Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
First, my comment was not directed to you and did not I did not solicit your response. I was speaking metaphorically.
If you were offended you should realize that I wasn't referring to all Protestants as you so frequently attribute the wayward practices of individual and lapsed Catholics as doctrinally supported by the Church and indicative of all Catholics. The ritual I referred to happens often enough for it to be recognized as being representative of some Protestant congregations. If it doesn't happen in yours then I am happy for your congregation and see it as further evidence many of the views posted are solely your own. Note that I intentionally did not use the word "they".
Lastly, I don't think you speak for all Protestants since we have no idea which of the 30,000+ denominations you belong to and your postings clearly put you outside of the mainstream of Protestant theology.
Peace be with you.
"I curious as to why you don’t address the issue of Catholics making Mary equal to Christ...I agree with Natural on this one. Mary is not equal with Jesus in Roman theology, it just looks that way from Roman prayer and practice.Because your making the accusation doesn't make it any more true and in need of addressing than the last thousand times it has been refuted and demonstrated to not be Catholic doctrine.
She is not God, she is just the sinless Queen of heaven where all saving grace must flow through. She provides special protection from her Son's Justice against sinners because she softens His heart and He cannot deny her requests.
She hears prayers from all Catholics at the same time, makes infrequent visits to various back water places requesting special devotion to her, and on occasion can make the sun dance and turn rosary beads to Gold.
But she is definetely not equal to God or Jesus.
I apologize.
Is Jesus a literal door? A literal shepherd of literal sheep?
John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
Jesus a literal Vine?
John 4:13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
Why isnt there an eternal life water drinking sacrament? The women at the well took it literally.
“You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not faith alone”. (James 2:21,24)
James says three times in chap. 2 that faith without works is inactive or dead.
So either James, writing under inspiration of holy spirit, contradicts Paul, who was also writing by inspiration of that same holy spirit, or...or as I believe, that they are in agreement and their words are being misunderstood.
So are James and Paul contradicting each other or is there another way to understand their words?
John 3:14-21 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Yes, those who were rescued from the snakes did not have to EAT the snake, only to look and believe.
So either James, writing under inspiration of holy spirit, contradicts Paul, who was also writing by inspiration of that same holy spirit, or...or as I believe, that they are in agreement and their words are being misunderstood.What is James Saying?So are James and Paul contradicting each other or is there another way to understand their words?
James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."
Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived."
Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.
Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." http://carm.org/are-we-justified-faith-romans-or-works-james
The tax collector went away justified simply on the basis of humbling himself before God. It doesn’t state that anything else was required or done.
Too bad. You don't want people commenting on your comments to others, use FReepmail. This is a public forum.
Making a statement that totally mischaracterizes a whole group of people as if it is a fact and then claiming it was simply a *metaphor* does not pass any credibility test. If you make a misstatement as if it's a fact, expect people to challenge it.
If you were offended you should realize that I wasn't referring to all Protestants as you so frequently attribute the wayward practices of individual and lapsed Catholics as doctrinally supported by the Church and indicative of all Catholics.
Making a blanket statement without specifying is referring to all Protestants. You didn't indicate otherwise.
The ritual I referred to happens often enough for it to be recognized as being representative of some Protestant congregations.
What ritual? Where is it recorded? Is it done the same way every Sunday week after week? Using the same words?
Lastly, I don't think you speak for all Protestants since we have no idea which of the 30,000+ denominations you belong to and your postings clearly put you outside of the mainstream of Protestant theology.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
“However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation.”
Then true faith is and must be accompanied by deeds, works?
Is that not what I said here: Faith alone is not sufficient as works are required to declare us righteous or justified.
True faith WILL be accompanied by works but the works are not required to declare us justified. The tax-collector was declared justified simply on the basis of him humbling himself and asking God for His mercy. The thief on the cross didn't have any time to do any works. Jesus said to the woman of ill repute who anointed His feet with oil that her FAITH had saved her.
Salvation has always been by faith, never by the Law or works. How can it be when our works done in ourselves are as filthy rags to Him? Those works can contribute NOTHING to salvation, either earning it or keeping it. Galatians 3.
Is that not what I said here: Faith alone is not sufficient as works are required to declare us righteous or justified.No Faith is the only requirement. Think thief on the cross.
Good works are the proof of salvation, not the cause. Good works are the proof to others of salvation.
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[b] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
If by works, how much work is required? What is the cutoff? Why the need for the Cross?
At Matt. 21:31,32 Jesus told the chief priests and older men that the tax collectors and harlots were going ahead of them into the kingdom.
Since Paul said such persons would not inherit the kingdom I think we can assume they changed and took in knowledge, endured to the end, preached the word, etc.
Of a certainty they didn't enter the kingdom as harlots and tax collectors the relative righteousness of the humble tax collector notwithstanding.
Works are manifest evidence of the presence of faith and are required to the extent of our abilities to perform them. St. Dismas had faith but no ability to perform works from the cross, yet he was saved. The rest of us are obliged to the extent we are able.......whatever we do or don't do to the least of our brethren.
Second time you said it, doesn’t make it true CB.
You yourself have a tendency to make assertions as if that settled the matter. So i have a few questions in response.
Read Matthew 16:18.
Why are you quoting Scripture as if that established the claims of Rome? Can Scripture provide real assurance of Truth? Is that your supreme authority for assurance of doctrine, including for the assured infallibility of Rome, and upon what basis?
Is the veracity of infallible pronouncements dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant?
Are the arguments behind an infallible decree also assuredly infallible?
Does being the instrument and steward of Scripture, and having historical decent of office make such the assuredly infallible interpreters of it in particular?
Peter was given the “Keys” by Christ, they
are a symbol of authority.
What makes your interpretation of Mt. 16:18 valid versus that of others? Does it even have the (stipulated) unanimous consent even of the "Fathers?
Peter was the first Pope. God names leaders, remember from the Old Testament? Peter is
buried under the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. This is all history.
Peter is indeed named as the leader among brethren (not as one who allowed men to bow down to him), but where in the Scriptures does God name Peter as being in Rome? Why is he not mentioned once in the entire epistle to the Roman, even among the many brethren in Rm. 16? What epistle to churches calls or reminds the brethren to pray for or submit to the holy father in Rome as the supreme magisterial head of the whole church? How are apostles to be selected?
The RCC compiled the Bible, it didn’t drop from Heaven complete and it didn’t appear in 1517. 382 A.D., was the year it was canonized. There were various writings, all separate and not all of them divinely inspired. Somebody had to decide guided by God the Holy Spirit. That was Pope Damasus.
Are you sure the Gelasian Decree, attributed to Pope Damasus I, was actually promulgated by him (at the Council of Rome in 382)? Was that the first canonized list of N.T. books?
When did Rome provide an infallible, indisputable canon? Is there division in Catholicism over the canon?
A famous quote, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” John Henry Newman
While others see history as showing the deviations of Rome from it, which is why he had to work at the theory of the Development of Doctrine due to lack of “unanimous consent” of the fathers, while historically Rome also made good use of forgeries:
Apology accepted. I figured it was a quick response without looking at background. I can only imagine how many times you are alerted. I just figured I’d better set the record straight.
You are to “live” “eating” Jesus the same way He lived by the Father:
“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:57)
“Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” (John 4:34)
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. “ (Matthew 4:4)
It is taught by Catholics (whom i have never seen disciplined for their supererogatory praise of Mary) *,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, to root of death, but we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary is, except that she is honored with with more titles than the Lord Himself.
"If salvation is gained by putting your trust in Christ for salvation, *accepting* Christ,
Which heart assent is a faith response, as even such, as is baptism, but it is God-given repentant faith that appropriates justficiation, which effects the “obedience of faith.” (Rm. 16:28)
then the only way to *lose* it would be to consciously choose to reject that gift and hand it back."
That forfeiture of what faith appropriated is what the Galatians were being warned against in Gal. 5:1-4, that of apostasy, in assenting to a different gospel in which souls are actually righteousness enough for Heaven because of his works, after they had been made free, and were in grace, and had the Holy Spirit in them, (Gal. 4:6; 5:1,4)
In Hebrews this was also warned against, of drawing back from Christ, "whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," (Hebrews 3:6) unlike Israel's rebellion after having been given a great salvation, (Num. 14) and having “an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God,” (Heb. 3:12) with will-full impenitent sinning which was evidenced by forsaking the fellowship of the saints. (Heb. 10:25-39) To which is contrasted holding “the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," (Hebrews 3:14) “which hath great recompence of reward.” (Heb. 10:35)
There can be intellectual assent to the existence of God but that.. does not translate into saving faith because no will has been involved, no repentance and confession. So no, THAT kind of "faith" cannot save you.
This is true, as faith, if it is salvific faith, will effect obedience toward its Object, the Lord Jesus, correspondent to the light one has, and thus in the moral sense, one who does not take care of his own family has denied the faith. (1Tim. 5:8) And thus God works to chasten disobedient souls unto repentance, for "when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:32)
“what's the difference in God's eyes between the very *small* sins of the godly and the gross sins of the tax collectors and prostitutes that Jesus hung around with?
There is a difference between an overall good man who struggles with a temper versus a habitual cold-blooded murderer, and the overall difference is between what characterizes a believers life, that of overall manifesting the “obedience of faith,” which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so (as David did after his sins regarding Bathsheba), versus impenitenly practicing unrighteousness even when convicted, or as one “past feeling,” having “given themselves over unto lasciviousness...” (Eph. 19) And with some there can be such a lack of “things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) both in profession and repentance, by which Paul was sure that the Thessalonians were of the elect, (1Thes. 1:3,4) that he said of some, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? " (2 Corinthians 13:5)
Relative to this, 1John describes the characteristics of the saved versus the lost, and based upon “these things” souls may know that they have eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)
Yet we cannot “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” unless we rest in Christ for our salvation, not that we actually deserve it, for "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. " (Romans 4:5) This speaks as to the actual basis for justification, versus actually being worthy, for what we actually deserve is the second death, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. " (Romans 6:23)
Yet again, as faith is manifested by what it effects, thus we are “joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together," (Romans 8:17) as "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) as the intent and effect of grace is "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)
Such does not mean souls earn salvation by the moral merit of their works, but we are counted righteous by a faith which will characteristically effect works of faith through the Spirit. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," (Romans 8:14) and insofar as we do we “do mortify the deeds of the body.” (v.13; cf. Col. 3) overcoming evil with good. (Rm. 12:21)
If we rest in Christ for salvation, we will seek to glorify Him, not be seekng to earn eternal life for ourselves, but in reality, we should be seeking to do all to the glory of God (in a way that does) and all that will honor and glorify God, (thus ministering to God and others) in response to “so great salvation” (Heb. 32) at so great a cost. (Rm. 8:32) And which should so preoccupy us that that we should be willing to go to Hell if that would do so the most, as both Moses and Paul were, (Ex. 32:32; Rm. 9:3) having a true pastors heart.
And did i tell you how far short i come? Let us rest in Christ for salvation, and better obey Him as Lord,. The latter testifies to the former, as He is both, to the glory of God the Father.
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.