[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
No. Because you’re not in Heaven. [/quote]
I don’t get it. Neither are you because as of right now you’re not in heaven. I mean, WILL I be saved? In your opinion. When Christ comes to judge.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
No. Because you’re not in Heaven. [/quote]
I don’t get it. Neither are you because as of right now you’re not in heaven. I mean, WILL I be saved? In your opinion. When Christ comes to judge.[/quote]
Yes, I know I am not in Heaven. And, I have no clue, it isn’t time yet.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
No. Because you’re not in Heaven. [/quote]
I don’t get it. Neither are you because as of right now you’re not in heaven. I mean, WILL I be saved? In your opinion. When Christ comes to judge.[/quote]
Yes, I know I am not in Heaven. And, I have no clue, it isn’t time yet.[/quote]
Just to clear it up for ya, he means (sorry to put words in your mouth Chris and feel free to correct me if I don’t convey your meaning) that none of us has any idea if we will be saved, because we are not God. We have reason to hope though as do you. From the Catholic perspective salvation is both a moment and a process (this is my synthesis of it mind you). At baptism we are saved (in a state of grace) and so long as we continue in that and/or immediately repent our mortal sins (should we commit any) and celebrate reconciliation (confession) we have the utmost hope that we will be saved, but assurance (absolute assurance of salvation) does not exist for most people (I think there are some exceptions where it was revealed to individuals that they would be saved, but these are few).
Here is a question to the Protestants…is the Catholic Mass (Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist) scriptural?
[quote]forbes wrote:
but none of the scriptures that you posted are talking about it.
[/quote]
See this is the thing, you don’t know what purgatory is, those scripture verses are talking about what Catholics call purgatory, I know the word purgatory is not in the Bible, but neither is Trinity.
The Church sees those verses as talking about the final purification.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
but none of the scriptures that you posted are talking about it.
[/quote]
See this is the thing, you don’t know what purgatory is, those scripture verses are talking about what Catholics call purgatory, I know the word purgatory is not in the Bible, but neither is Trinity.
The Church sees those verses as talking about the final purification.[/quote]
Never said that it has to be mentioned directly. But many of the verses are talking about how to conduct yourself in this world.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¿Ã???, petros) and upon this rock (Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?±, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k�???ph�??�?�¡s, P�??�?�©tros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K�???ph�??�?�¡s is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
I have read this alternate interpretation before, but realistically it is not so. Peter = Rock, for Jesus to name Simon, Peter than call him the rock and upon this rock he will build his church is pretty damn clear. And if it were not enough, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He doesn’t give that to just anyone, not even the other apostles. The fact that Peter was so flawed is consistent with Heaven belonging to the ‘least of his people’.
I think the issue really is that evangelicals feel that if this is true, that they are somehow invalid which is not true. Evangelical faith was born of the Catholic faith you are part of us. If you hold fast that this is untrue, then the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been based on lies. Care to take a bet on how long something based on lies would last?
Do you believe that the first 1500 years of Christianity was false, or untrue? Because if Peter wasn’t the first pope as ordained by Christ himself than there was no Christianity until the 16th century.
You are offspring of the Church we are therefore and should be brothers in Christ perhaps divided in methodology, but we should be united in faith, not divided by ideology.[/quote]
I agree, and after a long debate that will never technically end until Christ’s second coming, I think we should come to terms with this. There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn against getting caught up in incidentals like this.
Question for the Catholics:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
Well to BC’s point, the question should be can you be saved. The answer is of course. If you love God and keep his commands you are saved.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Brother Chris, what about my interpretation of sin and redemption do you not agree with?
As for the "building of the Church on Peter:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).
The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.
The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).
There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. “…you are Peter (Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¿Ã???, petros) and upon this rock (Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?ÂÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?±, petra) I will build My church…” In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:
* Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
* Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
* 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
* 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
* Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
* Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
* Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
* Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
* 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
* Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
* Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
* Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don’t have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don’t possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic k�????ph�???�??�?�¡s, P�???�??�?�©tros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that K�????ph�???�??�?�¡s is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1
Jesus is the rock on which the church is built
The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).
I have read this alternate interpretation before, but realistically it is not so. Peter = Rock, for Jesus to name Simon, Peter than call him the rock and upon this rock he will build his church is pretty damn clear. And if it were not enough, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He doesn’t give that to just anyone, not even the other apostles. The fact that Peter was so flawed is consistent with Heaven belonging to the ‘least of his people’.
I think the issue really is that evangelicals feel that if this is true, that they are somehow invalid which is not true. Evangelical faith was born of the Catholic faith you are part of us. If you hold fast that this is untrue, then the first 1500 years of Christianity would have been based on lies. Care to take a bet on how long something based on lies would last?
Do you believe that the first 1500 years of Christianity was false, or untrue? Because if Peter wasn’t the first pope as ordained by Christ himself than there was no Christianity until the 16th century.
You are offspring of the Church we are therefore and should be brothers in Christ perhaps divided in methodology, but we should be united in faith, not divided by ideology.[/quote]
I agree, and after a long debate that will never technically end until Christ’s second coming, I think we should come to terms with this. There are things we disagree on but as long as the essentials are there then it doesn’t matter. In fact, scripture warn against getting caught up in incidentals like this.
Question for the Catholics:
Do you believe that I, as a protestant (though I do not like being denominational), am saved?
If no, why?
If yes, why?
[/quote]
Somewhat a loaded questions. Do I know if I’m saved as a Catholic; No. I hope I am. I work hard every day to “bear fruit” and live my life as Christ would call. But at the end of the day, I realize all men fall short and only through the Grace of God are we saved. I hope on judgment day my soul is pure enough to win favor with the Lord. As the Bible says, many will claim to have known Jesus and will call his name, but Jesus will tell them that he does not know them.
As a protestant, are you saved? See above; I don’t know. But know this, as a protestant, you will have to also answer to the Lord for why you didn’t follow the Catholic Church’s teachings.
A good illustration about Catholic views on salvation goes like this. A missionary goes to serve a small community at the the top of a mountain. This community has never known of Jesus. The missionary stops at the town at the base of a mountain and has a drink. This drink turns into many and the missionary passes out. While the missionary is unconscious, a horrible disaster happens at the top of the mountain and destroys the community. Are the souls of the individuals in the community going to hell because of the missionary’s sins? A Catholic would say that the Grace of God can save all even the non-believers. Thus, the community may be saved.
If God can save this community of non-believers why could he not save the fallen protestants?[/quote]
They are not ‘fallen’ protestants. That was reserved for those that initially and willfully broke away from the Church.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
but none of the scriptures that you posted are talking about it.
[/quote]
See this is the thing, you don’t know what purgatory is, those scripture verses are talking about what Catholics call purgatory, I know the word purgatory is not in the Bible, but neither is Trinity.
The Church sees those verses as talking about the final purification.[/quote]
Never said that it has to be mentioned directly. But many of the verses are talking about how to conduct yourself in this world.[/quote]
Yes, and if you don’t pay your penance, you will have to pay it off in the afterlife. It’s Biblical.
Here is a question to the Protestants…is the Catholic Mass (Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist) scriptural?
Preaching the word and taking communion are definitely scriptural. However, I would argue that some aspects of mass, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, are mistaken interpretations of scripture.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Preaching the word and taking communion are definitely scriptural. However, I would argue that some aspects of mass, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, are mistaken interpretations of scripture.[/quote]
I didn’t say doctrine (transubstantiation is a different topic and we can cover that later), I said Mass. I’ve heard several claims in the last few days that Mass isn’t Biblical (that we don’t use Scripture in Mass at all, and there is stuff that aren’t Scriptural in Mass) and that Catholics don’t use scripture…and some claim that we aren’t even allowed to read the Bible. So, I wanted to know from the Protestants if Catholics use scripture and how much they use in our Mass.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Preaching the word and taking communion are definitely scriptural. However, I would argue that some aspects of mass, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, are mistaken interpretations of scripture.[/quote]
The paradoxical implications of this statement are almost too much. Additionally, Jesus said that it was His Body and Blood. Not that it was a symbol of His Body and Blood. So in actuality, Catholics aren’t interpreting the Bible they are believing it as written. Protestants are reading the symbolism into it.
Additionally, the basis for Catholic animosity toward protestants is “mistaken interpretations.” Additionally, how can our “interpretations” be any more or less valid than yours. As Catholics, we can be critical of protestants because our interpretations date back to the time of Christ. Most protestant interpretations date back to the early 19th century, and at best, to the middle of the 16th century.
Thanks for clarifying, Chris…I’m not sure how anyone could believe Catholics don’t study the bible or use the bible in Mass.
McG78, there are many statements in the bible about which people disagree regarding the literal vs symbolic intent. For example, did God literally create the earth in 6 days? Was Eve literally created from Adam’s rib? Was Job a real person or an allegory? Etc.
Which of course is one reason there are so many different Christian sects.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, Chris…I’m not sure how anyone could believe Catholics don’t study the bible or use the bible in Mass.
McG78, there are many statements in the bible about which people disagree regarding the literal vs symbolic intent. For example, did God literally create the earth in 6 days? Was Eve literally created from Adam’s rib? Was Job a real person or an allegory? Etc.
Which of course is one reason there are so many different Christian sects.[/quote]
It’s a both/and answer for Catholics, Protestants usually take an either/or so they come up with the wrong answer.
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]
No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.
The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.
http://www.auremcordis.com/media/mass_&_bible_verses-0509.pdf
To see how much of the Mass is from the Bible.
[hint: All of it.]
Stated,
“…none of us has any idea if we will be saved…we have the utmost hope that we will be saved, but assurance (absolute assurance of salvation) does not exist…”
What saith the Scriptures,
Every Christian desires to have assurance of salvation, that is, the certainty that when Christ returns or death comes, he or she will go to be with the lord Jesus in heaven (Jn. 14:1-3). John’s purpose in writing his first epistle is that God’s people may have that assurance, “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” (I Jn. 5:13). Note that nowhere in the letter does John state that a past experience of conversion constitutes an assurance or guarantee of salvation. To assume we possess eternal life based soley on a past experience or a faith that is no longer vital is a grave error. This epistle puts forth nine ways for us to know that we are in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
(1) We have assurance of eternal life if we believe “on the name of the Son of God” (I Jn. 5:13).
(2) We have assurance of eternal life if we are honoring Christ as Lord of our lives and are sincerely seeking to keep His commandments. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of god perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (I Jn. 2:3-5).
(3) We have assurance of eternal life if we love the Father and the Son rather than the world, and if we overcome the influence of the world. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I Jn. 2:15).
(4) We have assurance of eternal life if we habitually and persistently practice righteousness rather that sin. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him (I Jn. 2:29). On the other hand, “He that committeth sin is of the devil” (I Jn. 3:7-10).
(5) We have assurance of eternal life if we love the brethren. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren… And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (I Jn. 3:14,19).
(6) We have assurance of eternal life if we are conscious of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. “And hereby we know that he [Jesus Christ] abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us” (I Jn. 3:24).
(7) We have assurance of eternal life if we are endeavoring to follow the example of Jesus and live as as He lived. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked” (I Jn. 2:6).
(8) We have assurance of eternal life if we believe, accept, and abide in the “Word of Life,” i.e., the living Christ (I Jn. 1:1), and in the original message of Christ and the apostles. "If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father
(9) We have assurance of eternal life if we have an ernest longing and a certain hope for the return of Jesus Christ to receive us to Himself. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (I Jn. 3:2-3).
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“…none of us has any idea if we will be saved…we have the utmost hope that we will be saved, but assurance (absolute assurance of salvation) does not exist…”
What saith the Scriptures,
Every Christian desires to have assurance of salvation, that is, the certainty that when Christ returns or death comes, he or she will go to be with the lord Jesus in heaven (Jn. 14:1-3). John’s purpose in writing his first epistle is that God’s people may have that assurance, “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” (I Jn. 5:13). Note that nowhere in the letter does John state that a past experience of conversion constitutes an assurance or guarantee of salvation. To assume we possess eternal life based soley on a past experience or a faith that is no longer vital is a grave error. This epistle puts forth nine ways for us to know that we are in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
(1) We have assurance of eternal life if we believe “on the name of the Son of God” (I Jn. 5:13).
(2) We have assurance of eternal life if we are honoring Christ as Lord of our lives and are sincerely seeking to keep His commandments. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of god perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (I Jn. 2:3-5).
(3) We have assurance of eternal life if we love the Father and the Son rather than the world, and if we overcome the influence of the world. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I Jn. 2:15).
(4) We have assurance of eternal life if we habitually and persistently practice righteousness rather that sin. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him (I Jn. 2:29). On the other hand, “He that committeth sin is of the devil” (I Jn. 3:7-10).
(5) We have assurance of eternal life if we love the brethren. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren… And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (I Jn. 3:14,19).
(6) We have assurance of eternal life if we are conscious of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. “And hereby we know that he [Jesus Christ] abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us” (I Jn. 3:24).
(7) We have assurance of eternal life if we are endeavoring to follow the example of Jesus and live as as He lived. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked” (I Jn. 2:6).
(8) We have assurance of eternal life if we believe, accept, and abide in the “Word of Life,” i.e., the living Christ (I Jn. 1:1), and in the original message of Christ and the apostles. "If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father
(9) We have assurance of eternal life if we have an ernest longing and a certain hope for the return of Jesus Christ to receive us to Himself. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (I Jn. 3:2-3).[/quote]
Not disagreeing with any of the above. My point was that these things you mentioned have to be maintained (ie that if you decided you hated God you could fall from them). So, in effect you have some assurance from all of the above, but not absolute assurance.