RELIGION....(part 2)

[Von!-x]

---

Basing on Manny's posts, salvation is not assured. Cardinal Bunal says we can be assured. These two differing stands are not just their own stand but also of the institutions they're affiliated.

In the RCC, there are so many dogmas, rituals, sacraments, etc... If you follow them all, then what? Salavation? Good life? Whatever, there is still no assurance.

For those who says we can be saved by faith, so how are we to live? How sure? If I sin later in life, would i lose my salvation?

Somehow, whether catholics, agnostics or protestants, in the lowest times of our lives, we often ask the question "Will I go to heaven when I die?". The Bible presented heaven as a wonderful city, no night there, roads are paved with gold, no need for a sun, no more tears and sickness, etc...

The answer can be found in the bible. If you insist it isn't there, or insist that the text refers to something else other than assurance of salvation, then you missed a lot - or perhaps, u just missed eternity.

[mannyamador]

The answer can be found in the bible. If you insist it isn't there, or insist that the text refers to something else other than assurance of salvation, then you missed a lot - or perhaps, u just missed eternity.

So what's the answer to the dilemma? If your salvation is "assured", then can you still be saved if you commit some terrbile sin AFTER you were "saved"?

The Bible's "answer" has been subject to many interpretations. Martin Luther, for example, thought his salvation was so assured that he went on to fornicate and lead others astray. So confident was he of his "assured salvation" that he continued to "sin well".

He probably missed eternity in Heaven. So might you if you keep on thinking that way.

[Cardinal Bunal]

So what's the answer to the dilemma? If your salvation is "assured", then can you still be saved if you commit some terrbile sin AFTER you were "saved"?

Assured but maintained? It can but it is uncertain if one's salvation can be maintained... in many places in the Bible the acceptance of Christ IS salvation but there are certain things that have to maintain that, walking with Christ, obeying Christ as Lord...

What sin? Persistence in the life of sin has NO salvation, but even an upright person is NOT perfect and is susceptible to sin, his belief and faith is what sanctifies him (Acts 10: 43, 26: 18 ) otherwise, Christ would have died on the cross for nothing... but no one can be sanctified and no one is accepting Christ if they sin their life through their own will and their intent.

While the Bible tells us the assurance of salvation is a possibility, the maintainance of that salvation - the maintainance of walking in the ways of Christ is entirely up to the person.

[mannyamador]

While the Bible tells us the assurance of salvation is a possibility, the maintainance of that salvation - the maintainance of walking in the ways of Christ is entirely up to the person.

In other words, it is NOT assured. Thanks.

[Cardinal Bunal]

In other words, it is NOT assured. Thanks.

Well... you are correct.

Can one say If I died at this moment, would I go to Heaven? YES, I will... if he indeed died at that moment doing just okay and living that Christian life called for, then he sure will... but if he professes that - but dies 10 years later, without the knowledge of how he lives and treads on this earth on that period of time, can we be sure that the person will be saved? NO. Unless he lived it right, there's no problem, the Kingdom he will receive...

BUT, the Bible tells us we can discern if someone has salvation or NOT (1 Jn 5: 13 ) and because of Christ, we can be sure of it... what is NOT assured is if that someone will maintain working out that salvation (working out NOT working for) or will he backslip and choose the path of the astray. This calls to mind the parable of the four kinds of soil...

It CAN be assured... what cannot be assured is if a person chooses to maintain his Life (in other words, maintain Christ Jn 11: 25 ) or will he eventually choose the way of death through temptation, emotional problems, et cetera, that is what is uncertain.

Again, we can know that we have eternal life..... But can salvation be maintained? Only that particular person's faith, shown through his actions and deeds and shown through love can dictate. Or if his actions cannot please God, then he has a sinful mind, that is hostile to God and we know that there is no salvation in that.

[mannyamador]

Again, we can know that we have eternal life..... But can salvation be maintained? Only that particular person's faith, shown through his actions and deeds and shown through love can dictate. Or if his actions cannot please God, then he has a sinful mind, that is hostile to God and we know that there is no salvation in that.

That's good!

But I have to warn you... you're almost talking like a Catholic! What you just wrote above is in complete contradiction to the interpretations of Martin Luther and most protestant, fundamentalist, and "born again" churches. Still, you have my sincere congratulations. :mrgreen:

[Cardinal Bunal]

But I have to warn you... you're almost talking like a Catholic! What you just wrote above is in complete contradiction to the interpretations of Martin Luther and most protestant, fundamentalist, and "born again" churches. Still, you have my sincere congratulations.

after all God's household is a Catholic Church (Eph 2: 19 )

Again,
Can a person who is "living it right" profess that he will be saved a very moment prior to his death? YES (1 Jn 5: 13 ) but if he was given the chance to live longer, will he continue to live it right or will adversity strike and pull him down back into a life of sin? In that, it will all depend... but if he carries on living God's commands, there isn't a need for uncertainty in salvation.

Again, salvation doesn't have to be so uncertain, because anyone who is born of God does NOT continue to sin or persist in sin 1 but that doesn't mean Christians on earth can be in a wholly immaculate state because WE ARE ALL SINNERS! There's something taught in the RCC called a "venial" sin.... but there's also that which sanctifies us for our sins 2

Maybe what was referred to as "assurance" earlier was the "Once saved always saved." That's another error and sometimes what is used to promote "easy believism". Always saved? No matter what a person does? There is no certainty there....

---------------------------------------------
1. 1 Jn 3: 9
2. Acts 10: 43, 26: 18

Bible Only?

There are other sources of knowledge. You won't find the specifics of electronic circuitry in the Bible.
You won't find the Developmental Stages of Human Life in the Scriptures. And maybe you won't even find the 7 habits of effective people in there but that doesn't mean Stephen R. Covey or Rod Plotnik are heretics just because the write things that aren't in the books, however God assures us that he doesn't leave us in the dark about things he wants us to know (Deut 29: 29 ) But where are these revealed?? 1 and in the form of what? 2 What is written word? What is the message that they preached and who are part of THEY? 3

The church is indeed the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3: 15 ) but what is Truth? 4

Which interpretation of Matt 16: 18 is correct? Which version of history is the truth? Is the Pontiff's declarations of new dogmas truly infallible? Why did it take 17 centuries after the foundation of God's household for the dogma of papal infallibility to be declared?
If the Scriptures are all sufficient as Isaiah, Paul and even Peter writes they are why have there been new dogmas added even as later as 1945 - 1946? or even today?

Is it even the same church as found in the Bible? What makes up a church or God's household anyway? 5

These are what are debatable and NOT the "Bible-alone" argument per se...

-------

1. Isaiah 34: 16
2. 2 Tim 3: 16
3. Jn 17: 20
4. Jn 17: 17, Jn 14: 16, Ps. 119: 160
5. Eph. 2: 18 - 22, 1 Pet. 2: 4 - 8

[Von!-x]

Although the denomination I am with accepts both doctrine of eternal and conditional security, I am inclined to the position of eternal security, which is similar to that of most baptists as well. Conditional security is usually adhered to by pentecostals.

Manny will be smiling with the position of conditional security as it leans towards the position of faith plus works. The only thing is that, he will insist that "there is no salvation outside the RCC", but even if inside, there is still no assurance.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Deeds should be the result of faith and the love of God and showing that love through loving others. If it is done without love and done out of obligation because one wishes to be saved, then it is "salvation by works" which isn't Biblical (Eph. 2: 9 )

It has to be out of love that one does his good deeds and actions, without love it is useless, it is merely obligation and NOT the love of God as 1st Corinthians 13 illustrates.

The assurance that Von-X! is talking about isn't security per se, but one's ability to profess that he is saved. If there isn't that ability to be certain then absent as well is the understanding of why Christ is called the Saviour.

[mannyamador]

Which interpretation of Matt 16: 18 is correct? Which version of history is the truth? Is the Pontiff's declarations of new dogmas truly infallible? Why did it take 17 centuries after the foundation of God's household for the dogma of papal infallibility to be declared?

Because there was a current need for it.

Take note, that this doesn't mean it wasn't believed BEFORE that time. It was. In practice, many Christian doctrines are not officially affirmed by a Church Council unless it is challenged or the people clamor for a definitive declaration.

For example, the divinity of Christ was believed by Christians from the very beginning, but it was only definitively affirmed as dogma at the Council of Nicaea, hundreds of years after the Resurrection. Does that mean it was "added"? Not at all. It was an old doctrine that was merely affirmed because it was challenged by Arianism (a form of heresy).

Same with papal infallibility. It is not a new dogma that was added. The primacy of the pope had long been recognized.
Let me quote:

Papal Infallibility
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather,
it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility
which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of
infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32
("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
. . .

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised
the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate
and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1
Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the
primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This
development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For
example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the
heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither
no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured
the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

As you can see, the early Church affirmed the doctrine. Pope Clement I did around AD 80. Ingatius of Antioch did around AD 110. Irenaeus did in AD 189. Cyprian did in the 3rd century. St. Augustine affirmed it in the 5th centrury. There is a mountain of historical evidence that shows the early Church believed in this doctrine.

If the Scriptures are all sufficient as Isaiah, Paul and even Peter writes

That is a misinterpretation. They are NOT ALL-sufficient. There is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that the Bible alone is to be the sole rule of fatih or source of all Christian doctrine. Sola scriptura ("Bible alone") is VERY UNSCRIPTURAL. If you disagree, show me even a single verse that explicitly states such. You can't.

These are what are debatable and NOT the "Bible-alone" argument per se...

Wrong. The doctirne of sola scriptura per se IS debatable. It's not even in the Bible itself!