With Full Assurance
Published on June 26, 2009 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

"Freedom comes from knowing the truth.  Bondage results from missing it."

I read those words recently from a well known Pastor.  I thought, "Ain't that the truth?" 

Someone here on JU asked me recently how I can "know" that I'm going to heaven since he believes we really can't know for sure.  I refuted that, because I do absolutely know for sure I'm going to heaven.  I have been set free from that doubt of not knowing. 

There are some religious groups out there that teach you can't be sure.  One teaches the best time to die is when you're walking out of a confession booth.  That would be the only time you can be sure of your salvation.  How sad.

I say nonsense.  All a bunch of nonsense. It's a man-made teaching. They are teaching fear and guilt to keep you in line.  That's all that is. Some call it brainwashing.  I agree.   If I must do or not do something to keep from losing my salvation, then salvation would have to be by faith and works.  Keeps me coming!! 

It's the works part, these religious organizations are most after.  If they can convince you of this, you will continue to work and work and work for the church to ensure that your ticket to the hereafter is secure. 

Nonesense.   I believe this type of teaching is exactly why so many are dissatisfied with organized religion.  I don't blame them one bit.  Someday, the leaders in these churches will have alot to answer for.  With much responsibility comes much accountability. 

So what is at stake?  Many things.  Peace, assurance, joy, love for instance.  They all are related.  If you don't have assurance of God's acceptance you can't have peace and without peace you can have no joy.  A person with no peace is really motivated by fear.  Fear and love don't match up well. 

John said this:

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life."  1 John 5:13

Think about it.   If Christ came to seek and save the lost wouldn't it have been wise on God's part to snatch us to heaven right then, the moment we are saved in order to insure we make it?  Otherwise God is taking a great risk  forcing us to stay here and walk thru a very sinful world.  Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that "bad company corrupts good character."  We all know there's plenty of bad characters around us every day. 

Another thing to think about.  If we don't have this assurance, peace, and joy because it's replaced by fear in losing our salvation doesn't that spill over to worry?  Didn't Jesus tell us worrying is a sin?  Didn't Paul tell us to be anxious over nothing?  How can we reconcile these things if God is holding our ticket to heaven over our heads in the hopes we are good little boys and girls.  If we mess up.....oh well.  Ticket rescinded.

No, the only way we can have the peace and joy and assurance is to believe Christ when he said those that come to him can have eternal life.  When we come to him, he says, we can have life more abundantly.  This is not the same type of life the world offers.  But if we tell others that we can't be sure of our eternal security then it's no diff than what the world offers.  Who wants that?   The world offers, fear, worry, anxiety and hate.  Who needs that? 

Salvation has to be by faith alone.  Once good works are introduced into the salvation process then it gets all chaotic and complicated.  It is no longer by faith alone but by faith and works and to say that is to take the daily burden of our salvation upon ourselves.  Then you have to ask, why did Jesus come to die?  Didn't he take this burden from off our shoulders?  Didn't he carry it instead?   If we believe our salvation is determined by our works, it pretty much contradicts just about every doctrine in scripture spoken by Christ and written down by the Apostles. 

Think about this.  If our salvation is not secure how could Jesus say "they will never perish?"  (John 10:28) If we receive eternal life but then forfeited it thru sin, either by not doing what we should do or doing what we shouldn't do, will we not perish?   By doing so, don't we make Jesus words to be a lie, null and void?   Didn't he die for our sins, past, present and future?  I believe he did. 

I guess it really comes down to trust and commitment.  Jesus is calling us to do more than just believe in his existence.  He's calling us to put our trust in him, in his words and in his death in exchange for our sins.  That's it.  Even a child can understand this. 

"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."  Romans 5:1

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is recokoned as righteousness."  Romans 4:5.

 

 

 


Comments (Page 38)
55 PagesFirst 36 37 38 39 40  Last
on Sep 09, 2009

Lula...what does the above have to do with the subject matter?  I thought I was the junkyard dog with a bone but you sure got me beat! 

 We are talking about the fact that God has given us his assurance of salvation for all eternity.    Let's go back to the subject matter at hand. 

on Sep 09, 2009

Leauki posts #530

There is no original sin.

Agree or not, believe it or not, the human race is a unit, summed up with Adam as its first parent head and therefore, it is not the sin of Adam but the necessary effect of that sin which is depravation of original justice that was transmitted to all mankind.

The dogma of OS is taught by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21.

 

on Sep 09, 2009

lula posts:

Fact is...It is the Jews who were unfaithul to the Old Covenant

Leauki posts:

That's not a fact, that's your belief.

kfc posts:

Lula...what does the above have to do with the subject matter?

Again, in order to effectively address your topic and assertions, one must address sin and sin is also original sin. Leauki has his own ideas and commented...one comment lead to another and then he made this false statement which evidently would have gone unchallanged had I not commented.

 

 

on Sep 10, 2009

and then he made this false statement

Stating the facts is not a "false statement", even if they contradict your beliefs.

 

on Sep 10, 2009

Aside from the fact that the Jews are no longer a "priestly kingdom" being without the Temple or sacrifices

We have had this before.

The people of Israel have been without Temple three times in their histpory. If being without Temple means that they are no longer a "priestly kingdom", they would have been non-priestly immediately that day on the Sinai.

I don't think you get this "eternal" thing when it comes to G-d. 2000 years without the Temple mean NOTHING. In fact, 10,000 years without the Temple mean nothing. The Temple will be rebuilt, eventually. That's my belief. But that its absence changes anything is not a fact. The people of Israel had a pact with G-d with or without a Temple.

on Sep 10, 2009

"A mere ceremony"?  Who said that?  I only read and said that it was a ritual and like all rituals of all faiths in all nations, it was designed to totally focus one's attention on the task at hand, because without total attention the ritual is meaningless.  However, the fact is Lulapilgrim, the RCC baptises infants, who have no focus or attention due to their age.  Baptism has in effect for the most part, become nothing more than a ceremony, designed more to satisfy the wants and desires of the parents of the infant more than to give the infant a chance to save it's own soul which is the purpose of baptism to begin with.  Catholisism has become quite frankly an empty series of ceremonies for all but the very few.  Don't think that it pleasures me any to say this either, because it doesn't.  There is no specific person to blame for this, but there's enough blame to go around.  The RCC knows the truth and should tell it, because the people are drifting away from the faith with all this "pie in the sky" talk, if you are good you'll go to heaven after you die.  Heaven is not something that one comes to after death, but something that must come while one still lives.  It is life, not death!!  Once we cross that threshold called "death" it is too late!  How many would flock to the church that tells the truth, how many would strive to acheive a place with Jesus if they knew that it was not something that was promised in death, but in life, in the here and now? 

Most of the apostles dropped the ball, plain and simple.  They became "men" forgetting the most important lessons that Jesus taught them by ceding to the agenda of "men" which is self importance and self concern.  They saw that they could become leaders of many and the temptation to become so important, to become so unique and special as being the one that sat at the feet of the master and was given the plain unvarnished truth, was too much to resist.  Don't get me wrong, it didn't necessarily make them bad men, just men.

When Jesus told Peter that he must return to Rome because if he didn't he (Jesus) would have to return and die once more, he wasn't speaking of Peter returning to be martyred but to return in life after his martydom and correct all that had gone wrong, much of which he was complicit in causing.  Peter will return again and sit on the "throne" of the HRCC.  He will correct all that was undone.  It has been predicted by one of the HRCC's own priests, Peter will be the last and final pope.

on Sep 10, 2009

The Sacrament of Baptism instituted by our Lord

Oh, come on! You are just explaining your Catholic religion and views to us as if they were facts. They are not. They are YOUR views and belief, not fact.

When I tell you what circumcision means in Judaism I am as correct as you are when you tell us what baptism means in Catholicism. But that's it. I don't tell you what baptism has to mean to Catholics, so please don't pretend that you have the rigth and power to tell me what circumcision has to mean to me.

 

on Sep 10, 2009

whisper2 posts:

If what you say Lulapilgrim about baptism is correct then tell me why the man Jesus, whom you unequivicably state was God and was born without original sin, was baptised by John. What point could there have been in it? There was no sin to wash away according to your belief. Do you think that Jesus allowed this to be done simply for the sake of doing it, or to prove that he was a man and therefore also had to submit to the "new covenant"?

St.John the Baptist administered Jewish and not Christian Baptism and the difference between them was recognized by St.John himself who exalted the Baptism of Christ to a comparatively infinite state.

Yes, Jesus is God who had no sin.  Jesus is the Incarnate God. Jesus, the man, being a Jew, was obedient to the ceremonial requirements of the Old Dispensation which His Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in 46AD declared no longer to be binding. So the process by which St.John baptised is no more binding upon Christians than circumcision or the Jewish process of consecrating its priests.

Now, this is NOT to say that St.John's baptism had no significance for it certainly has. It was the Baptismal bridge from the Old Dispensation to the New Dispensation and that's why Christ was baptized before His public ministry.

Remember this was inferred in St.John the Baptist's call upon the people to "prepare the way of the Lord" through the baptism of Penance, as the "kingdom of God", the reign of Christ in His Chruch and in their individual souls, was "at hand". The discarding of the baptism of penance for the Baptism of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world was done by St.John himself. It was becasue the transition period was at hand that St.John reminded the people, "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."  

on Sep 10, 2009

Here I must disagree Lulapilgrim.  Jesus is not God.  There is nothing supernatural about anything, including the "miracles" of Jesus.  It is simply natural law in operation, and natural law is God.  The hebrews knew this, nowhere in the OT do they call anything "supernatural", they rightly call it what it is.....................the works of God.  Nor do they attribute any "miracles" performed through any man by God to that man declaring him a God.  They do render unto God that which is Gods.  The gentiles are a superstitious lot and this is why Jesus forbad his apostles to go unto the gentiles.  They were not of understanding yet obviously.

on Sep 10, 2009

Most of the apostles dropped the ball, plain and simple. They became "men" forgetting the most important lessons that Jesus taught them by ceding to the agenda of "men" which is self importance and self concern. They saw that they could become leaders of many and the temptation to become so important, to become so unique and special as being the one that sat at the feet of the master and was given the plain unvarnished truth, was too much to resist

Wow!  What bible are you reading anyhow?  This is just so wrong in all sorts of ways.  Every single one of them were killed for their faith.  A man of self importance (as you keep speaking about) would not be dying for another.  These men died for the church and the cause of Christ.  Again...what book are you reading?   You ARE NOT getting this from scripture.  You are being tutored somewhere along the way to come up with such statements.  Can I ask what you're reading? 

 To be honest...I'd be very afraid of making such comments against God's annointed. 

Lula...you pushed me enough so that I had to delete three of your responses.  Mainly because you are doggedly pushing RCC baptism beliefs which I keep asking you not to do.   While I don't mind the subject matter taking twists and turns here and there I keep asking you not to proselytize your RCC here and you keep insisting on bringing up the RCC incorrect view of Christian baptism or the Eucharist as fact on almost every blog I do on religion. 

Baptism, like circumcision does not save anyone.  Water baptism does not wash away sins.  The blood of Christ washes away our sins.  Not baptism. It's NOT about us.  It's ALL about HIM.   You are incorrectly applying scripture from a RCC viewpoint ignoring many other scriptures that refute it. 

"And From Jesus Christ....Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in HIS OWN BLOOD.  Rev 1:5

"These are they which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  Rev 7:14

Baptism DOES NOT wash away sins.  You have to twist scripture to make it say that. Calling on the name of the Lord is what washes away our sins.  Not the act of water baptism.   That's why John said "he will baptise with spirit and with fire."  That's the real deal.  Not water baptism.   Read them again.  This time do it praying in the spirit instead of reading RCC commentaries.   Your focus is all wrong.  It's not on Christ, it's on the RCC's teachings. 

We've been thru this so many times that's why I get so frustrated because I know I've given you those verses above on this before. You keep insisting on the same things and I keep refuting it with scripture.   You just don't have ears to hear right now because the RCC is teaching something totally different than what the bible is teaching. 

 

 

 

on Sep 10, 2009

What makes you think that I say what I say because I've read it somewhere? 

You may be afraid but I am not.  Peter had a great deal of self importance, before and after Jesus's death.  Dying for one's faith doesn't mean that one no longer posess self importance.  No one walks the path without falling off every now and again, not even the apostles.

Am I saying that the apostles did this thing deliberately?  No I didn't, for in truth they thought that they were doing a good thing.  Bringing all into the fold of Jesus.  But just as Jesus reserved certain teachings for his apostles, (not because they were special or unique, but because they were ready to hear what he had to say), the apostles should have reserved certain teachings for those of the world that were ready for them.  The gentiles were not.  They were still superstitious attributing the operation of natural law to the supernatural, which must have been caused by various and different Gods.  Heck they even made men who they felt were more special than ordinary men of their own time into Gods.  In their superstitious reasoning they must have been Gods, or born of Gods because they could do what others could not.  We do tend to make too much of others who can do what we can not. 

on Sep 10, 2009

You are correct in what you are telling Lulapilgrim, KFC, but the blood of another doesn't wash them away either.  The only thing that washes away sins is forgiveness and penitence.  Forgiveness from those we offend and cause harm to befall as well as from God, and penitence to make correct that which we have caused to go wrong.

on Sep 10, 2009

You are correct in what you are telling Lulapilgrim, KFC, but the blood of another doesn't wash them away either. The only thing that washes away sins is forgiveness and penitence. Forgiveness from those we offend and cause harm to befall as well as from God, and penitence to make correct that which we have caused to go wrong.

So the above scripture is incorrect?  Can't we be saying the same thing?  Only God washes away sins correct?  Our repentance doesn't wash away our sins tho.  All sin is an affront to God.  Every sin we commit is against Him.    God's forgiveness does save us when he accepts our repentance.  Our repentance brings us to Christ who then washes away our wrongs.  But he does so with the blood of His cross.  It's the blood of the cross that washes us, it's not  of us. 

Remember in the OT the sacrificial atonement of sins?  How was that done?  By the blood of bulls and goats right?  It says in Lev 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.  " 

So God had it set right from the getgo that it was blood that had to be shed for the remission of sins.  In other words, the blood in the OT covered the sins of the people.  That's why the Priest would sprinkle the blood over the heads of the people.  No blood, no atonement. 

Now while the Jews had to continually do this on a yearly or more frequently basis, Christ came and did it once and for all.  Our sins are not only covered but are now taken away for good.  We have to go thru the cross to be cleaned and on our way to eternity.  By doing so we can't help but get his blood on us and it's that blood that cleanses us and makes us clean enough to be in the presence of God. 

I think about those in Moses' day putting blood around their doorposts.  Those with the blood applied God passed over and they lived.  Those who did not, perished.  Christ said he was the door.  So picture a cross in a door frame.  In order to go thru the door, we pass under the cross and the blood of his crown of thorns (representing the earth) falls upon us. 

 

 

on Sep 10, 2009

Peter had a great deal of self importance, before and after Jesus's death. Dying for one's faith doesn't mean that one no longer posess self importance. No one walks the path without falling off every now and again, not even the apostles.

Well the proof is on you.  Show me where Peter had a great deal of self importance AFTER the denial that you've already brought up and I answered.  Remember also the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ's ascension and you don't seem to be taking that into account.  But I do agree with your last sentence.  They were human afterall but I see nothing of what you're saying in scripture at all. 

What makes you think that I say what I say because I've read it somewhere?

you answer me with a question?  Your question does not answer my question. 

the apostles should have reserved certain teachings for those of the world that were ready for them. The gentiles were not.

Is that it?  You don't think the Gentiles were ready?  Says who?  You?  That can't be true because they did accept the word with joy.   Who are "those of the world" that you speak of.  There were only Jews and Gentiles.  That was it.  Who are you speaking about?   Then why did Christ say this before he left them?

"Go you therefore and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

"But you shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and all Judaea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." 

They were doing exactly what they were supposed to do.  Goes all the way to Abraham when he was told that ALL nations of the world would be blessed because of his descendant.  Even Jesus turned from his own (the Jews) and left the temple to their own destruction just before he died because of the rejection. 

on Sep 10, 2009

Perhaps we are saying the same thing KFC, we shall see. 

Tell me, what do you believe the "holy ghost" is?  What is your definition?

Why do you think that God would die for mankind?  Where is the sacrifice by men in God dying for them?  Why would God take a human form? 

 

To answer your question..............I thought I did.  There is not a book.  So now answer my question, why did you think ther was?

No this information is not found in the "holy scripture", but remember that the "holy scripture" is what the church had decided it to be.  Many other testaments were considered and decided against based on their decision of what was the truth and what wasn't.  (As if they were there to experience the events themselves to know, but no mind).  So the NT is a compendium of what men decided it shoud be unlike the jews who kept their torah complete and unaltered.  They haven't disappeared, although the church would like to think so.  The church will deny their existance but even in the church records that deny their existance they are alluded to. 

have to go for now, I will address your other concerns when I return.   

 

 

55 PagesFirst 36 37 38 39 40  Last