kfc writes:

which goes directly with your response to Basmas who wrote:

and you responded:

kfc posts:

What you are essentially claiming is----so long as you have faith alone, you can sin with impunity and still get into heaven. It makes no difference how you live or end your life.

Where this "easy street" "too good to be true" philosophy comes from, only you know...but it's not from Christ nor from Scripture.

kfc writes:

Regarding the highlighted, particularly your use of the word "exchange" put together with your articulation that you can know with full assurance that you are saved by faith alone tells you don't properly understand the biblical sense of sin, grace, redemption/salvation or justification.

Scripture teaches that one's final salvation depends upon the state of the soul when that person dies. One who dies in the state of grace (no grevious sins on his soul) will go to heaven ....and the one who dies in a state of sin against God will go to Hell.

The truth is we are all redeemed by Christ's death on the Cross...but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided (namely saving or sanctifying grace) is contingent on our individual response.

Christ died on the Cross and provided abundantly for our salvation. He did His part, but that doesn't mean there is no process by which His grace is applied to us individuals. Both the Church and Scripture teach the exact same thing....since we weren't born 'saved", that it's necessary to hear and believe in Christ; to embrace all His New Covenant commands; to repent of our sins and be baptized...that is, to be born again or reconciled to God and made heirs to the kingdom of Heaven.

But at the same time, we, like Adam and Eve, who through sin, can become unreconciled with God, and like the progigal son need to come back and seek forgiveness and be reconciled again.

Scripture is clear for we find that Adam and Eve--- who received God's gift of grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today--most definitely did demerit it and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well. Rom. 11:17-24.

Regarding whether or not we can have an "absolute assurance of salvation, regardless of our actions, consider this warning that St. Paul gave, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who had fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off."  Rom. 11:22; Heb. 10:26-29; 2St.Peter 2:20-21.

Well it wouldn't exactly score highly for clarity and being concise by most measures! The fact that there are so many different church demoninations out there which will have conflicting interpretations of the bible/it's implications attests to that, and as far as someone coming to it 'fresh', it can be very tough going.

Regarding your original post, am I right in thinking that you're saying you could believe in Jesus and that he will ensure your salvation, and if you carry on as before but with that belief (i.e. you don't necessarily do any good works/keep on doing bad ones) that you'll still go to heaven? I interpreted the case of the thief on the cross as being that he hadn't had the chance to do good works yet, rather than as evidence that you don't need to do good works even if you have such a chance.

Fraid you've lost me already!

To answer your question, yes, to an extent.  I'm sure there will be some change in this person's life even if it's just a little change.  But there are some "born again" believers who are not that much diff than the world and do carry on much like they did before.   Let me give you a very clear example....probably the strongest supporting eternal security scripture to be found in the entire Bible. 

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.  If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.  If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved yet so as through fire.  1 Corinthians 3:11-15

Paul is relating here what will happen at the judgment seat of Christ.  Every believer's life will be evaluated as to how he spent his time after being sealed with the salvation of God. Only his works are being judged because when he came to belief he passed from condemnation to life at the moment of salvation.

 There are two kinds of Christians here.  The first man in line represents those who have made real contributions to God's kingdom while they were here.  His works are described as "gold, silver and precious stones."  The quality is such these works make it thru the fire judgment of God.  This man is rewarded for his good stewardship.

The second man steps up and represents believers who have no time for the things of Christ; are saved, have accepted Christ as their Savior but not as their Lord.  They're not living for him, they're living for self still.  As he sees his deeds evaluated, he also witnesses the burning up of them. His works are described as "wood, hay and straw."  There is no real substance there, no eternal value.  When the smoke clears he is faced with the reality that his life really counted for nothing.  He comes to God with nothing.  Paul says this man suffers loss but the man himself will be saved!!! 

That's why you see such an array of Christians.  Some are sold out and some are ho-hum.  It all gets evaulated in the end.

Now, the thief on the cross had one not so small work.  Did you notice in the story that he spoke up, and witnessed to those staring up, about Christ?  He evangelized right there hanging upon that cross.  So I'm sure this thief, grateful for the eternal life just ffered to him, would have been out and about showing this appreciation if he could have.  That's how we are all supposed to be. 

Read what I just wrote to Aeortar above. 

Adam and Eve lost a reward and were punished, but they did not lose their place in the family of God.  Thanks for the example.    This helps my point not yours.  Where was their priest to confess to? 

It just shows, even tho we sin, as his children, we don't lose our place in the family, any more than our own kids don't. 

not really, you went right into Philippians and Matthew in #8 which had nothing to do with what I originally wrote.  You left what I wrote, not answering it and ran to get scripture that fit your theology....it just confuses things. 

Please, Lula limit your quoting.  It really does make things more complicated.  I'm referring here to your #25.  I asked you to comment on what I wrote (#12) after your comment in #8.  What you said in #14,#15 etc....has no bearing on what I asked of you in #12.    By saying so, you're adding confusion to the mix. 

We don't have full knowledge, only revealed knowledge.  So we can only go on what we do know.  God tells us thru Paul that right now we see thru a glass darkly.  Then it will all become clear.

no I think it means, if you care enough you will search it out.  In other words, where your heart is so there you'll find your treasure. 

KFC POSTS:

Adam and Eve make my point which is had they died in unrepentant sin, they would have gone to Hell. They did not have what you call "eternal security"  becasue no one but no one has that. "Eternal security" or "once saved always saved" is a false and dangerous teaching.

The thing with Adam and Eve is they were disobedient and sinned; that is, they transgressed the law of God. Had they remained in obstinate disobedience and died in their state of sin, they would have gone to Hell.

Once they sinned, KFC they were unreconciled with God. Yes, they lost their place with God. That's what sin does; it separates you from God. God does not abide sin. God hates sin...period. For a soul with sin upon it has no Grace and a soul with Grace has no sin.  And St.Paul said the wages of sin is death which is something that can't be ignored. 

After Adam and Eve sinned, what happened? We learn they didn't remain hardened in sin, but confessed their guilt to God, (Who would later give His authority to "bind and loose" to the Apostles and their successors). Adam and Eve repented of their sin and that's the only reason why they were reconciled back to God.

A person, even a "born again" believer who remains in a fallen state of sin is unreconciled with God and is no longer a member of God's family. God is Kind and Loving,  but He is also Just and severe. Note God is kind to His PROVIDED they continue to remain in God's kindness...but if you remain in sin, then you will be cut off.

St. Paul gave this warning to the sinner..... "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who had fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." Rom. 11:22; Heb. 10:26-29; 2St.Peter 2:20-21.

Were Adam and Eve automatically assured of going to Heaven when they died....NO....For the rest of their lives, their own eternal salvation was an ongoing process. They would have to avoid sin and avoid doing evil and persevere in obedience to all of God's commands through faith, hope and love of God. 

To keep telling people here that "born again" believers can sin and are assured of going to Heaven is wrong. Very wrong.

kfc writes:

lula posts:

kfc posts:

Yes, I know what I'm doiong...and yes, I recognize you cherry picked a few passages from Scripture to try and prove your foolish assertion that bleievers can know for sure they are going to heaven. Problem is those Scriptures don't do your bidding as must be taken with the rest of the Good Book and put in context with the whole of Christ's teaching.

As far as my "running to another Scripture instead of answering what you wrote in the main blog"...yes, that's what I did and that's what I supposed to do...for it says in 2Tim. 3:16-17 that "All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect in every good work." 

More accruately put...the difference is in our resepective religions...I'm Catholic and you're Protestant...I religiously follow the Catholic religion and you religiously follow the religion that protests against it...the Protestant religion founded by Luther in 1517.

another thing to think about for those who believe you can lose your salvation:

If God's holiness compels him to take back the "gift" of eternal life from certain believers because of their sin, one of two things is true; Either God compromises His holiness for a time-through their sins- or man's good works can meet God's requirements for holiness at least for a short period of time.  In that case, didn't Christ die for nothing? 

God's plan is  so simple, really a child can understand thisl

1.  We are guilty of sin

2.  Our sin guilt earned us death

3.  Christ died in our place.

4.  We admit we are guilty

5.  We trust that Christ was punished in our place.

6.  We are declared not guilty. 

So the question now is how can I lose Christ's payment for my sin?  Can God now say that I'm guilty after declaring me not guilty?  And if salvation is a gift of God, does he take it back?   Keep taking it back?  Over and over again? 

Those who don't believe in eternal security say you can lose it, gain it back again, lose it again, again and again.  This doesn't make any sense and this belief only serves to frustrate the grace of God. 

Instead scripture is clear.  The day we are born again, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.  This is actually called an earnest, or deposit.  It's God's guarantee that he will be faithful to us.  Afterall it says in scripture:

"Being confident of this very thing, that He which has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."  Philip 1:6

Paul was confident of this eternal security and so should we. 

You seem to be attached to the RCC on the basis that it is older.

Ironically, this discussion almost leads back to our previous one in my blog article.  The real difference between us and you is that you think that salvation has something to do with you, and we don't.  Our belief is that God saved us.  Your belief is that you used God to save yourself (regardless of whether you admit it, or even realize it).

Oh, and just to point something out: remember the Crucifixion story?  Remember the robbers being hung with Jesus?  That one man did not say a "sinner's prayer" or even apologize for what he had done.  And he certainly didn't have a chance to do any good works - he was on a cross, just the same as Jesus was!  Yet Jesus told him he would be in Paradise with Him.

You can debate semantics until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, you're wrong about works being necessary.

IQ OFSPAM POSTS:

Sacred Scripture is clear that works are necessary for one's salvation and there is just no getting around it.  It's not my semantics that refutes Luther's heresy of  "justification by faith alone".

St. James says "By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone." So , good works are necessary for salvation....in v. 26, he finishes saying, "For even as a body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Do you know better than St.James, one of Christ's chosen Apostles?

There is getting around it and I've shown you but you refuse to open your eyes....instead you run to James thinking he's supporting you when he's not.  I can give you hundreds of scripture Lula that show we are not saved by works.  James was saying our works go along with our salvation, true.  But they don't save us, they accompany us.  Big diff.  We are saved by faith alone, but our faith is not alone. 

How about Eph 2:8-9...it's very clear. 

"For grace you are saved, through faith (alone) and that not of yourselves (not works).  It is the gift of God.  NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast." 

This is as clear as that verse in 1 Cor 3 I showed you above.  But you refuse to listen.  Instead you keep running to one verse in James.    The emphasis is all mine. 

Now notice the works follow us....and this is after salvation.  God continues to say in the next scripture.  .....

"For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." 

So while we are NOT saved by our works.....we ARE saved to do good works.   Good works should always accompany salvation.  That's what James was saying.  He wasn't saying we are saved by our works.  Faith first.  Works follow. 

How about Peter Lula?  Would you believe him?  He said this in his first chapter of his epistle:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever.......the word of the Lord endures for ever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached to you." 1:23,25

He doesn't say we are born again by works does he?  No.   Where's the works here?   There are only three elements to our salvation.....the word of God, the Holy Spirit and the soul winner.  That's it.  Not works.  The Eunuch is an example.  The Thief on the cross is an example.  Lydia is an example.....etc. 

Peter also made it clear that we cannot lose our salvation which is what this blog is all about.....

"To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fades NOT away, reserved in heaven for you.  Who are kept by the power of God thru faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."  1:5

Now, you'd have a point if our salvation was up to us, kept by us; but it's not.  Our salvation is sure, because it's God holding onto us, not us holding onto God.  Big diff.

Jesus said that he was going away to prepare a place for us and that he would come back and get us.  He never said anything about if we were good and did all the right things did he?  No.  He knows who his sheep are.  While his sheep may wander, they don't go far away because he pulls them back when they do.  He is the author and finisher of our faith, not us. 

Does the wonderous St. James know better than Christ?  You're quoting him to refute something Jesus demonstrated.

No response Lula?  Come on now...

That's an excellent argument there, albeit somewhat flawed. It makes the basic assumption that nothing at all existed prior to this universe in which we live. It's a very poor assumption because theoretically something must have existed either for a natural beginning of it to happen, or for a creation to happen.  Either some extremely dense form of matter existed from which our universe started, or some intelligent being existed, in another universe or reality, and created this one. The theory of multiple universes is hardly new or even far-fetched. Our own mathematics suggests it.

As for knowledge and information, well those are in our own human experiences and can't really be applied to a being that exists outside of our own universe and likely subject to completely different laws with regard to time and space. We simply have no frame of reference with which to make such assumptions with regard to such a hypothetical being.

As for the debate between KFC and Lula, it's always amusing to see people debate man-made religions. Personally I think they're both a little bit right and mostly wrong on many points. But it is amusing watching them debate dogma just the same. They both debate about a being that exists outside of our universe based upon a collection of writings hand picked and edited by a council in Rome centuries ago in order to create a single religion in Rome that would satisfy both the Pagans and the Christians whose fighting was tearing apart the city/state at that time.

Personally, I respect anyone who faithfully holds to a set of beliefs and moral code right up to the point that they fail to respect the beliefs or rights of others. Here's a little clue for you folks: none are 100% correct nor are any 100% wrong. The ground has been stained with blood for many many centuries because of these arguments over man-made relgions (and they're all man-made) and it still goes on to this day. Faith is a good and honorable thing, but religious dogma is hardly worthy of debate let alone bloodshed. Nobody is right, eveyone is wrong. That's just the way it is.

In Lula's defense.......she's getting ready to move and I believe in just a few weeks she will join Mason and I in the sunshine state.  So I imagine she's quite busy packing up her home these days. 

The scriptures are here for our benefit.  If we adhered to them, and them alone, we would all be right.  They do feed the soul.  The problem is, man gets in the way via his pride and serves as an obstacle to the truth. 

oh and Mason, I don't believe the scriptures based on a little round table meeting in Rome.  They only confirmed what was already believed and understood in the first place that these scriptures were indeed from the very hand of God.  I don't need anyone to tell me this.  I've read them myself and God has made himself very well known to me in my reading of them.  I'm an avid reader but this is the only book where I feel the author  nearby as I'm reading his written words. 

Besides all that, I'm contrary by nature (working on this) and rebellious by nature (working on that too) so if anything I should be where you are right now.  Something has made me change my way of thinking and that something was God himself and the words I read give me absolute assurity and answers for the world around us.  It makes total sense in a world that's getting more and more chaotic as time marches on......all told beforehand btw. 

Truth can be known.  If not, God wouldn't have bothered to leave behind his revelation.  The question put to us one day in the future, I believe, is "what did you do with it?  What did you do with what I gave you?" 

Even tho Lula and I disagree on what I say is the authority of the RCC I still think of her as a dear friend.    I abhor what the RCC has done to her and do speak out about it, but she obviously is quite happy to be part of what she believes is a great institution of God.  I'm bible all the way but she mixes bible with tradition and therein lies our disagreements. 

Man...days have gone by.  :/  Where's the photo!?  You said you had a personal relationship with God.  Get us a photo!

Hmm, maybe our definition of "personal relationship" is different.  Mine is that you know the guy personally and talk to him one on one, face to face, all the time.

Yours seems to be that whatever you make up in your head is equivalent to a personal relationship.

I understand then.

This is off-topic, but I wanted to point out that ellipses generally have three periods, four if following a completed sentence.

I guess I can say I've occasionally been called the "Grammar Nazi" with due cause.

Some people try their best to be antagonistic, don't they?

gah!  I'll keep that in mind!  Besides, I can always use good constructive advice. 

yep, and Ock rules!  He's the king of Antagonism.  He loves to push buttons! 

Ock, they didn't have pictures in Jesus's day but I'm sure you already knew this?  I hope. 

Jesus said, "when you see me, you see the Father." 

God is spirit, but Christ came in the flesh.  He's God in the flesh.  I've got pictures of Christ but, of course, I couldn't fool you by putting them on here now could I? 

testing....

ok....kfc....one problem with your whole premise...it isn't at all what we discussed (yeah folks, i'm the "someone") 

what i questioned was your ability to know for someone else. knowing for yourself is entirely different. i know for myself as i have heard you say about yourself. i don't question that whatsoever.

and none of your lil quotes address knowing for someone else.

your argument is the definition of a strawman. you create an argument that never existed and then proceeed to knock it down...big whoop. 

again, i questioned how you could definitively "know" for someone else...and in the example cited, someone you had a superficial, at best, relationship with. 

i also questioned your use of someone else's death to preach your beliefs in an underhanded way. 

when falwell died i defended you against people who used his death and your blog to promote their own beliefs and do what they could, some blatantly, some with moe tact, to knock him down. and all i did here was call you out for doing the same thing they did to you.

and here you are jumping thru hoops to twist things into a context where you can "win the argument."

i could care less about winning anything...heck, the people who run this site have already "put the fix in, in advance" by just arbitrarily censoring my words and blocking me from writing when they want (like now, again, even though i haven't written a thing on my own blog yet...being banned before i write anything ,,,,,bahahahaha...this is how you treat your paying customers, eh?))...with all the maturity of my 4 year old....so that's not an issue.   

but don't twist what i said into something i didn't then proceed to make a self ego boosting all righteous diatribe about it. 

it's not honest, and it is hardly "Godly" and both of us know it.

wow!   Wow!!!  You sure are full of yourself aren't you Sean?  You weren't the someone.  It was Charles. 

So no kidding... it wasn't what WE discussed. 

So you can take back what you just wrote now. 

Although, he makes a point... we can't really tell for certain whether or not someone else is saved.

Generally it is clear based on the actions of the person in question - i.e. you can usually tell when someone is not a Christian, however just because they seem to be a Christian doesn't mean they are.  Conversely, just because they don't seem to be saved doesn't mean they aren't.

However there are also a few things which pretty much certify that a person is not saved.  One of these would be professing atheism.