Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
Here are just a few Evangelical sites that seem to disagree with your interpretation of the Bible on eternal security.
http://morechristlike.com/unbiblical-teachings/
http://morechristlike.com/are-errors-faults-and-mistakes-sin/
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/doctrinal_delusions_of_dave_hunt.htm
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/if_you_can_lose_your_salvation.htm
http://eternalsecurity.us/once_saved_always_saved%20a%20substitute%20for%20grace.htm
Is your reading of the Bible then a matter of taste?
And the significance of the answer would be?
If you are drawn to place faith in the authority of the RCC, then first place faith in Christ, remaining obedient to legitimate authority, but always focus on what God has provided and His active work in us, through faith in Christ.
>>I do. The Eastern tradition is profoundly focused on the work of the Holy Spirit.
It might surprise you but I’ve read those verse countless times.
The Book of Acts shows only one perspective.
But children grow up as St. Vincent of Lerins observes in the 5th century:http://newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Chapter 23.
On Development in Religious Knowledge.
[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.
[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church’s field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind— wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.
[58.] For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.
[59.] But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,— this, and nothing else—she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.
Are you Orthodox Christian?
Please share with us.
I found the article intriguing.
Perhaps, I have more orthodox leanings than I realized.
“Do you really think that the many, many, many Protestant denominations are not decaying in the storefront churches?”
Historically, the Church is constantly decaying and renewing—certainly the mainstream protestant denominations have decayed decisively. But prophecy tells us the Church will be there at the end. So repeated renewal seems to be likely.
In answer to your question, some are and some aren’t. The Church appears to me to be more vital in Africa and China right now than in America. But that’s just my observation from afar. The Spirit moves according to its own logic and I have seen some great things happen here. The next renewal could come out of the least likely of places, even San Francisco or Mecca.
They had texts too, including many NT stories and many texts that were not chosen to be in the NT. Also, the classical Greeks and Romans were not illiterate like the medievals. They were nt literate like modern Americans, but most in the middle class could read.
“There is a common idea today among some (particularly among those who hold to the religious belief known as dispensationalist premillennialism) that Jesus came to this earth to set up his kingdom, but being rejected by the Jews, he postponed his kingdom and set up the church instead. People of this persuasion believe that Jesus will set up his kingdom at his second coming. This idea relegates the church to the role of a stop-gap measure, a kind of afterthought in the mind of God to provide something to fill the gap between Christ’s ascension into heaven after his resurrection and his second coming to earth at the end of the age. This is not how the church is presented in the Bible, however.”
I know quite a few dispensationalist premillennialists. Not one has ever expressed the “afterthought” strawman you set up. They may not be right. But latching onto such a silly cartoon version of dispensationalist interpretation reveals the ignorance of the latcher. But then, it’s easier to criticize Beetle Bailey and Sarge than it is to criticize the actual Army.
**The Church appears to me to be more vital in Africa and China right now than in America.**
I posted an article last week from Zenit.org about Africa and China being where the Catholic Church as well as Christian churches are growing now.
In Africa, though, it was the southern part. And I’m sure you understand what I am not saying there.
Long but good. I’ll have to come back and read the parts I skipped.
I agree, that is EXACTLY what is being implied here. What some fail to realize, though, is that God always has a remnant. What today calls itself THE church Jesus established, is far different than what was around in the first few centuries after the Apostles all died out. The TRUE church of Jesus Christ is not comprised of a single organization headquartered in Rome. How any group is identified as being part of the Body of Christ is how closely they adhere to the truths established BY God in Scripture and it is the Holy Spirit within each believer that reveals the truth to them. There IS unity on the major tenets of the faith when we are in submission to the Holy Spirit.
Implicit in all non-Catholic doctrine, or the vast majority of it, is the basic belief that no, God didn't do just fine with the Old Testament. Either the Septuagint erroneously included books that should not have been a part of the canon but were included in the canon right up until Luther, or everyone who has come along since Luther has discarded legitimate portions of the Scriptures. So if you're non-Catholic, then you by definition do NOT believe that God "did OK with the Old Testament".
So, was the Septauigent in error but both Christ and the Apostles didn't bother to mention the fact that the most common version of the Scriptures in use was incorrect or did Christ and the Apostles a) not think what was or was not a part of the canon was important, or b) agree that what was included in the Septuagint was all a valid and inspired portion of His Word?
Christ and the Apostles obviously, "acknowledged" Scripture that non-Catholics have determined they shouldn't have. Hopefully those who do the "acknowledging" on behalf of non-Catholics have set Christ straight by pointing out to Him that although He is the Word, He didn't acknowledge errors in The Word that was in common use while He walked the earth. I guess after a good talking to from Luther Christ will know not to make that same mistake again, right?
That’s the standard behavior for newbie/retread rzman21. He uses FR like his own personal blog.
It was there but being persecuted by Rome. True, Bible believing Christians were executed as heretics when found, which they were by the thousands. It certainly caused the Roman Church to seem like the only one around when often it was because those that opposed it were largely dead. Rome has a very bloody history.
Truth bump!
Depends on the work of God the Holy Spirit within the believer. The doctrine of eternal security depends upon God’s integrity, not ours. We did nothing to earn our salvation and we can’t do anything to lose it. It is His decision and work in us.
Eph 2:8-10
(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Well stated.
Yep, lots of people don’t remain in faith in Christ. Doubting their eternal security manifests a lack of faith. Those who doubt their eternal security never reach spiritual maturity and fail to receive many a blessing from the justice of God.
So if the doctrine doubting one’s security were sound, it would produce a self fulfilling prophecy of dooming its advocates to damnation.
On the contrary, we continue to grow in faith because our God is a living God, not a God of the dead.
If somebody falls out of fellowship after being saved, God the Holy Spirit by His volition (also known as His Sovereignty) still indwells the believer. God does nothing for no good.
He knew beforehand every sin we would ever commit even when He decided to give us eternal life by His grace.
For the believer, the issue isn’t judgment for salvation, it is the bema seat for eternal rewards predestined for us, upon review of our decisions in life.
There may be many who never have exercised simple faith alone in Christ alone, but have always coupled works or continuing effort to receive salvation, voiding the initial inkling they had to have faith alone in Christ. Then when they step away from doctrine, they discover they are in a void without God the Holy Spirit, leading them to conclude they can lose their salvation when they never had it in the first place.
Faith is a funny thing. Tomes have been written about it, but it only takes a smidgeon more faith than no faith whatsoever to have a saving faith alone in Christ alone.
Once saved, the issue isn’t sin or salvation, the issue is remaining in fellowship with Him, to further grow in Christ, to more glorify Him by being at the right place at the right time to do the right thing by His Plan.
Actually, we do run to the nearest rabbi. He also is known as our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. He is truly Jewish.
It is constructive coversation that is so much needed.
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.