1Jn 1:9 Confessing our Sins

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    1Jn 1:9 Confessing our Sins

    Confessing our Sins

    1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

    A issue arises here in that if forgiveness is contingent upon our confession of particular sins then that would mean that each time a person sins they lose their salvation until they confess their sins, which seems a bit of a works-based salvation among other things.

    But there are two things about what is actually been said in the Greek manuscript here. First with John's usage of the Greek Present (lifestyle) Tense for "confess" as opposed to an Aorist punctilinear confession, what I believe he's referring to is the idea that if we are the kind of people who characteristically acknowledge our sins, then we are those whom, in accordance with his promise, God forgives, and forgives not only with respect to sins of which we are aware of but also all other unrighteousness which infects our lives, of which He is in the process of purifying us.

    Secondly "forgive" and "purify" are actually in the aorist, often used for the past tense, not the future tense implied in the translation. Thus this could be rendered, "If confessing our sins is characteristic of our life, He being faith and just forgave our sins and cleansed us from all unrighteousness." Or to paraphrase, "If confessing our sins is characteristic of our life, this indicates that God, who is faithful to his New Covenant and just to have provided a sacrifice of atonement for us, forgave our sins when we were saved and at that time purified us from all unrighteousness."

    #2
    Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
    Confessing our Sins

    1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

    A issue arises here in that if forgiveness is contingent upon our confession of particular sins then that would mean that each time a person sins they lose their salvation until they confess their sins, which seems a bit of a works-based salvation among other things.
    1. What do you mean by lose our salvation and why would we lose it?

    2. Why would this be works-based salvation?

    Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
    But there are two things about what is actually been said in the Greek manuscript here. First with John's usage of the Greek Present (lifestyle) Tense for "confess" as opposed to an Aorist punctilinear confession, what I believe he's referring to is the idea that if we are the kind of people who characteristically acknowledge our sins, then we are those whom, in accordance with his promise, God forgives, and forgives not only with respect to sins of which we are aware of but also all other unrighteousness which infects our lives, of which He is in the process of purifying us.

    Secondly "forgive" and "purify" are actually in the aorist, often used for the past tense, not the future tense implied in the translation. Thus this could be rendered, "If confessing our sins is characteristic of our life, He being faith and just forgave our sins and cleansed us from all unrighteousness." Or to paraphrase, "If confessing our sins is characteristic of our life, this indicates that God, who is faithful to his New Covenant and just to have provided a sacrifice of atonement for us, forgave our sins when we were saved and at that time purified us from all unrighteousness."
    I’m always very dubious when people have to resort to personal translations. I’ve looked at several translations and none of them translate it the way you think it should be done. All them link the forgiveness of sin directly with the confession of them.

    Your paraphrase implies that God forgives sins in advance. Can you supply any evidence of that?
    Comment>

      #3
      Originally posted by Bede View Post

      1. What do you mean by lose our salvation and why would we lose it?

      2. Why would this be works-based salvation?

      I’m always very dubious when people have to resort to personal translations. I’ve looked at several translations and none of them translate it the way you think it should be done. All them link the forgiveness of sin directly with the confession of them.

      Your paraphrase implies that God forgives sins in advance. Can you supply any evidence of that?
      As for your first question, what I said already answered that
      "if forgiveness is contingent upon our confession of particular sins then that would mean that each time a person sins they lose their salvation."

      It's not my position, but it's an argument people often give, so I deal with it. In fact given your third question it seems like you're one of the people holding that position. Is that right?

      As for your second question, a person's salvation being contingent upon his on going performance is kind of the definition of works based salvation.

      As for your third question as to God forgiving sin in advance, that's inherent to the gospel itself.
      "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Heb 10:16-18

      "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." Rom 4:4-8


      Comment>

        #4
        Originally posted by bcbsr View Post

        As for your first question, what I said already answered that
        "if forgiveness is contingent upon our confession of particular sins then that would mean that each time a person sins they lose their salvation."
        Perhaps I didn’t make my question clear enough.

        1. What exactly are we losing when you say we lose our salvation?

        2. Why would sinning cause us to lose our salvation?

        Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
        It's not my position, but it's an argument people often give, so I deal with it. In fact given your third question it seems like you're one of the people holding that position. Is that right?
        Holding what position?

        Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
        As for your second question, a person's salvation being contingent upon his on going performance is kind of the definition of works based salvation.
        Why?

        Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
        As for your third question as to God forgiving sin in advance, that's inherent to the gospel itself.
        "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Heb 10:16-18


        I can’t see how they say that God forgives sins in advance.

        I see them saying that when God forgives sins he will forget them. You quote 1John but John also says
        “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1Jn 2:1).

        If God has already forgiven us our sins why do we need an advocate when we sin?

        Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
        "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." Rom 4:4-8
        When Paul talks about works he is referring to works done under the (Jewish) Law.
        Comment>

          #5
          Originally posted by Bede View Post

          Perhaps I didn’t make my question clear enough.

          1. What exactly are we losing when you say we lose our salvation?

          2. Why would sinning cause us to lose our salvation?

          I can’t see how they say that God forgives sins in advance.

          If God has already forgiven us our sins why do we need an advocate when we sin?

          When Paul talks about works he is referring to works done under the (Jewish) Law.
          Apparently you're unfamiliar with the gospel of salvation. Let me help you out there. Paul writes, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." Rom 1:16

          "Salvation" is referring to salvation from God's wrath, namely being saved from hell fire. Paul notes in Romans that people are subject to condemnation due to sin. To be saved one has to be justified.

          "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!" Rom 5:8,9

          And elsewhere he writes

          "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9

          Notice the tenses here. "have been", means that those whom he is referring to are already saved, already justified. They have been saved from God's wrath to come.

          1Th 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

          Those who believe, have eternal life and will not be condemned. As Jesus said, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24. And "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him." John 3:36

          So I ask with the same rhetoric the Bible uses, "Have you been saved from God's wrath?"

          As for correlating salvation, justification and the forgiveness of sins, Paul makes this clear in Romans, which I suggest you read. But to point out a couple of passages.

          Rom 3:20-24 No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

          This is another way of summarizing Paul's gospel. Under a works based salvation system, being declared righteous on the judgment day is a matter of one's performance. But now under the gospel righteousness is attained not by works, but by faith and is characterized as free as opposed to something you work for. "Justified", though spelled differently than "Righteous" in English is in fact the verb form of "righteous" in the Greek. Justified = made righteous. And it's free.

          A few verses later Paul elaborates on this, supporting this concept saying:

          Rom 4:
          1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
          2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but not before God.
          3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
          4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
          5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
          6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
          7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
          8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

          And notice at the end he equates justification, the imparting of righteousness apart from works, and forgiveness of sins.

          So the idea of that one's forgiveness of sins has not been finalized, is the same as saying one's justification and thus one's salvation has not been finalized, which is contrary to the rhetoric Paul uses here. Which is also to say that a person who believes they can lose the forgiveness of sins, is a person who believes one can lose their salvation. Is that clear enough for you?

          Notice also in verse 5 he contrasts working to be justified with trusting God to be justified as two opposite and incompatible ideas. Either you are working to be saved from God's wrath or you are trust God to justify you.

          As for your hypothesis that, "When Paul talks about works he is referring to works done under the (Jewish) Law.", if you mean to restrict "works" to merely some regulations under the Law of Moses, you're wrong. But let's entertain the notion. So which of the Laws of Moses are you restricting "works" to? What about the 10 commandments, which are in the Law of Moses. Do you throw those out as not the works Paul is referring to? What about Deut 6:5 "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." or Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself". Are those or are those not the "works of the law" Paul was referring to? Which laws would you like to remove from the Law to satisfy your hypothesis.

          If you read Romans all the way from Chapter 1 you'll note that what he's talking by "works" is the idea of person attaining righteousness through his behavior, the bar being set by the Law of Moses. Note also, again, the rhetoric he uses in Romans 4:

          Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
          However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

          As anyone, not mindlessly indoctrinated into some denominational belief, can see, "work" here is clearly be used as the idea of working, as one would do on a job, to earn one's salvation. No indication "work" here is referring to one's compliance to particular ceremonial regulations. It's referring to the idea of working.

          Let me know if that's simple enough for you to understand. Else perhaps I could make it clearer to you.

          As for why we need an advocate when we sin, it's because if we had no advocate a sinner must answer for his own sin. But in the case of the believe, Jesus answers for our sin.
          Comment>

            #6
            Thank you for that explanation.

            As I see it there are 3 issues here:

            1. We are brought out of condemnation and saved from God’s wrath. But that does not mean that we cannot return to condemnation by serious sin. There are many scriptures that warn us of returning to sin, for example Gal 5:19-21.

            If you believe that all sins are forgiven in advance then you must believe that there are no consequences for sinning and we can murder, steal etc. as much as we like and still go to heaven. That is not the gospel.

            2. Yes, we cannot earn salvation. But what is earn? Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

            3. No, we are not bound by the Ten Commandments. They are the covenant Law of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. We live in the New Covenant. And no, that does not mean we can murder etc. Those are also condemned under the New Covenant (e.g. 1Jn 3;15). But we need to understand which Covenant we are in.

            Comment>

              #7
              Originally posted by Bede View Post
              Thank you for that explanation.

              As I see it there are 3 issues here:

              1. We are brought out of condemnation and saved from God’s wrath. But that does not mean that we cannot return to condemnation by serious sin. There are many scriptures that warn us of returning to sin, for example Gal 5:19-21.

              If you believe that all sins are forgiven in advance then you must believe that there are no consequences for sinning and we can murder, steal etc. as much as we like and still go to heaven. That is not the gospel.

              2. Yes, we cannot earn salvation. But what is earn? Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

              3. No, we are not bound by the Ten Commandments. They are the covenant Law of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. We live in the New Covenant. And no, that does not mean we can murder etc. Those are also condemned under the New Covenant (e.g. 1Jn 3;15). But we need to understand which Covenant we are in.

              You say,

              As I see it there are 3 issues here:

              1. We are brought out of condemnation and saved from God’s wrath. But that does not mean that we cannot return to condemnation by serious sin. There are many scriptures that warn us of returning to sin, for example Gal 5:19-21.

              Seems you do understand the concept of losing your salvation. Given that you're using that passage as examples of "serious sin", you're saying that if a person envies someone or does something out of selfish ambition they lose their salvation. So if these are "serious" sins, what would be a non-serious sin?

              You say
              If you believe that all sins are forgiven in advance then you must believe that there are no consequences for sinning and we can murder, steal etc. as much as we like and still go to heaven. That is not the gospel.

              According to the New Covenant God says, "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." So yes, there are sins which are committed which have no consequence with regards to preventing one from going to heaven.

              But with regards to the strawman argument I typically run across by those who don't embrace the grace of God inherent in the gospel, there doesn't exist such a person who believes the gospel and is subsequently born of God who lives a lifestyle of sin. John states that explicitly saying, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9 And John goes on to indicate this is how to distinguish between children of God and children of the devil. "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:10

              In particular note the caveat in Gal 5:19-21 "those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." He's not talking about commit particular acts, but rather living a lifestyle. Those born of God simply don't have the ability to do so.

              Jeremiah writes of the New Covenant, "I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me." Jer 32:40,41

              That's why when John sees people leaving the faith, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1John 2:19

              Those who leave the faith, either by living in sin or rejecting the teaching, indicate by doing so that they were never of the faith to begin with. In Gal 2:4 Paul said of some of leadership in the Jerusalem church that some were false brothers, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

              Likewise in the history of post-Biblical churchianity one could argue there being whole denominations filled false brethren. So the argument "I knew such and such a person who called himself a Christian but lived a lifestyle of sin", simply has no impact on my argument.

              You say
              2. Yes, we cannot earn salvation. But what is earn? Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

              Given your Catholic background, what are you really talking about when you speak of "confessing sin". In Catholicism you have to go through a religious ritual. You have to go to the priests and recite a dialog you memorized in CCD and then he, seemingly arbitrarily, will tell you, as your ACT (deed, work) of contrition you have to recite so many "Our Fathers" and so many "Hail Marys", despite Jesus' command, "When you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Mt 6:7

              Is going through a religious ritual to obtain forgiveness in order to maintain your salvation status, a "work", according to Paul?

              Circumcision is a religious ritual which some misconstrued as necessary to qualify one for salvation. But Paul was vehemently against the idea. Is the idea in Catholicism to simply replace some religious rituals with other religious rituals upon which your salvation is contingent?

              Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that Paul was not advocating replacing some religious rituals with other religious rituals. Rather salvation according to the gospel is contingent upon faith alone apart from works, apart from religious rituals.

              You say
              3. No, we are not bound by the Ten Commandments. They are the covenant Law of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. We live in the New Covenant. And no, that does not mean we can murder etc. Those are also condemned under the New Covenant (e.g. 1Jn 3;15). But we need to understand which Covenant we are in.

              I don't understand what you mean by "not bound". Paul writes, "All who rely on observing the law (like observing the 10 commandments) are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:9

              Are you relying on complying with the 10 commandments (for example) to not lose your salvation status?
              Comment>

                #8
                Originally posted by Bede View Post
                1. What do you mean by lose our salvation and why would we lose it?

                2. Why would this be works-based salvation?
                Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                As for your first question, what I said already answered that
                "if forgiveness is contingent upon our confession of particular sins then that would mean that each time a person sins they lose their salvation."

                I think it is has to do with the object of our faith, our motivation for obedience, and finally the Person of our praise. If I focus upon myself and my own works then I miss the mark and rely upon my own performance rather than faith. If I focus upon my own performance rather than the giver of promises received in faith then I miss the mark and circle myself as not only the object but as the gift of faith. There's an eschatological element to our obedience and it defines our motivation, and I believe it begins by properly recognizing and responding to our "motivator".

                It is addressing Romans 3:11 or the difference between "no one seeks God" vs "no one seeks for God".

                Our enable-ment by God after regeneration to produce good fruit is the result of monergism. While it is absurd to think that a person is forgiven without confession or repentance, we must acknowledge that a regenerated person will confess and repent. But a person is not saved because he confesses and repents. In this way salvation is solely monergistic (cause), but there is an arguably synergistic (effect) result of our regeneration. Again, it appears to be a matter of staying focused upon the object of our faith, and especially glorifying God rather than ourselves throughout salvation.

                As an observer of your debate I think that you both need to clarify Justification. I hear the word being used but I believe the dialogue between Catholic and Protestant soteriology can be expanded upon by defining not only the meaning of Justification, but by either one of you addressing the Catholic meaning of "Initial" Justification, Sanctification, and then the eschatological element to Glorification.

                Just some friendly input,
                God bless,
                William
                Comment>

                  #9
                  Originally posted by bcbsr View Post


                  You say,

                  As I see it there are 3 issues here:

                  1. We are brought out of condemnation and saved from God’s wrath. But that does not mean that we cannot return to condemnation by serious sin. There are many scriptures that warn us of returning to sin, for example Gal 5:19-21.

                  Seems you do understand the concept of losing your salvation. Given that you're using that passage as examples of "serious sin", you're saying that if a person envies someone or does something out of selfish ambition they lose their salvation. So if these are "serious" sins, what would be a non-serious sin?
                  Catholics divide sins into mortal and venial.
                  “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal” (1Jn 5:16-17).

                  Mortal sin destroys the sanctifying grace in our souls and cuts us off from our relationship with God.
                  Mortal sin requires three conditions:
                  1. Grave matter – such as murder & adultery.
                  2. Committed with full understanding of its seriousness.
                  3. Done with deliberate consent (not under coercion).
                  It is a deliberate rejection of God.

                  Venial sin is anything less than the above. It damages our relationship with God but does not destroy it.

                  Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                  You say
                  If you believe that all sins are forgiven in advance then you must believe that there are no consequences for sinning and we can murder, steal etc. as much as we like and still go to heaven. That is not the gospel.

                  According to the New Covenant God says, "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." So yes, there are sins which are committed which have no consequence with regards to preventing one from going to heaven.
                  I agree, but then there are sins that do prevent one from going to heaven, as I explained above. But all sins have some consequences. Venial sins damage our relationship with God and if they become habitual can lead us into mortal sin.

                  Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                  But with regards to the strawman argument I typically run across by those who don't embrace the grace of God inherent in the gospel, there doesn't exist such a person who believes the gospel and is subsequently born of God who lives a lifestyle of sin. John states that explicitly saying, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9 And John goes on to indicate this is how to distinguish between children of God and children of the devil. "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:10

                  In particular note the caveat in Gal 5:19-21 "those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." He's not talking about commit particular acts, but rather living a lifestyle. Those born of God simply don't have the ability to do so.

                  Jeremiah writes of the New Covenant, "I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me." Jer 32:40,41

                  That's why when John sees people leaving the faith, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1John 2:19

                  Those who leave the faith, either by living in sin or rejecting the teaching, indicate by doing so that they were never of the faith to begin with. In Gal 2:4 Paul said of some of leadership in the Jerusalem church that some were false brothers, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

                  Likewise in the history of post-Biblical churchianity one could argue there being whole denominations filled false brethren. So the argument "I knew such and such a person who called himself a Christian but lived a lifestyle of sin", simply has no impact on my argument.
                  That we can fall away is not a straw man. It is biblical.

                  It is not a matter of a lifestyle of serious sin but of one. One mortal sin is enough to cut us of from Christ. If we cut ourselves off from Christ it is quite possible that we will degenerate into a lifestyle of sin. That is why we must repent and seek reconciliation with God as soon as possible and pray that God will give us the grace to resist further temptations.

                  1 John 2:19 does not prove unconditional security.

                  One interpretation is that John was referring to a specific group he calls antichrists, false “christians” who never really believed.

                  Another interpretation is that John was referring to people who truly believed but have since apostatised. They didn’t belong because they had apostatised.

                  You say: John states that explicitly saying, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." 1John 3:9

                  But John also states explicitly “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1Jn 1:8-10)

                  He continues: “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father” (1Jn 2:1)

                  Clearly John believes that we can and do continue to sin.

                  Scripture is full of warning about the danger of returning to old ways – Romans 6, 8, 11, 1Cor 3, 6, Gal 5, 1Tim 6 etc. Why would Paul be giving so mnay warnings if it was not possible to fall back into sin?


                  Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                  You say
                  2. Yes, we cannot earn salvation. But what is earn? Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

                  Given your Catholic background, what are you really talking about when you speak of "confessing sin". In Catholicism you have to go through a religious ritual. You have to go to the priests and recite a dialog you memorized in CCD and then he, seemingly arbitrarily, will tell you, as your ACT (deed, work) of contrition you have to recite so many "Our Fathers" and so many "Hail Marys", despite Jesus' command, "When you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Mt 6:7

                  Is going through a religious ritual to obtain forgiveness in order to maintain your salvation status, a "work", according to Paul?

                  Circumcision is a religious ritual which some misconstrued as necessary to qualify one for salvation. But Paul was vehemently against the idea. Is the idea in Catholicism to simply replace some religious rituals with other religious rituals upon which your salvation is contingent?

                  Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that Paul was not advocating replacing some religious rituals with other religious rituals. Rather salvation according to the gospel is contingent upon faith alone apart from works, apart from religious rituals.
                  Thank you, but I didn’t ask you for a garbled version of Catholic teaching and practices.

                  I asked you a simple question: Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

                  Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                  You say
                  3. No, we are not bound by the Ten Commandments. They are the covenant Law of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. We live in the New Covenant. And no, that does not mean we can murder etc. Those are also condemned under the New Covenant (e.g. 1Jn 3;15). But we need to understand which Covenant we are in.

                  I don't understand what you mean by "not bound". Paul writes, "All who rely on observing the law (like observing the 10 commandments) are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:9

                  Are you relying on complying with the 10 commandments (for example) to not lose your salvation status?
                  What do you not understand? By “not bound” I mean we will not be convicted under them as Law because they do not apply to us, being given to the Jews as Covenant Law under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant.
                  Comment>

                    #10
                    Originally posted by William View Post

                    As an observer of your debate I think that you both need to clarify Justification. I hear the word being used but I believe the dialogue between Catholic and Protestant soteriology can be expanded upon by defining not only the meaning of Justification, but by either one of you addressing the Catholic meaning of "Initial" Justification, Sanctification, and then the eschatological element to Glorification.

                    Just some friendly input,
                    God bless,
                    William
                    Thank you William,

                    Regarding your point about Initial Justification, here is the Catholic understanding.

                    Justification is both and event and a process so Catholics refer to Initial Justification (an event) and Progressive Justification (a process) leading to Final Justification (an event) when we enter heaven. (It might be more accurate to say that Progressive Justification is a series of events.)

                    Salvation is not a once only event. We believe it has a past, present and future dimension. In Catholic teaching Justification and Sanctification are the same things. Therefore Sanctification also has a past, present and future dimension.

                    In Protestantism these three stages are Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. Protestants therefore use the term Sanctification very differently to Catholics.


                    Initial Justification happens at Baptism and is defined By the Council of Trent, Session 6, in chapter IV as “being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour.”

                    And from chapter VII Justification “is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”

                    And Sanctification from Pocket Catholic Dictionary by Fr John Hardon SJ
                    “Sanctification. Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5)...

                    The second sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person already in the state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations.

                    The third sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Etym. Latin sanctificare, to make holy.”



                    Comment>

                      #11
                      Concerning your proposition, "One mortal sin is enough to cut us of from Christ."

                      Concerning the performance based salvation gospel of Catholicism, first, the idea is simply a derivation of the theology of the circumcision.

                      Under Catholicism, salvation is by one's compliance to Catholic Law. Catholic Law insists that Justification is by Works. Yes, even ceremonial works.
                      CANON IV of their "Council of Trent" states, "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
                      That works are not simply a sign or fruit of one's justification, as Paul teaches, but a cause of it.
                      Council of Trent
                      SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
                      Thus in terms of doctrinal mortal sins, Catholicisms holds that Christians like myself are going to hell.

                      Another doctrinal "mortal sin" under Catholic Law is if one doesn't believe in infant baptism, such as Baptists, they have committed a mortal sin and are going to hell.
                      SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13). Council of Trent
                      But let's consider also Catholic "mortal sins" associated with behavior.

                      For example, fasting on Sunday for spiritual pursuit is a mortal sin under Catholic Law.
                      Canon XVIII. IF any one, under pretence of asceticism, shall fast on Sunday, let him be anathema.
                      Asceticism is by definition; "abstinence from worldly pleasures, often for the purpose of pursuing spiritual goal."
                      Working on Saturday is a Mortal sin under Catholic Law.
                      Canon XXIX. CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
                      Usage of a contraceptive is a mortal sin under Catholic Law

                      As for Catholicism's arbitrary distinction between "moral sins" and "venial sins", concerning 1John 5:16, which you yourself referenced, you seem to have overlooked the fact that it says, "There is a sin that leads to death.", not "there are sins which lead to death". And as John doesn't define here what the "a sin" is, Catholicism takes the opportunity to invent it's own Law. And to make salvation contingent on that Law.

                      Furthermore you claim that the 10 commandments don't apply to us even though Paul's references them, and other things in the law, which he applies to the Christian life. And you yourself do so in claiming that to not murder, which is spoken of in the 10 commandments, is a law that we are bound to keep to not lose our salvation. So you contradict yourself in claiming that Catholicism holds we are not bound by the 10 commandments.

                      Concerning 1John 2:19 that "John was referring to people who truly believed but have since apostatised. They didn’t belong because they had apostatised. " Again not well thought out, seeing as that idea John logically contradicts in his statement there.

                      As for the reason for the warnings, one reason is "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you— unless, of course, you fail the test?" 2Cor 13:5, which is not a denial of the doctrine of Eternal Security, but a question as to whether one has entered the faith. Another, particularly when he speaks in the third person, such as in 1John 2:19, he is speaking of those who were never genuinely in the faith, living a lifestyle of sin, but that those who are in the faith should avoid committing any act of sin. (Lifestyle versus snapshot)

                      While Catholic Law says that one should not Judaize, that's just what Catholicism has done. They replaced the Law of Moses with their own Law and made salvation contingent upon compliance with that Law. What could be said of the circumcision could be said of them. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

                      Comment>

                        #12
                        bcbsr,

                        Still waiting for an answer: Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?
                        Comment>

                          #13
                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Concerning your proposition, "One mortal sin is enough to cut us of from Christ."

                          Concerning the performance based salvation gospel of Catholicism, first, the idea is simply a derivation of the theology of the circumcision.
                          No it isn’t

                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Under Catholicism, salvation is by one's compliance to Catholic Law.
                          Now you are being ridiculous. And you accused me of creaing a staw man argument!

                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Catholic Law insists that Justification is by Works. Yes, even ceremonial works.
                          CANON IV of their "Council of Trent" states, "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
                          That works are not simply a sign or fruit of one's justification, as Paul teaches, but a cause of it.
                          Council of Trent
                          SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
                          .
                          Initial Justification is not by works of any kind. The Council of Trent is quite emphatic about that.
                          “And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter VIII – my emboldening)

                          “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon I)
                          Progressive Justification is by good works.

                          "[God]. who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honour, and immortality through perseverance in good works. "(Rom 2:7)

                          “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them”. (Eph 2;10)
                          But these are not works under The Law but works under grace. Not that you appear to understand works. You can’t even answer my simple, question: Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

                          Whatever good acts we do are God’s actions in us not just our own. Catholics believe that grace comes in two kinds, sanctifying grace and actual grace. Actual grace is the prompts and help that God gives us to do good deeds. When we do a good deed it is God working in us.

                          Or, as Augustine of Hippo said "when you crown our merits, you crown your own gifts,"

                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Thus in terms of doctrinal mortal sins, Catholicisms holds that Christians like myself are going to hell
                          “Doctrinal mortal sin” – what is that? You are good at inventing terms (like “Catholic Law”). Another straw man.

                          The Catholic Church does say that anyone goes to hell. That is for God alone to decide.
                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Another doctrinal "mortal sin" under Catholic Law is if one doesn't believe in infant baptism, such as Baptists, they have committed a mortal sin and are going to hell.
                          SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13). Council of Trent
                          But let's consider also Catholic "mortal sins" associated with behavior.

                          For example, fasting on Sunday for spiritual pursuit is a mortal sin under Catholic Law.
                          Canon XVIII. IF any one, under pretence of asceticism, shall fast on Sunday, let him be anathema.
                          Asceticism is by definition; "abstinence from worldly pleasures, often for the purpose of pursuing spiritual goal."
                          Working on Saturday is a Mortal sin under Catholic Law.
                          Canon XXIX. CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
                          Usage of a contraceptive is a mortal sin under Catholic Law
                          You obviously haven’t read what I wrote about mortal sin.

                          I don’t know your Canon XVIII comes from (and I suspect you do not either as you give no citation) but Canon XXIX comes from the Synod of Laodicea, held around 343-381. It was a local Synod attended by a small number of bishops, dealing with a local problem with local applicability – that of Judaising. It is the same problem that the Council of Jerusalem addressed and that Paul addressed in Galatians.

                          None of your quotes mention mortal sin.

                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          As for Catholicism's arbitrary distinction between "moral sins" and "venial sins", concerning 1John 5:16, which you yourself referenced, you seem to have overlooked the fact that it says, "There is a sin that leads to death.", not "there are sins which lead to death". And as John doesn't define here what the "a sin" is, Catholicism takes the opportunity to invent it's own Law. And to make salvation contingent on that Law.
                          “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but There is sin which is mortal” (1Jn 5:16-17).

                          Sin in the singular (harmartia) can be used aa a general term for a groups of sins..

                          All wrongdoing is sin (harmartia)
                          There is sin (harmatia) which is mortal.

                          Paul describes many sins that lead to (spiritual) death:
                          “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:19-21)

                          “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

                          And I could give you more examples if you need them.


                          Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                          Furthermore you claim that the 10 commandments don't apply to us even though Paul's references them, and other things in the law, which he applies to the Christian life. And you yourself do so in claiming that to not murder, which is spoken of in the 10 commandments, is a law that we are bound to keep to not lose our salvation. So you contradict yourself in claiming that Catholicism holds we are not bound by the 10 commandments.

                          I don’t contradict myself. You simple do not understand covenants and laws. Would you like an explanation of this?
                          Comment>

                            #14
                            Catholicism is deceptive in trying to pass off its gospel as being conformed to Paul's gospel in its claim of INITIAL salvation being through faith apart from works. Under Catholicism, what they refer to as "initial salvation" is no salvation at all. What secures a person's salvation from God's wrath? What secures a person's salvation from going to hell. Under Catholicism it is not simply faith alone apart from works.

                            FINAL Salvation is what we're talking about. How is a person FINALLY justified, FINALLY saved from the wrath of God under Catholic soteriology. It's by being a good Catholic, complying to the Catholic Law, the Catholic rules and regulations, one's involvement in the Catholic ceremonies. It's the gospel of the circumcision all over again.

                            Just as Paul said of those who rely on the Law of Moses in Gal 3:10, so also one could say of Catholics, "All who rely on observing Catholic Canon Law are under a curse, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in Catholic Canon Law."
                            Comment>

                              #15
                              bcbsr,

                              First let me note that you have again failed to answer the simple question: Do you think confessing sins is earning salvation?

                              Originally posted by bcbsr View Post
                              Catholicism is deceptive in trying to pass off its gospel as being conformed to Paul's gospel in its claim of INITIAL salvation being through faith apart from works. Under Catholicism, what they refer to as "initial salvation" is no salvation at all. What secures a person's salvation from God's wrath? What secures a person's salvation from going to hell. Under Catholicism it is not simply faith alone apart from works.

                              FINAL Salvation is what we're talking about. How is a person FINALLY justified, FINALLY saved from the wrath of God under Catholic soteriology. It's by being a good Catholic, complying to the Catholic Law, the Catholic rules and regulations, one's involvement in the Catholic ceremonies. It's the gospel of the circumcision all over again.

                              Just as Paul said of those who rely on the Law of Moses in Gal 3:10, so also one could say of Catholics, "All who rely on observing Catholic Canon Law are under a curse, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in Catholic Canon Law."
                              There is a maxim – “that which is asserted without evidence cane be dismissed without evidence.”

                              You provide no evidence of the above claims and there I can dismiss it as a load of rubbish.


                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap