Posted on 08/18/2011 7:18:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
So why is the seal of confession inviolable? Why does the seal bind under such a grave obligation that the Church excommunicates any confessor who directly violates it? (See: The seal of confession: some basics)
There are two principal reasons why the priest must preserve the seal: the virtue of justice and the virtue of religion. The motive of justice is evident because the penitent, by the very fact of entering the confessional, or asking the priest to hear his confession (we’ll deal with “reconciliation rooms” another day) rightly expects that the priest will observe the seal. This is a contract entered into by the fact of the priest agreeing to hear a person’s confession. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the celebration of the sacrament of Penance.
Much more grave than the obligation of justice towards the penitent is the obligation of religion due to the sacrament. The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives a brief explanation of the virtue of religion which essentially summarises the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. (Summa Theologica 2a 2ae q.81) Religion is a moral virtue by which we give to God what is His due; it is, as St Thomas says, a part of justice. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, instituted by Christ, Fr Felix Cappello explains things well [my translation]:
By the very fact that Christ permitted, nay ordered, that all baptised sinners should use the sacrament and consequently make a secret confession, he granted an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, to use this remedy. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after the communication made in confession, remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and that by a power altogether sacred, which no contrary human law can strike out, since every human law is of an inferior order: whence this right cannot be taken away or overridden by any means, or any pretext, or any motive.
The penitent confesses his sins to God through the priest. If the seal were to be broken under some circumstances, it would put people off the sacrament and thereby prevent them from receiving the grace that they need in order to repent and amend their lives. It would also, and far more importantly, obstruct the will of God for sinners to make use of the sacrament of Penance and thereby enjoy eternal life. The grace of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for anyone who commits a mortal sin. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the practice of the Catholic faith. Some secular commentators have spoken of the seal of confession as being somehow a right or privilege of the priest. That is a preposterous misrepresentation: it is a sacred and inviolable duty that the priest must fulfil for the sake of the penitent and for the sake of God's will to redeem sinners.
A possibly misleading phrase in this context is where theologians say that the penitent is confessing his sins as if to God "ut Deo." (You can easily imagine secularists deriding the idea that the priest makes himself to be a god etc.) In truth, the penitent is confessing his sins before God. The priest acts as the minister of Christ in a sacred trust which he may not violate for any cause - precisely because he is not in fact God. By virtue of the penitent’s confession ut Deo, the priest absolves the penitent and, if mortal sin is involved, thereby readmits him to Holy Communion.
There will be more to follow on the sacrament of confession. As I mentioned in my previous post, this series is not intended as a guide for making a devout confession but rather as an introduction to some canonical and theological questions regarding the sacrament which have become important recently. (For a leaflet on how to make a good confession, see my parish website.)
I have been told that the threat in Ireland to introduce a law compelling priests to violate the seal of confession has been withdrawn, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, I will continue with these posts because I think that the Irish proposal will be picked up by other secularists and may pose a problem for us. Further posts will look at the proper place, time and vesture for hearing confessions, one or two more particular crimes in canon law, the question of jurisdiction and the much misused expression “Ecclesia supplet”, and, of course, what to do if the civil authority tries to compel a priest to break the seal.
Any ECF's writing about auricular confession in the first 300 years?
Any Apostolic writings detailing priestly absolution?
Can you relate any scriptural instances of auricular confession to a priest, vs forgiveness by Faith in Christ?
God desires that all be saved and died for all, yet all are not saved. Man possesses the ability to reject grace.
That is definitely NOT a teaching of the Catholic Church. It is a catch phrase for the heresy of Modernism.
Modernism is the most prevalent and direct threat to the Church because it appeals to our vanities and masquerades as enlightenment and tolerance. Pope Pius X dubbed the heresy of Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies”. It combines aspects of Relativism, Universalism, Syncretism and Religious Indifference. It is not a single identifiable doctrinal or dogmatic difference with the Church; it is a belief that doctrine and dogma are somehow passé and of secondary importance to moral teachings. To quote James Akin it is a belief or attitude that “faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by hearing it from an external source.”
I know believers who believe once saved always saved. Yet they back it up with proper living and action on earth. Some the most giving in Christ's name. Yet then I meet people like the one I presented to you. He truly believes he is okay. He will say this assurance nonsense like it's a license to " kill" or sin in this case. Gee he thinks he is saved always.
Most from my experience believe like the man who is cheating. Oh they think I can always be forgiven yet stupidly continue. This in my humble opinion is what pervades in all the churches . A pick and choose like cafeteria style morality.
I personally blame this over usage of once saved always saved. I can even watch as I watch Christian tv. I have Sky Angel tv. 40 channels of Christian tv. Some not so Christian in any proper context ( Protestant or catholic). The danger of what is lost here in America is going to be at the feet of this "cheap Grace "mentality. Even when they talk these " preachers" can't even get the behavior right inline with scripture. Hardly nobody is properly explaining it. To really live the life. It is outstandingly neon blaring wrong. Just crazy.
Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
If you love God, you will confess every doggone little thing that might offend Him...
If the Holy Spirit lives within you, and if you have not hardened your heart against the Spirit, the Spirit will convict your spirit of sin...
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I read at a link one of you guys posted recently that a Bishop stated he had not been to confession in 15 days...I don't know how you guys do it and call yourselves Christians...
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
It doesn't matter what your religion teaches, Jesus never taught any such thing...
Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
There's nothing in these verses that denotes a mortal sin vs a venial sin...The passage is about the knowledge of sin by two different individuals...And the punishment for such...
Don't you guys ever read the scriptures you link to???
I found 9 examples of that exact quote in a Google search, none with your name on them. Would you consider that an example of plagiarism?
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:181st Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS."
Romans 8:34, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, WHO ALSO MAKETH INTERCESSION FOR US.
John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME."
Hebrews 7:25, "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him (Christ), seeing he (Christ) ever liveth to MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM."
1st John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, JESUS CHRIST the righteous:
Isaiah 53:12, "...and he (Christ) bare the sin of many, and made INTERCESSION FOR THE TRANSGRESSORS."
Is 53:5 "But he (Christ) was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him (Christ); and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him (Christ) THE INIQUITY OF US ALL."
Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by FAITH, we HAVE PEACE with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Ephesians 4:32, "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."
Colossians 2:13, "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him (Christ), having forgiven you ALL TRESPASSES."
1st Corinthians 15:3, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."
Acts 13:38, "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man (Christ) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins."
Luke 7:50 "And he (Christ) said to the woman, Thy FAITH hath saved thee; go in peace." "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH in his (Christ's) blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."
John 3:36 "He that BELIEVETH on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God."
May God bless you in your Work be safe.
I found 9 examples of that exact quote in a Google search, none with your name on them. Would you consider that an example of plagiarism?In your haste you must have missed my link I provided, posted at the bottom.
This is where Protestantism suffers a major breakdown. It fails to recognize the hierarchy of Scripture and with it the fundamental definition of Christianity. Catholics are Christians not Paulians.
You cannot revise or replace the Gospel of Christ with the writings of Paul, the Paul only came to reinforce, clarify and teach the Gospel of Jesus. Where the Letters of Paul seem to be at odds with the Gospel you must interpret Paul with respect to the primacy of Jesus words.
"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."- John 20:19–23
The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession
Do not come to prayer with a guilty conscience.” Epistle of Barnabas, 19:12 (A.D. 74).
“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).
“Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.” Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).
“Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God—a thing which frequently occurs—have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).
“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).
“Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins...” Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).
“The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’” Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220).
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).
“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.’” Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).
“Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, ‘God is not mocked.’ God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime…I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 28-29 (A.D. 251).
Most Protestant churches observe a correct method of confession -- we take our sins to God and ask for Christ to blot them out.
Directly. Immediately. Completely. Individually and as a member of a like-minded congregation of believers under the covenant of grace...
QUESTION: Why doesn't the OPC have "Confession?" (I'm not asking if it is a sacrament.) It seems to be quite biblical. The Anglican Church, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches do it. Since there seems to be a rich history of the practice of confessing sins to the presbyter or elder, why doesn't the OPC practice such?
ANSWER: We need to begin by thinking about some of the different terms.
There is "confessing our faith." The Greek word homologeo is used in the New Testament most frequently of professing or confessing faith in Jesus Christ as God's Son and the only Savior (Matt. 10:32, Luke 12:8, Rom. 10:9-10, I John 4:2-3,15). In this sense, it is a declaration of what a person believes about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation and so on. The OPC definitely has confession in this sense! We agree that the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are both suitable confessions of faith. But in addition, the OPC (along with other Bible-believing Presbyterian churches) uses the Westminster Confession of Faith as a clear and well-developed confession of what the Bible teaches. All officers in the OPC (pastors, elders, deacons) take the WCF as their own confession of what Scripture teaches. Finally, whenever anyone joins the OPC they must make a confession or profession of their faith in Christ since the church is composed of those who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. So the OPC thinks that confessions are vital to the church.
You are asking, however, about something different. Now homologeo means basically to "speak or say the same thing." In using the Apostles Creed, for instance, a congregation on Sunday morning is confessing to believe the same thing that all Christians everywhere at all times have believed. That is the dominant or chief meaning of the word in the New Testament. Only one time, in I John 1:9, is homologeo used in the sense you are asking about. But notice that there confession of sin (not the confession of one's faith) is being made directly to God. A slightly different word, exomologeomai, also is used for confessing one's faith (Rom. 14:11, 15:9, Phil. 2:11), but with this word, four times it is used of confessing one's sins (Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:5, Acts 19:18, Jas. 5:16), twice of the crowds coming to John the Baptist, once of the occultists in Ephesus, and once in James: "confess your sins to one another and pray for one another." So the New Testament has general confession of sins, confessing sins to God directly, and one mention of confessing privately sins to another believer.
The evidence of the Old Testament is similar though here the words used are much broader than in the New Testament. Sometimes the priest or a representative, like Nehemiah or Daniel, confesses sin on behalf of the whole nation (Lev. 16:21, Neh. 1:6, Dan. 9:20). Sometimes there is a call or act by the whole people of confessing their sin (Lev. 26:40, I Kings 8:35, Ezra 10:1,11, Neh. 9:2,3). In the case of Achan, because his sin brought judgment on the whole nation, Joshua called on him to confess his sin to God in a public way (Josh. 7:19). In several cases it is not clear whether the confession of sin is made to anyone but God (Lev. 5:5, Num. 5:7, Prov. 28:13). And in Psalm 32:5 confession is made clearly to the Lord Himself.
So, to summarize the biblical evidence, private confession to an individual, specifically a priest, is simply not supported. There is confession of sin to God alone, there is a place for public and corporate confession of sin, and from James 5:16 a place for confessing sin to another believer (is this tied into Matt. 5:23-24?) But the Roman Catholic idea of auricular confession (confession into the ear of a priest) does not have biblical support or warrant and seems to have originated during the Middle Ages.
The Reformed church has, historically, allowed for or used public confession of sin. Here is the corporate confession used by Martin Bucer in the worship services in Strassburg:
"Almighty, eternal God and Father, we confess and acknowledge unto thee that we were conceived in unrighteousness and are full of sin and transgression in all our life. We do not fully believe thy Word nor follow thy holy commandments. Remember thy goodness, we beseech thee, and for thy Name's sake be gracious unto us, and forgive us our iniquity which, alas, is great."John Calvin added his own prepared confession of sin to the order of worship in Geneva and John Knox based the confession of sin used in his "Form of Prayers" on Daniel 9. The Westminster Directory of 1644 includes an extensive confession of sin as an example of how confession of sin was to be a part of the worship of God's people. What the Reformed churches did was to take the public confession of sin that had been in the Roman Catholic mass and removed all references to the intercession of the saints and focused the attention of people on sin's offensiveness to God. Here is the way one scholar described it:
"There followed at once [in the Reformed order of worship] the prayer of confession as a congregational act. This replaced the private confession of the priest before the Mass, for here was a congregational priesthood." [James Hastings Nichols, Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition, p.41]This is getting at the heart of your question, I hope. The worship we are talking about is corporate or covenantal worship. It is the worship of the people of covenant as the people of God. We are together a sinful and guilty people; how can we come, as a covenant people, before a holy God if we do not confess our sins? While it is certainly true and biblical to confess our sins directly to God, the act of corporately confessing our sins has a covenantal character to it that is missing in the Roman Catholic practice of private or auricular confession, for behind that practice is the mistaken idea that the priest needs to stand between us and God. The Bible teaches that there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ the righteous (I Tim. 2:5). A priest has not power to absolve us of sin, only the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse and for that we can go directly to God (I John 1:9; 2:1).
I think that the practices in the Anglican or Lutheran churches would mirror this Reformed understanding rather than what the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches practice, for all Protestants have rejected the notion of auricular confession to a priest. If you see the way that the corporate confession of sin has been a part of Reformed worship really from the time of the Reformation, I hope you see that the Reformed tradition of which the OPC is a part does believe in confessing one's sins even though not every Reformed congregation may do it every week.
Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread, 12and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
There is no priest present, no one is saying hail mary's for penance, etc... Confession and repentance is to God directly.
That is the personal interpretation of a human, fallible, sinful, woman, you.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So this verse doesn't say what it says, eh, or doesn't mean what it says either???
Of course we all can believe what we want but I'm betting my soul that that verse is true and that I understand that verse...
Christ Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom, called him the Rock upon which He would build His church, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
And then you come back with this verse when there's not a single one of you who can explain what the 'keys' are nor have any clue what the 'gates of hell' are...
Why would anyone bet their eternal life on their own fallible, sinful, mistaken understanding of Holy Scripture, rather than on the teaching of the Church which Christ Himself created and preserved?
Because it's your church that makes the false claim that Jesus created your church and preserved it...You won't find that in Jesus' words in the scriptures...In fact, your religion is condemned numerous times by the Holy Words of Scripture...
The bigger question is why would someone align themselves with a religion that is clearly anti biblical???
I guarantee you that if you open 'that' book and ask God to show you something, He will not slam the book shut and tell you to go ask a Catholic priest...
I'm pretty much in the OSAS category. My contention is that someone like that was never saved to begin with. Saying so doesn't make it so. That's where the fruit of a godly life gives credibility to someone's claim. Not that the works save them, but the works demonstrate to the world that saving faith has been exercised.
Matthew 13:1-9
Where do you get the idea that binding and loosing is remitting and retaining sins???
This is where Protestantism suffers a major breakdown. It fails to recognize the hierarchy of Scripture and with it the fundamental definition of Christianity. Catholics are Christians not Paulians.Roman Catholics are actually Ultramontanists, who insist on reading into the early church, ideas unheard of for hundreds or thousands of years after Christ.
You unfortunately have believed a literal wooden and anachronistic interpretation of an isolated verse that has an imposed meaning onto it which has NO support from the rest of scripture.
You have further ignored any elucidation from all other epistles and from history which offer no evidence to support your wooden, literal and late interpretation.
The great commission is the meaning of the verse, proclaiming the Gospel, not forgiveness by a priest.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.
Hebrews 7:22-25 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Hebrews 9:24-28 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:10-18 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“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.
Nope...You can't interpret Paul's words that way...They just don't line up no matter what you do with them...
You either have to throw Paul's epistles out the window or rethink your position...
The words that Paul preached and wrote are just as authoritative as the words Jesus spoke...Paul was just as inspired to write what Jesus told him as the other Apostles were inspired to write down the words of Jesus...
Jesus’ Teaching on Losing Salvation
Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.
Matt. 7:21 - all those who say “Lord, Lord” on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.
Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for “therefore” is “dia toutos” which means “through this”) blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus’ grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.
Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God’s banquet, but was cast out.
Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.
Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.
Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as “alive again.”
John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.
John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don’t bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.
John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.
John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won’t cast out. But it’s a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.
John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.
John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person “continues” to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.
John 6:44 - Jesus says no one can come to me unless the Father “draws” him. This “drawing” is an ongoing process.
John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, “no one shall snatch them out of my hands,” He does not mean we can’t leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.
Rev. 2:4-5 – Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven).
Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it with sin.
Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice.
Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it.
Rev. 13:10; 14:12 - we are called from heaven for the endurance and faith of the saints, keeping the commandments and faith.
Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus.
Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God’s holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.