where a conditional covenant was being made, both parties making the contract would walk together between the pieces of the animals (e.g., Jeremiah 34:18-19). This meant that the terms of the covenant would be mandatory on both parties. If one party became guilty of violating any single term of the covenant, it would free the other party from the necessity of fulfilling his own promises contained in the covenant.

But in Genesis 15, Abraham and God did not walk together between the pieces of the animals. God put Abraham in a deep sleep and only God -- in the form of a smoking oven and a flaming torch (Genesis 15:17) -- walked between the pieces of the animals. This meant that the fulfillment of the covenant was based purely upon God's grace, in spite of how often Abraham or his descendants may fail. Abraham could not be a participant in the covenant, but could only be a recipient of a covenant.
WHAT PART DID OBEDIENCE PLAY IN THE COVENANT?

While enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant may be conditioned upon obedience, the fulfillment of the promises is not. Possession and ownership of the land was unconditional; however, the enjoyment of the land is conditional -- based on only one condition!

The sole condition for the Abrahamic Covenant was the command for Abraham to leave the land of his birth and to enter a new land. Once Abraham obeyed this one imperative, it rendered the covenant unconditional. In other words, whether or not God would make a covenant program with Abraham did depend upon Abraham's act of obedience in leaving the land, but when Abraham set out for the Land God would show him, the covenant was irrevocable and unconditional. Once Abraham obeyed, the fulfillment of the promise did not depend on Abraham's continued obedience, but on the character of our LORD."

http://www.amfi.org/abracovt.htm








***Truly converted versus untruly converted??? What you are seeing here is a weakness of a theological system which says a person is guaranteed to go to heaven once he has converted to Christ. "The reader may be warned that they might not truly be converted." In other words, nobody is guaranteed to go to heaven when they die because of their conversion, because everyone can wonder if it was a "true" conversion experience****


Poppycock! :)

The book of 1st John was written for the very purpose of helping people discern whether they were truly converted or not...


"And how can we be sure that we belong to him? By obeying his commandments. If someone says, "I belong to God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and does not live in the truth. But those who obey God's word really do love him. That is the way to know whether or not we live in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Christ did."

and as an example...

"If anyone says, "I am living in the light," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is still living in darkness. Anyone who loves other Christians is living in the light and does not cause anyone to stumble. Anyone who hates a Christian brother or sister is living and walking in darkness. Such a person is lost, having been blinded by the darkness."


Hate your fellow believers? You're lost - even though you may think you truly know God.




(Sorry for the long post)

[InterestedQuestioner]

Good to see your post, Petronius Maximus.

"The Parousia is an example of a Biblical concept of an event being already present but not yet fully fulfilled - The Kingdom has come and yet will come. Salvation has come and yet will come."

That's interesting.

"You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Fallen from Grace? That Scripture makes a very important point. I was beginning to get a little impatient trying to make this same point. It is possible to fall from Grace.

With regards to the point you are focused upon here, we are Justified by God. This passage is talking about the Jewish Law, specifically, he's referring to circumcision. The moral law, however, is still binding, and still guides us. Pardon me, but I've backed this up half a dozen times on this thread. I'll put down chapters and verses if needed, but my guess is that you agree with me and it's not necessary.

"My friend, anything that God promises is a fiat accompli."

I love your spirit, PM, and I would say nothing against this if I didn't see a possible danger in following it to its logical conclusion. God has done His part, He offered Himself in a Holy and Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross. Now if that were all that was required for our Salvation, then everyone would go to Heaven. We Christians understand, however, that something is in fact required of us, and that is an obedient response to God's Grace. We have no assurance of salvation if we do not respond to God's Grace in this way, and in that, it is those who persevere to the end who will be saved. That is the promise, not "convert to Christianity, and we will be go to heaven when we die." That teaching sounds a lot more like Islam than Christianity. With regards to the Scripture at hand, the Bible says Abraham persevered to the end, and so obtained the promise. Those who do not persevere to the end have no guarantee of obtaining the promise. Correct? I feel like I've presented that point pretty clearly at least half a dozen times on this thread with various Scriptures, although I recognize that I may not have been in conversation with you.

"We will not be judged based on our action but on who we know." "Depart for me - I never knew you."

I like how you put that, however, we will be judged according to our actions, and I'll quote the same verses right back to you, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!' "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock."

Of which words is Jesus speaking? This is the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, which someone on this thread appears to have taken issue with here, but the direct reference is nonetheless to the Sermon on the Mount. As a refresher, it doesn't say, just convert to Christianity and you're guaranteed to go to heaven, nor does it say "just believe," or "we are saved by faith alone." It says, Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled, blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy, do not judge others, lest we ourselves be judged, trust God, don't put riches and material possessions ahead of God, know that with what measure we measure, it will be measured unto us, don't retaliate, keep your promises, control our passions of anger and lust, say our prayers sincerely, and give to the poor. It further says, whoever is angry at his brother is in danger of judgment. If I might perhaps redeem myself with Quester, it also says, "Whoever observes these Commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." Obviously I do indeed have some ulterior motives going on here. ;-)

"If we are judged based soley on actions then how could Paul say...
"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

Touche'! That verse most certainly proves that we are not judged by our actions alone, excellent point and excellent logic! However, I've never said we would be judged on our actions alone. We Catholics are not real big on sticking the word "alone" after everything, and I think I've argued pretty strongly on this thread about the importance of love. (see also the article at the head of this thread.) Heaven is prepared for those who love God, indeed, but we will be judged according to our actions, and that will include actions of mercy and love. Following your logic, however, that verse does indeed point out that we cannot be saved by faith alone. "For if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, then I am nothing."

"Where do we get that kind of love my friend?"

Love, like faith and hope, is a gift from God. He calls us to exercise them all.

"You need to look at those passages harder. Paul clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is the down payment or the "engagement ring" of the salvation of the believer."

You can call it a down payment if you like, not being a financial analyst, I'll call it the gateway to the life of the spirit, and God's most beautiful and gracious gift. Nonetheless, it's no guarantee. The passage I quoted was about those who have received the Holy Spirit but have nonetheless turned away.

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Converted to Christ, received the Holy Spirit, then fell away. Ergo, no guarantee. You've also seen this happen to people you know, right? After becoming Christians we must nonetheless battle sin, and all of us do well to hope for the Grace of final perseverance.

"First installment is a fine translation. What God has put a down payment on, He will surely redeem. Can you imagine Him defaulting. "

Indeed, I can't, but it's not God I'm worried about, it's us. Speaking in the language of downpayements, remember Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. So too may people who act immorally sell their salvation for something vastly inferior. PM, I hope everyone goes to heaven, but I'm not going to presume upon that. What we are discussing is assurance of salvation, and that assurance is linked to perseverance in loving God and loving our fellow man. Those who fall away have no guarantee, ditto those who become lukewarm, those who do not show mercy, those who lapse into evildoing, and those believers for whom the things of life becomes more important than the next.

***This sentence does not say, once you have confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and once you have believed in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you have been saved.*** The verse leave NO OTHER OPTION open. If you do those things you WILL be saved - Period - End of Story. If you WILL surely be saved then your ARE saved now."

This is from an older post, although I avoided bringing it up, but since we're on the subject, I feel like the point has been missed here. Do you see that these are not equivalent statements? The action specified by Scripture is present tense on the part of the believer, future tense on the part of God, as you noted, but the statement which I wrote is not Scriptural, rather it's a misreading of Scripture to be in the past perfect tense, and not equivalent to the statement you made. The operative word here, and in many places in Scripture is "if".

"The only "actions" we are capable of are tarnished at best. The only truly "good works" that man can perform are those done by God acting though him.

We can't perform good actions, but we can perform Good actions????? Can you elaborate? If you don't mind, Quester and I have been through this quite a few times, would you mind taking a look at those threads to see where I might be confused with the Protestant approach to this? Are you saying there is no free will??

"Poppycock! :) The book of 1st John was written for the very purpose of helping people discern whether they were truly converted or not... ",

Not many people say poppycock these days, I'm not going to ask how old you are. (And you just had to give me something to give you a hard time about, didn't you?) You can read 1 John as a way to discern whether or not someone has been fully converted to Christ or not if you want, but I think you know what I'm talking about, and if not, perhaps checking back on gamecock's posts early in the thread will clarify.

Those are great quotes from 1 John. Strictly speaking, they don't speak to having had a conversion experience, but rather of belonging to God, that is not of whether a conversion was true, but rather whether it is complete and enduring. In that sense, they're a lot like the Sermon on the Mount. Those are great examples demonstrating that the Commandments are not optional, and why it is that a Christian must keep the Commandments.

"All who keep His Commandments abide in Him, and He in them."

"And by this we may be sure that we know Him, if we keep His Commandments."

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments."


"I found this interesting passage of a Jewish Christian site... ",

That's an interesting article, I'll have to think about it next time I read through Genesis, God willing. Off hand, I'd say it's questionable at best, it says possession of the land is not dependent upon the keeping of the Covenant. Perhaps the author should go back and read psalm 137. Perhaps a look at psalm 74 which talks about the covenant directly would be even better. The Law and the Covenants were given by God for man's own good, not God's. Abraham remained faithful, and God kept his covenant with him. Of Abraham's descendants who did not remain faithful, things did not go so well. For the purpose of this conversation, Christ will Keep his promise to the Church, this we know, but what of the individual? We too have a responsibility in the economy of salvation.

"(Sorry for the long post)"

It's not as long as mine have been on this thread. I could do without all the blank space and ellipses I've been reading through lately, but I certainly appreciate your thoughts.

BTW, I would be interested in your thoughts about something, Petronius Maximus. You asked a few days ago, "Where is the entire body of the Epistles, is the believer ever warned of the danger of their eternal destruction?" I didn't answer initially, in part because I thought it was odd to restrict the answer to the Epistles, in part because I wondered why you specifically wanted it in the form of a warning, and in part because you wanted that warning directed specifically at believers. There are very few verses in Scripture that I think clearly speak of eternal damnation, in fact, there may not be any, and the one that is clearest to me makes no distinction between those who believe and do not believe, but rather refers only to the conduct of the individual and whether or not they acted mercifully. Given that, I thought it was odd to put such restrictions on it. In response to your question, I can only think of one convincing verse in the Epistles that probably describes eternal destruction. It is not phrased as a warning, but it does indeed appear to apply to believers, at least in my translation. (2 Thesalonians 1:7-9)

"...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire,inflicting vengeance upon those who do not acknowledge God AND upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might...."

Nobody is being given a warning here, other than the reader of the letter, but the punishment is for two groups, those who do not acknowledge God, and for those who are disobedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand the last one to apply to those believers who are disobedient to the teachings of Christ. Presumably this is the same group as those who address Him as 'Lord, Lord', and who prophesied, drove out demons, and performed miracles in His name in the Scriptures we quoted above, but were nonetheless disobedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ--lawless, or evildoers.

To me, the promises in the Epistles seem to be primarily couched in the positive. I find the promise of eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality in Romans 2: 7 but the counter is more vague as to eternity. The Catholic Church certainly teaches that eternal damnation is a possibility, however, I've noticed that some Evangelical Christians have questioned the eternity of Hell. In fact, I think there was a post here on FR a few weeks ago about it, although I didn't follow up on it. One can certainly argue that Hell often appears to be described more as a fire that burns for ages, rather than eternal punishment in that fire.

I'd like to turn that question around to you. Do you think anyone will actually go to hell forever? What Scripture do you look to for support of your view?

-IQ

[PetroniusMaximus]

(wow - I thought my post was long...)

:)


***I was beginning to get a little impatient trying to make this same point. It is possible to fall from Grace.***

Well, you have chosen an excellent passage to focus on. It touches on many of the topics in this post. Who "fell" from grace? Those who wanted to add circumcision as a requirement for salvation. Paul reminds them that if they add circumcision then they are bound to keep all the law - and being back in the sphere of Law they have stepped out of Grace.

Now are you not arguing for the concept that we are saved by keeping the law???

Paul affirms the rightness of the Law in Gal 5, saying, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

And he previously noted the position of works in the scheme of salvation...

"For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but *faith which worketh by love*... This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh... But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

It is the indwelling Spirit which is the source of the Christian's righteousness, and of his good works. The Spirit creates within our hearts the divine type of love which I spoke of in the previous post. The Spirit comes to indwell the believer at conversion.



***The moral law, however, is still binding, and still guides us.***

Addressed above, but in this day the Law is NOT our guide. The Law was designed to lead people to Christ. When they die with Christ in repentance/baptism, they "die" to the Law. Once they have come to Christ the Spirit is their guide.

Galatians 5:18
"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Romans 8:14
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

The fact that Paul is not just speaking to the ceremonial aspects of the Law is make clear in the following passage...

"Now, dear brothers and sisters--you who are familiar with the law--don't you know that the law applies only to a person who is still living? Let me illustrate. When a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, the laws of marriage no longer apply to her. So while her husband is alive, she would be committing adultery if she married another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law and does not commit adultery when she remarries.

So this is the point: The law no longer holds you in its power, because you died to its power when you died with Christ on the cross. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. As a result, you can produce good fruit, that is, good deeds for God. When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced sinful deeds, resulting in death. But now we have been released from the law, for we died with Christ, and we are no longer captive to its power. Now we can really serve God, not in the old way by obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way, by the Spirit.


Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is evil? Of course not! The law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin took advantage of this law and aroused all kinds of forbidden desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power." - Rom 7 NLT




***Now if that were all that was required for our Salvation, then everyone would go to Heaven.***

That is not strictly ALL that is required for the Bible says..

John 1:12
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

Our part is to receive (by faith) what Christ has done for us - and to let go of our little games of trying to be "good enough" to get in to heaven.



***Those who do not persevere to the end have no guarantee of obtaining the promise.***

Think of the parable of the four soils.



****I like how you put that, however, we will be judged according to our actions, and I'll quote the same verses right back to you, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.***

I'm glad you like it, because from my reading on the NT it is of critical importance. Good works arise out of a relationship with Christ and God - they do not win us a relationship with Christ and God. The one who, "...does the will of My Father in heaven" is the one who has a relationship to Christ - that one is like a mother, or sister or brother to him.

When he was on the earth, did Christ seek out and call to himself those who were good enough, or had done enough good works?

No, he sought out those who were "lost causes" as far as righteousness goes - with one critical addition, they were humble enough to admit what they really were and had the faith to believe Jesus could make them whole.



***The passage I quoted was about those who have received the Holy Spirit but have nonetheless turned away.***

I think the Bible does address the existence of real apostasy - a knowing, willful and public renunciation of Christ - and it seems to be irreversible. But it does not teach a daily falling into and out of a saving relationship with Christ based on whether you ate meat on a certain day or failed to go to Mass, etc.



***PM, I hope everyone goes to heaven, but I'm not going to presume upon that. What we are discussing is assurance of salvation, and that assurance is linked to perseverance in loving God and loving our fellow man.***

You and I are in agreement in this. When I look out at churches, I am fearful for the vast numbers who do not know the reality of the new birth and life in the Spirit regardless of their religious profession. If there is no evidence of the new birth in an individual then there is cause for great concern. Those who do not have the Spirit, do not belong to Christ and will not see the Kingdom.


***We can't perform good actions, but we can perform Good actions????? Can you elaborate? If you don't mind, Quester and I have been through this quite a few times, would you mind taking a look at those threads to see where I might be confused with the Protestant approach to this? Are you saying there is no free will??***

Before a person is reborn they are, for lack of a better term, merely human. Once they are reborn, they have a new nature and they have the Spirit of God living within their hearts - literally.

Before being born again our works are like those of Cain, the fruit of our own efforts and the best we can do but ultimately unacceptable.

After a person is born again they have a new source of goodness living within them - the Holy Spirit. The Spirit enables people to fulfill the true essence and meaning of the Law (love for God and others) or as Paul says...

Romans 8:4
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."




*** Not many people say poppycock these days, I'm not going to ask how old you are. ***

Nor do people inquire after one another's "inner child" or deride one another with the term "Jive Turkey"!


*** It's not as long as mine have been on this thread. I could do without all the blank space and ellipses***

The blank space and ellipses are provided gratis!
:)



*** To me, the promises in the Epistles seem to be primarily couched in the positive.***

They are positive! If your paradigm for viewing the teachings of the NT is true then should they be, at best, couched as possibilities! Was Paul guilty of giving people false hope? Think about it.




***I'd like to turn that question around to you. Do you think anyone will actually go to hell forever? What Scripture do you look to for support of your view?***

How about these...

Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into *everlasting punishment*: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 18:8
"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into *everlasting fire*."

Jude 7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of *eternal fire*"

Jude 13
[Speaking of certain men who are like...] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness *for ever*.


and finally...

Rev 14
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up *for ever and ever*: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."



(again, sorry for taking so long - and sorry if I didn't address all your points - I look forward to your response as your schedule permits.)

[Cvengr]

It is the indwelling Spirit which is the source of the Christian's righteousness, and of his good works. The Spirit creates within our hearts the divine type of love which I spoke of in the previous post. The Spirit comes to indwell the believer at conversion.

Very well stated, ... Thanks to the Lord.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Petrosiusm Maximus,

Thank you for your post. I'd like to clarify a few points before responding. Do you believe that the individual collaborates in his or her own salvation?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Do you believe that the individual collaborates in his or her own salvation?***

I think it is a nuanced issue. I think it is a mystery. Have not your own Augustinians and Benedictines wrestled over the same issue for ages (i.e. does the baby monkey hold the mother monkey or the mother, the baby?)

I think the NT is clear that man must be willing, must not fight against God's Spirit. Christ wanted to gather Jerusalem to himself - but they were not willing, and he wept for them.

The concrete reality of the existence of man's will in the NT is a given. We are not spoken to in the Bible as if we were pawns, but as free agents who will be faced with the consequences of our choices.



But the other side is equally true - that the entire thing, from start to finish, is of God. "You have not chosen me - I have chosen you." I think of Paul's statement,

"But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written,

“He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”" - 1 Cor. 1


God is the originator and sustainer of our salvation, and ultimately it is all for His glory. "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"


I think both views are true. Can I reconcile them. No. But I can not logically reconcile that God is One and Three. Nor can I reconcile that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I believe it, but I can not work it out.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?"

[InterestedQuestioner]

"We are not spoken to in the Bible as if we were pawns, but as free agents who will be faced with the consequences of our choices."

We agree that man has free will. To follow up on that:

"Once they are reborn, they have a new nature and they have the Spirit of God living within their hearts - literally."......"God is the originator and sustainer of our salvation....."

In your view, PM, how is it that humans continue to sin after being reborn?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** In your view, PM, how is it that humans continue to sin after being reborn?***

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The believer is dual-natured --- old nature & new nature. The old nature, or "old man" is just as sinful as it ever was. The new nature is a new creation. It is a result of the new birth and desires the things of God. It is by the power of the Spirit that the new nature overpowers the old.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"It is by the power of the Spirit that the new nature overpowers the old."

By who's power does the old nature overpower the new, that is, how do we sin?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** By who's power does the old nature overpower the new, that is, how do we sin?***

Look at how Paul describes the struggle with sin...
(It's a long, but worthy read.)


The law is good, then. The trouble is not with the law but with me, because I am sold into slavery, with sin as my master. I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that the law is good. But I can't help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things.

I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old sinful nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn, I can't make myself do right. I want to, but I can't. When I want to do good, I don't. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. But if I am doing what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it.

It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God's law with all my heart. But there is another law at work within me that is at war with my mind. This law wins the fight and makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God's law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.

So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. For the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you through Christ Jesus from the power of sin that leads to death. The law of Moses could not save us, because of our sinful nature. But God put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his own Son in a human body like ours, except that ours are sinful. God destroyed sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. He did this so that the requirement of the law would be fully accomplished for us who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit.

Those who are dominated by the sinful nature think about sinful things, but those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit think about things that please the Spirit. If your sinful nature controls your mind, there is death. But if the Holy Spirit controls your mind, there is life and peace. For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God's laws, and it never will. That's why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God.

But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them are not Christians at all.) Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive because you have been made right with God. The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as he raised Christ from the dead, he will give life to your mortal body by this same Spirit living within you. (from Rom 7&8)




+++

Before we are born again we really don't have much of a choice as far as sin goes. We are really slaves to sin and our mind is controlled by the devil to the extent that we really don't want true righteousness (though we don't mind having a kind of righteousness that wins us the approval of those around us).

After being born again and receiving a new nature we still have freedom - freedom to yield to the Spirit and let him have his way or freedom to yield to the old man and the old nature have its way. That is why there is so much moral directive in the Epistles.

Galatians 5:13
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

1 Peter 2:16
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"After being born again and receiving a new nature we still have freedom - freedom to yield to the Spirit and let him have his way or freedom to yield to the old man and the old nature have its way."

Then the believer is "free" to commit sins. PM, what are the consequences of sin?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** Then the believer is "free" to commit sins.***

It is an unfortunate possibility. See Gal 5:13 for the admonition not to misuse freedom.

We are exhorted by almost all apostolic writers to, "...lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us," (Heb 12)

or...

"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator."

Both passages point to the reality of sin in the life of the believer. But both of them deal with sin as a nusaince and direct believers to keep their eyes on the prize of heaven which await them.



***PM, what are the consequences of sin?***

To a large degree it depends on where you stand with regards to the new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ.

"This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"

then he adds,

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.






If you are under the new covenant then sin can rob you of your blessing, it will prevent you from fellowshipping and walking with God throughout your day, it will prevent you from being used by Him to reach or bless others, it will prevent your prayers from being heard, it will bring great sorrow into your life and it may even result in your life on earth being cut short - but it will not send you to hell.

It's a bit like double jeopardy. Once the punishment for sin has been paid, it can not be required to be paid again. Once Christ has died in our place and we have accepted his death for us by faith, and by that faith God has accounted us righteous - it would be unjust of God to require that the sins be paid for again. And remember, when Christ died ALL your sins were yet in the future.


"If God is for us, who can ever be against us? Since God did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won't God, who gave us Christ, also give us everything else?

Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for his own? Will God? No! He is the one who has given us right standing with himself. Who then will condemn us? Will Christ Jesus? No, for he is the one who died for us and was raised to life for us and is sitting at the place of highest honor next to God, pleading for us." - Rom 8

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Both passages point to the reality of sin in the life of the believer."

"If you are under the new covenant then sin can rob you of your blessing.....but it will not send you to hell."

So the believer is capable of committing sins, but is not capable of going to hell. If then one who has been born again commits murder, he will nonetheless go to heaven?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** So the believer is capable of committing sins, but is not capable of going to hell.***

John 10:27-29
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall *never perish*"



*** If then one who has been born again commits murder, he will nonetheless go to heaven?***

1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


(you've got mail)

[InterestedQuestioner]

Thank you for the mail, PM, have a good evening.

[Quester]

Good post, ... Petronius.

[InterestedQuestioner]

PM,

Your last post juxtaposed two Scriptures, but did not answer the question at hand. The believer is capable of committing sins, but you have asserted that he is not capable of going to hell.

To follow this logic, if then one who has been born again commits murder, he will nonetheless go to heaven. How do you see this?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***To follow this logic, if then one who has been born again commits murder, he will nonetheless go to heaven. How do you see this?***

Well, the verse in 1 John seems to be pretty clear that no one who murders "has eternal life abiding in him" (which is a unique phrase) - possibly indicating that people who commit murder show that they have never been born again.

Add to this Paul's statement:

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, *murders*, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Interestingly, Paul says "those who practice such things" - i.e. those whose lives are characterized by such things.

Is is not safe to synthesize the above to passages into a statement that those who "practice such things" do not have "eternal life abiding in" them?




As I was thinking of your question I was reminded of David, the man after God's own heart. He committed cold blooded, premeditated murder - yet he was forgiven. He, as an OT saint, under the law, was forgiven.

And we are told in Hebrews that there are things which can be forgiven under the new covenant which could not be forgiven under the old. Additionally, Jesus himself said:

Matthew 12:31
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."


So based on the above, I would say that if a true Christian could commit murder, then yes, they could be forgiven for it. If the Christian murdered then he would repent. The Holy Spirit would see to that. (It is the Holy Spirit that convicts us of ALL our sins and makes us miserable until we confess them to the Lord and seek His forgiveness.)

A person who professes to be a Christian and murders - and refuses to repent and seek forgiveness or one who repeatedly commits murder is not a true Christian.



As a side note let me relate a true story to you. A good Christian woman with a baby was arrested in her home in China. Because she would not renounce Christ, the communist soldiers took her baby from her and threw it on the floor. The raised their boots and stomped the baby to death - crushing its head. The did this right in front of the poor mother.

In her grief she lost all reason and grabbed a knife off the counter and slashed one soldiers throat - killing him. The other soldier immediately shot and killed her.

Do you think she went to hell?