Faith alone questions

[GodsGrace]

This has to be before they fall to an unrestorable condition.

The point comes where God will turn, both, the persistent unbeliever, and the ex-believer over to their choice to not believe, and they will never be allowed to repent, even if they seek it with tears. Sobering truth. In fact, honestly, I don't really like to share it. I don't want to discourage someone who still has a chance to be saved from abandoning the effort to seek the Lord again.

The Prodigal Son
Jesus said he was saved AGAIN.

I do believe like you that eventually one could get a hard heart.
Romans 1.

 

[GodsGrace]

No discrespency. God eventually draws the line where he's done calling an unbeliever (or ex-believer) to faith in Christ. And he turns them over without remedy to the choice they've made:

10and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, 12in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

I agree.

I don't agree with your understanding of Hebrews 6,4.

Two different ideas.
Hebrews makes it sound like if you leave God ONE time you could never be accepted again.

This is not right.

This is different from growing to have a hard heart.

 

[GodsGrace]

Later.
Hope to hear from M and W.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul warns of this because Believe, in the orig. Greek, was understood to mean to follow, to believe in, etc.

What was understood is that 'believing' has an expected and obligatory outcome.

As getting wet is the expected and obligatory outcome of jumping in a pool, so it is that working righteous deeds is the expected and obligatory outcome of being immersed in the Holy Spirit in salvation (1 John 3:9).

The person who has no deeds to back up his claim of believing is no more immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit than the person who is not wet is swimming in the backyard pool (you know, the floaty above ground kind, lol).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hebrews makes it sound like if you leave God ONE time you could never be accepted again.

No, it's not like that.
The Galatians and the Corinthians prove that.
They were entertaining 'another' gospel, yet Paul made the effort to draw them back, signifying that God does not turn you over instantly to unbelief.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Prodigal Son
Jesus said he was saved AGAIN.

I don't want to dissect the story of the Prodigal Son, but Jesus is talking about Israel - Jews who were not faithful to the old covenant, and so had 'fallen away' in that sense, but who had never entered into the New Covenant for them to have fallen away from it. In fact, the invitation of the New Covenant is the restoration of the Prodigal Son by the Father Jesus is talking about.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Also, are we on the same page regarding:
ONLY FAITH (saves)

Although this statement is correct, in that you become a saved person solely on the basis of the confession of your faith (Romans 10:10), the more clearer thing to say is, "only faith justifies". That way it's clear that we're talking about how a person becomes a saved person.

FAITH ALONE (does not save)

Yes, the faith that is alone, producing no works, can not save you on the Day of Wrath, because the absence of works signifies the absence of faith. James is in no way saying that works are required to become a saved person. That happens solely on the basis of your confession of faith (Romans 10:10).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

All those FAITH ALONE persons who claim all you need is FAITH and NOTHING ELSE are wrong!

The Reformist doctrine of OSAS does not say a person can have a faith that is alone and they will still be saved when Jesus comes back. That's why I say this has nothing to do with OSAS. Reformed doctrine is very clear that the person who does not have works to match their confession of faith doesn't really believe, and so they are rejected on that basis. Not on the basis that they failed to have works with their faith. No works MEANS no faith in Reformed doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Good works are essential to being Christian.

Disagree with the CC on other matters, but not on this!

Yes, good works are essential to being Christian, but good works are not essential to being justified (receiving God's righteousness). That happens entirely on the basis of your faith (Romans 10:10).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Confidence alone does not justify, but our faith in God.

Confidence is faith:

20 ...(Abraham) did not waver through disbelief in the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:20-22

Confidence in the promise of God is the very reason God credited his faith to him as righteousness. That is how we, also, are credited righteousness - we believe with confidence that God will do exactly what he has promised in the gospel and that faith is credited to us as righteousness. And Hebrews 10:14 explains to us that imputation of God's perfect righteousness that we get when we place our trust and confidence in God's promise of a Son happens one time and does not need to be repeated. There is no 'initial justification' and then another one later.

And, as an aside, whether or not a person can lose that righteousness through unbelief doesn't change the fact that it is received one time and does not have to be repeated. That's why I say OSAS has nothing to do with the matter of justification we are discussing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Is something else required to be declared justified?
Perhaps our willingness to become justified? Unlike what John Calvin taught?
Canon 9 just says that we must be WILLING to be saved.
Read those 2 chapters I posted before and you'll understand better what Canon 9 means.

I saw right away that the Canons were written specifically to counter the emergence of Reformed doctrine. I personally do not subscribe to Reformed doctrine. I think it's obvious that a person has to be willing to place their confidence in the gospel message in order to do that. But willingness is still not what justifies a person. God credits confidence in the gospel promise of the Son as righteousness, not the willingness to have confidence in it.

 

[GodsGrace]

What was understood is that 'believing' has an expected and obligatory outcome.

As getting wet is the expected and obligatory outcome of jumping in a pool, so it is that working righteous deeds is the expected and obligatory outcome of being immersed in the Holy Spirit in salvation (1 John 3:9).

The person who has no deeds to back up his claim of believing is no more immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit than the person who is not wet is swimming in the backyard pool (you know, the floaty above ground kind, lol).

Perfectly explained !

The obligatory outcome of justification for Catholics is ONGOING JUSTIFICATION because they do not use the word SANCTIFICATION in this regard.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, it's not like that.
The Galatians and the Corinthians prove that.
They were entertaining 'another' gospel, yet Paul made the effort to draw them back, signifying that God does not turn you over instantly to unbelief.

I agree.
What did I say?
See post 502.

 

[GodsGrace]

Although this statement is correct, in that you become a saved person solely on the basis of the confession of your faith (Romans 10:10), the more clearer thing to say is, "only faith justifies". That way it's clear that we're talking about how a person becomes a saved person.


Yes, the faith that is alone, producing no works, can not save you on the Day of Wrath, because the absence of works signifies the absence of faith. James is in no way saying that works are required to become a saved person. That happens solely on the basis of your confession of faith (Romans 10:10).

Agreed.
Just want to say that if you're saved, you're justified,
if you're justified, you're saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't agree with your understanding of Hebrews 6,4.

Two different ideas.
Hebrews makes it sound like if you leave God ONE time you could never be accepted again.

Only God knows the moment when he releases the person who has willingly gone back to unbelief in Hebrews 6:4.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The obligatory outcome of justification for Catholics is ONGOING JUSTIFICATION because they do not use the word SANCTIFICATION in this regard.

There is no ongoing justification in regard to the meaning of justification Paul is using. It is a one time event that does not need to be repeated (Hebrews 10:14).

And justification is not sanctification. By definition, they mean two different things. But a person is sanctified the moment they are justified.

The person who is justified, having received the imputation of God's righteousness, is in that same moment cleansed and set apart for God's holy purpose (sanctified). The person who has been set apart for service to God then gradually becomes in practice what God has set them apart to be when they were born again. That is called the process of sanctification, not justification.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Reformist doctrine of OSAS does not say a person can have a faith that is alone and they will still be saved when Jesus comes back. That's why I say this has nothing to do with OSAS. Reformed doctrine is very clear that the person who does not have works to match their confession of faith doesn't really believe, and so they are rejected on that basis. Not on the basis that they failed to have works with their faith. No works MEANS no faith in Reformed doctrine.

I agree with you.
But OSAS is not what Calvinists believe.
They believe in Perseverance of the Saints.
This means that IF God has chosen them,
they WILL persevere till the end because God will see to it that they do.

OSAS is understood to mean that one can become saved at some point in their life and nothing they do can cause them to lose that salvation. Many Protestants believe this wrong doctrine which is nowhere to be found either in the bible or in the writings of the ECFs.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no ongoing justification in regard to the meaning of justification Paul is using. It is a one time event that does not need to be repeated (Hebrews 10:14).

And justification is not sanctification. By definition, they mean two different things. But a person is sanctified the moment they are justified.

The person who is justified, having received the imputation of God's righteousness, is in that same moment cleansed and set apart for God's holy purpose (sanctified). The person who has been set apart for service to God then gradually becomes in practice what God has set them apart to be when they were born again. That is called the process of sanctification, not justification.

Well, there ya go.

You like YOUR description of JUSTIFICATION...
but you refuse to accept the Catholic's definition of JUSTIFICATION.

And so you can argue ad infinitum.

It's all LANGUAGE.

 

[GodsGrace]

Only God knows the moment when he releases the person who has willingly gone back to unbelief in Hebrews 6:4.

This is true in all cases.

But Hebrews 6 is speaking about Jews that decided to follow the Person they believed to be the Messiah.
At some point they became afraid that they made a mistake and wanted to go back to THE LAW.

THIS is like trampling Jesus underfoot....to go back to the Law after having been liberated from Him.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You like YOUR description of JUSTIFICATION...
but you refuse to accept the Catholic's definition of JUSTIFICATION.

My next question was going to be, show me where the Catholic description and definition of justification is in the Bible.

I showed you where the Protestant one is, in no uncertain terms.