1104
1119
1132
1141
You lay out what faith means to you and how one’s faith is evident in their actions and behavior.
You say that if one is not interested in reading Scripture, then you would question their faith and thus their salvation.
It’s the protestant way. On the one hand speaking of the actions of the believer, then claiming that if one does not exhibit these actions and behaviors, then one’s profession of faith is suspect. As you said....that person was never born again regardless of what they claim.
I know, it’s a conundrum for you since a protestant believes once saved, always saved. Therefore, in order to maintain that false belief, they must claim that one was never saved to explain away falling back into or never leaving behind their “old nature”.
The real knee slapper is where you say that living out the Christian life is not a requirement of being saved.
The NT is full of how to live the Christian life and yet, you claim that it is not a requirement. Why do we need to read Scripture then?
Contradiction after contradiction followed by back pedaling.
1119: mm: "There WILL be evidence or the profession of faith is highly suspect."
I stand by that and the rest of that post as with post 1141.
However, you keep repeating the claim that "You say that if one is not interested in reading Scripture, then you would question their faith and thus their salvation." but earlier you said....post 1327 -"Again, you try to wiggle out of what YOU said, which is that in your opinion, if one does not read Scripture one’s faith is suspect and their salvation in doubt."
And I asked where I said that and you still haven't provided the link or post number. In the one post you referenced, interest in Scripture was just one of the evidences I listed.
It’s the protestant way. On the one hand speaking of the actions of the believer, then claiming that if one does not exhibit these actions and behaviors, then one’s profession of faith is suspect. As you said....that person was never born again regardless of what they claim.
And that's different from Catholicism how?
My statement is that if someone has true saving faith, it will show by their fruits and works, that there will be evidence. If there is ZERO evidence, absolutely no change in their lives after a verbal profession of faith, yes, I do wonder if they are saved or have saving faith because saving faith WILL produce results.
And for the record, I know people who profess to have accepted Christ and have shown ZERO evidence of any kind of faith. Are they really saved? Only God knows.
And just to forestall the inevitable, these are immediate family members whom I know WELL, so I'd KNOW if there was any evidence and I've never seen any.
For my part, I have no reason to consider them saved and so continue to pray for them and share Christ with them as if they are not. But my doing that doesn't make them any more or less saved than they in reality are.
If they are saved, then I've misjudged. Big deal.
I know, it’s a conundrum for you since a protestant believes once saved, always saved. Therefore, in order to maintain that false belief, they must claim that one was never saved to explain away falling back into or never leaving behind their “old nature”.
No, I'm not talking about backsliding or falling back into sin, or not being perfect from the moment of profession on. We all struggle with our old nature and we all still sin.
The tremendous irony in all this criticism of *Protestant thinking* is that Catholicism teaches the exact thing that I'm being criticized for. That is, if you don't tow the line, you lost your salvation, making it a works based religious system.
The real knee slapper is where you say that living out the Christian life is not a requirement of being saved.
But it's not. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. If living out the Christian life is a *requirement* to be saved, then for one thing, nobody is saved as nobody can live the life they ought to. The other is that this is exactly what the Catholic church teaches.
I'll spell it out once again......
Saving faith is evidenced by a changed life. If there is NO change at all, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to conclude that saving faith has been exercised. The person is likely not saved, but my opinion on that is not necessarily their reality. My opinion doesn't make it so. It's what God thinks and knows that's important.
True saving faith WILL BE evidenced by la change of heart and life. When you have been given a new heart and a new nature and the Spirit of God is living within you, there WILL be change and growth, just as a baby grows once it's born. It just happens. It's a natural result of the new life within you.
If someone displays a lack of interest in Scripture and knowing God through that, that person has problems. I never said that it doesn't mean that they're not saved or that they lost their salvation, all it means is that they have problems and those need to be addressed. It's a symptom, a warning sign that something is not right spiritually in their spiritual lives.
There is no contradiction.
It actually might shock you how little evidence of a changed life it takes for me to accept that saving faith has been exercised. We are all different and God meets us where we are and we all are at different points in our walk with Him and I'm not going to judge the validity of a person's profession because they aren't doing what I think they ought when I think they ought to be doing it.
The only time I would question the validity of a person's profession is when there is ZERO evidence of a changed life.