Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Dewy, what you've posted is all fine and good, but you've still not told me what you believe salvation is and why you believe something about salvation which the men who discerbed what was appropriate to be in the bible never saw, wrote about or believed.
I'm not trying to play head games with you, Dewy. Its simply that I have absolutely no understanding of why anyone would believe in a once saved always saved theology and I would like to at least see where there is any basis for this belief beyond the personal opinion of a self described "saved" person.
"My premise for asking the question was that Adam was not created in perfection, because he had the free will to sin, and of course, he did."
FK, where do you get the idea that because man was created with Free Will, a divine attribute, that that meant he wasn't created perfect? By the way, I agree, Adam was not created in a state of complete theosis.
"In heaven, there is no sin, so we will be "perfect" then, although not equal to God or His essence in any sense. So, another way to ask my same question would be: "could Jesus have used His free will and sinned"? I would answer 'No', not because He doesn't have the power to do whatever He wants, but because it is not His nature to sin."
There is no "sin" in heaven because every being in heaven is in a state of theosis. Remember that the English word "sin" is a translation of the Greek word "amartia" which means "to miss the mark". The mark is Christ and missing the mark means we aren't being Christ like. Christ of course does not need to be "Christ-like". Asking whether therefore if Chrust could exercise His Free Will and sin is meaningless.
"The incarnation of Jesus was in perfection, unlike Adam."
Quite right, but in this Adam and Christ, the New Adam, are alike; Adam had the potential to become like a god and transmit that potentiality to his descendants. It was his created purpose. That potential was lost by the Sin of Adam. Christ, the New Adam restored the potential for theosis to the descendants of Adam.
The answer is "Yes." Jesus was tempted like any one of us, but He chose not to.
I would answer 'No', not because He doesn't have the power to do whatever He wants, but because it is not His nature to sin
Which one of His natures, FK? His divine or His human nature? You see, the moment you begin to separate His humanity from ours, you wonder into heresies that were long discarded -- namely that Christ only "appeared" as man. If He was subject to passions, and he was, then He was subject to sin. If he did not reject sin on His own free will, what accomplishment would His sinlessness be? What hope would we ever have of achieving theosis?
Then God does not get what He wants? Maybe God decided that the best way for us to know righteousness was to have the experience of sinning. We learn from our mistakes. God doesn't make us sin, but He creates us with the potential to sin, which He knows we will do. God doesn't intend the elect to end up immoral or unrighteous, but He teaches us righteousness by allowing us to be unrighteous.
But in order for man to be free he must be able to choose between what is right and what is not right. The only alternative is to create a man who is, like animals, driven by necessities, and has dominion over lower species by brute force alone. And that's not how God created man.
But isn't it the truth that sets us free? Were we born with the truth? I don't think so. The truth comes with salvation, doesn't it? Can an unregenerated heart know the truth? I would agree that we are free to choose evil after salvation, but we are not born so. I would say we are born dead in sin, so from birth we will sin. It just isn't a choice until after salvation.
It's the last part that still gets me. :) What is it that we can do ourselves, and where does the ability to do it come from? Are we born with it?
The idea [of Theosis] is to become pure and clean so that, to paraphrase the Scripture, His light can shine through us for others to see and know Him.
Sounds good to me. :)
No. The dictionary also supports me, as in "reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM". Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.
I don't believe that any interpretation from man was needed to write the actual words of the scriptures. Interpretation comes later from the Spirit through fallible men. You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.
A book CANNOT interpret itself! The Church treasured the writings of the Apostles - who had long ago died. They compiled the writings they left. Found within the Scriptures is all we need to know for salvation - BUT, it is not always clearly and explicitly laid out.
Why not, especially when you start with wonderful premises such as "God doesn't lie" and "God doesn't contradict Himself"? Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture. I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree. I believe the core issues are not like that for most Protestants, they are reasonably clear. I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.
The problem, then, is that you accept the authority of Scriptures, but not the same body who wrote and collated it - identifying and verifying it, that the Bible is, INDEED, the Word of God. How can a fallible group of men determine what are infallible writings and infallibly compile them into one book? Without making ONE mistake?
Yes, exactly! How could such men do that? The answer is that they could not. Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.
Men throughout the Church could not agree on 2 Peter, for example, and whether it was inspired. This went on past 250 AD! God made His "decision" through men. That's the way God works. If the Bible came to us like you say, it would have fell from the sky, a la Koran, and there would have been NO dispute.
Partially answered above. I only wanted to add that I dispute that there would have been no dispute. :) Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"? Since we don't do that, I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible. I would expect it. That's why I believe that God took no chances and made it all happen Himself.
Why? Because Bill doesn't go heave and Jo does? God gives His love to all. Love is respect. God is Love. He respects our free will. I know, this is an alien concept to western Christian thinking! How can omniopotent God be humble? How could He possibly respect our decisions? Well, then, this tells me that western Christianity does not know what love is.
And God gets what He wants. There are many who have been purified by His love who will pass that eye of a needle. Those who won't will not fail because of lack of God's love for humanity, but because of their arrogance and pride.
Baptism.
What is it that we can do ourselves
Turn to God.
Are we born with it?
No.
Yes, I fully agree. I think we really do see eye to eye on this issue. That's why I was confused when you had me adopting some idea I had never heard of before. :)
The point I am making that having faith alone does not save. It must be faith with love. Faith alone has no love. This was Luther's mistake, again. If you include love within your definition of faith, I think we'd agree that - however, I would say that love is not "generated" by faith, but by Christ within us. EVERYTHING is a gift from God.
Yes, I do include love in the definition of true faith, and I agree with what you are saying here. Boy, this Luther guy is sure getting me into a lot of trouble recently, and I don't even know his specific teachings. :)
If we have a ticket for a nice new coat when we enter heaven (sinner's prayer, correct?), then why IS sanctification important? Tell me WHY it matters if I am a little dirty or very dirty UNDER that coat that allows me entrance into heaven???
I know I've answered this, but it may have been after your post or to someone else. The short answer is that a truly regenerated heart wants to be sanctified. It is an automatic result. Although, from a truly regenerated heart, the extent of dirt under the coat (remnant sins after salvation) may determine rewards in heaven, it will not affect salvation. We do not enter into heaven as our original sinful selves with a coat hiding us. The saved are new and unblemished in God's sight for salvation purposes.
You have said that works are merely a fruit, evidence of salvation. Why do you need this evidence, when you already "know" you are saved by your sinner's prayer? What is the purpose of having fruit to prove your salvation?
Oh, OK. Well, I suppose I would say that I don't need any evidence to prove my salvation because I don't seek to prove it to others. Only God and I can know for sure if I am saved. However, I do seek to have others be able to see Christ in me, for witnessing purposes as well as my own benefit. I said that the fruit is evidence, but I don't "need" the evidence for the purpose of proving anything. It wouldn't occur to me to say to someone "look at my good deeds, therefore know that I am a Christian".
I sense a contradiction in what is being said, or I am misunderstanding you. You believe you are of the elect, that you cannot fall, that your name cannot be blotted out. This is due to your sinner's prayer, as further evidenced by the fruits of salvation, your good works. Correct me if I am wrong so far.
Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall". Much more significantly, I would say that I am not a member of the elect because of the sinner's prayer. I was always a member of the elect from the beginning of time. The sinner's prayer triggers my knowledge of it, and completes the salvation event as I experience it in time. As a new regenerated Christian, I then have the indwelling Spirit to lead me for the rest of my life. If this has indeed happened, then good works will come forth.
A logical question you might have is that if I am of the elect from the beginning, but I have to accept Christ to be saved, then if I died the day before I would have come to Christ would I still be saved because I am of the elect? Good question. My only answer can be that this cannot happen because God keeps His own. If we are truly of the elect, then after reaching the age of reason we will accept Christ and we will be saved. He ordained that it would be so, and it therefore must happen.
Furthermore, what about those who DO NOT obey God, even though they have made the sinner's prayer? Does this say that the sinner's prayer does not infallibly tell us that we are saved? Ugh...
The Bible says that those who do not obey God do not love God. And, as we discussed and agreed upon before, those who do not love God cannot have true faith. Those who do not have faith cannot be saved. Therefore, the saying of the sinner's prayer by itself isn't necessarily efficacious. It is the sincerity behind it caused by God's original intent. That's why I said only you and God can know for sure, no matter what our "profession" of faith may be.
God bless.
My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused? No, the reason why the Gospels differ on the account of the Resurrection is because there are THEOLOGICAL issues behind the words. Each synoptic writer is appealing to different people and bringing out a different message. Religious teaching is their primary concern, not historical conventions.
Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole! They are from the "lips" of God! Really, I can't believe that you think the Bible is LITERALLY God's Word for Word dictated to the writers!
Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.
The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it. There is no room for trying to justify our own idea of what He "really" means...And secondly, the Gospels do not record the EXACT words in Synoptic parallels. There are subtle changes that the author makes to emphasize a religious point. The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!
You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.
Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God. But written words are subject to interpretation. Again, our verse regarding 'cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin'. Isn't this subject to human interpretation of God's Words? Christianity has been flexible over its reading of some of the Scriptures over time because people change. Our understanding of God's Word GROWS! We take into account other's views, commentaries, and development of thought. Certainly, Scripture is viewed through the lense of our past Traditions, our views of what Scripture means. God's Actual Word, on the other hand, is unchanging. Romans 12:1 has a meaning to GOD. Perhaps many meanings finely intertwined. And man has yet to unravel its fullest meanings that HE has intended for that verse.
Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture
Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations. IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??
I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree
I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here. Either God's Word is literal and there is no disagreement over it, no re-interpretation or spin, or God wrote the Bible through men as a supplement to an already-held interpretation of Christ's teachings.
I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.
Unfortunatly, many do not act like it is. A revealed faith means it is given to you. You accept the interpretation given - you don't make up your own in contradiction to what was given. However, one of the major tenants of the Reformation (that Luther himself regretted later) was that men can come to the Bible THEMSELVES and figure it out. This is NOT a revealed faith, but a faith through one's own reason and emotions. Given our fallen state, it is hopeless to come to agreement on what even core verses mean. All I have to say on this is "Eucharist". That should be clear that some Christians do not consider Christianity a revealed religion.
Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.
I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities... The point is that God works THROUGH men. Isn't this clear throughout Scriptures?
Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"?
If you had a book that was "from God DIRECTLY" that said "kill infidels" - what the heck would you do?
Since we don't do that
Which should clearly tell us that we don't think the book is written LITERALLY by God - otherwise, there'd be a lot of people without hands or eyes.
I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible
I will close by saying - what's the point of having a book if no one can agree on what it MEANS? God didn't give us a Book to confuse man, to leave us in the dark about the TRUTH - and there can only be ONE truth. God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means. The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.
Regards
So, in your world God says, "win some, lose some". Even worse, you say that God doesn't particularly care which of us goes to heaven, He just knows that some of us will and that's good enough for Him. That sounds like a pretty weak God to me.
Regarding the rest of your post, my mouth is open and I am almost speechless. You are making the same accusations against us that you made 2000 posts ago. I truly regret that you do not appear to have learned anything new about our side's beliefs. I feel truly blessed that I have learned so much about your beliefs and those of Roman Catholics. While I maintain strong and honest disagreement with you all, I have been able to throw away many stereotypes that I have heard before about you. I am sorry that it has not gone both ways.
Not too shabby my good man! :)
My comment was, and is, that Protestantism tends to deny that the walk of faith requires two legs: faith and works of love.
Now this along with what you write below is truly new, and thank you for it. While of course I cannot speak for all Protestants, I can report that I, my SB church, and every other Protestant church with which I have had contact, all believe that Godly love, and the future works thereof, are absolutely an essential element of true faith. With one type of exception, I know of no one who believes that we can say the sinner's prayer, be saved, and then go off and do whatever we want.
I surely have met many righteous Protestants. I also know some Protestants driven to despair by recurrences of sin flying in the face of their supposed status of being saved by faith, the faith they know in their hearts to be genuine. I know others who develop insensitivity to sin, -- sin boldly, -- and fall off on the other side, presuming their salvation. None of that is healthy.
Indeed that is very unhealthy. Here is where the exception I just mentioned comes in. I believe the people you are describing simply do not know their own faith! I remember that when I was first saved, according to my beliefs, I knew the basics but nothing else. That's why, soon thereafter, I "fell away" during college, although I never felt at liberty to 'sin boldly'. :) I had no clue what it was that I really had. It wasn't until later that I was moved by the Spirit to read and study and accept His gift of a mentor that I understood much better the nature of my own faith.
The people you speak of in despair are much better off. We would say their pain is God disciplining and correcting His beloved children. They SHOULD feel guilty and seek to reckon it and fix whatever the recurring sin is. This is good evidence of a truly regenerated heart. The guilt shows that this person has some knowledge, or leadership by the Spirit, that it is not OK to just go on sinning after accepting Christ. The guilt must be dealt with in a Godly way, and it will happen for someone who is truly saved. This last part is a big point most of these people do not yet understand. I can see the wisdom in God arranging it this way.
The people you mentioned who 'sin boldly' are in much worse shape, but don't necessarily forfeit their salvation, unless the condition is permanent. That would evidence that their original salvation was not genuine, because what God promised would happen, didn't happen. Not likely! :) If I were in your shoes and I had any Protestant friends who sinned boldly, based on their belief of once saved, always saved, I might gently ask about their salvation experience. Did he invite Jesus into his life as LORD? What does that mean to him? Surely he knows that Christ does not want him to be leading this lifestyle, so why would Christ keep His promise to him (salvation), when he has been lying to Christ right from the beginning?
OK, in that sense I understand what you are saying.
Me: "If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man?"
Again, this is not the right corollary of what I am saying. If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.
I was responding to your original statement:
Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.
Your response fails your own test! :)
The issue is, which men [are repositors of God's truth]. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides.
Well, in my joking comparison, the state was the Church. I saw some similarities. I don't see Protestantism as being a democracy in that whatever the majority says goes. I thought a great criticism of us was that there were so many differing views. I also don't see every Protestant deciding an individual moral code. That would be chaos. Our sub-unities are fairly united with fairly similar interpretations of God's moral code. We believe none of us has any morals of our own. God defines morality in scripture, and we reckon it, and live up to it or not to whatever degree.
Never happened. When you find something not in the Bible, e.g. veneration of saints, it does not make it unbiblical, it makes it not part of the written canon of scripture.
OK, I accept the challenge. :) I've never argued on this before, but I'll give it a shot. Let's consider the Immaculate Conception, and that Mary was sinless. How do you explain Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"? Of course we both agree that Jesus gets a pass on this, but from only a Biblical standpoint why does Mary, since she isn't God?
So are we made righteous during the sancitification process, finalized in Purgatory, if necessary, or do we enter heaven, not actually being righteous, but covered by Christ's own righteousness? If you choose the later, what is the role of sanctification? I guess I am still not understanding entirely your particular belief on this issue.
Yes, I do include love in the definition of true faith, and I agree with what you are saying here
So if we don't love, we aren't saved? If you agree, at what point, then, are we saved? I see faith in different degrees. There is faith of the intellect, faith that speaks of trusting in God to fulfill His promises, and faith that obeys the Lord out of love. When the Scriptures speak of "walking in faith", I see a fully-formed faith, a faith with love added to it, as in James. But at what point, then, does this "faith" of day 1 (sinner's prayer) become "saving faith", sufficient to enter heaven? I am not sure we can EVER know that infallibly until we die in our Father's arms...
I suppose what I am trying to understand is that you seem to believe that one must have faith and love to enter heaven, but it should be perfectly clear that some do not have both, and others who believe they do, at one point will admit that they didn't. Thus, there is a time where our love is insufficient to allow us to call our faith "saving faith". Yet, how many Protestants do you know, honestly, that think that their faith is not saving yet? See what I am trying to say? At what point do you have "saving faith", enough to die that instant and go to heaven? During the sinner's prayer? If so, then THAT determines our eternal destiny? But how can we love and have faith in Christ at that point, sufficient to save?
Although, from a truly regenerated heart, the extent of dirt under the coat (remnant sins after salvation) may determine rewards in heaven, it will not affect salvation.
I have heard this before, maybe 500 posts ago. I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward. The Scriptures point to either eternal happiness, or an everlasting grinding of teeth in hell. There doesn't seem to be any mention about our judgment being used to determine the square footage of our plot in heaven (or other such talk).
I believe that the Church teaches that men will have different rewards in heaven, but this is more based on Tradition then Scripture (LOL - you are following Tradition!). We see it this way. We ALL will receive our fill in heaven. God will fill our hearts totally. However, to the degree we are sanctified here on earth, the "size" of our heart will grow. Thus, some will enter with a "one gallon sized jug" that will be filled, others will have a "55 gallon sized drum" that will be filled with God. But again, that is not from the Scriptures explicitly!
Well, I suppose I would say that I don't need any evidence to prove my salvation because I don't seek to prove it to others. Only God and I can know for sure if I am saved.
Well, I understand your point of view, although I still am not so absolutely confident that my name is in the Book of the Elect right now. I have a moral confidence of it, but not absolute - that would seem to take away God's Freedom, in case I decided to just start sinning whenever I felt like it - although then you'll say "I never was saved to begin with"! Which then we go in circles by me saying "then how can we know WE are saved in 5 years?" In this same thread, this issue came up with another woman. She said that we know we are saved by the fruit of our works. She said we can tell by our harvest. I responded that we are fruit growers of today, not fruit speculators of the future. We only know what we are producing or have produced - not what we WILL produce...
Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall".
Scripture clearly states we CAN fall: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor 10:12
I don't think we can KNOW we are of the Elect. That information is reserved for God alone. HE knows, and the Elect will infallibly be saved. But we can only HOPE we are of the Elect, our works of TODAY giving us a "proof" that we are indeed following the promptings of the Spirit - for the Spirit is Whom moves us to obey the Commandment of Love.
A logical question you might have is that if I am of the elect from the beginning, but I have to accept Christ to be saved, then if I died the day before I would have come to Christ would I still be saved because I am of the elect?
The day BEFORE you accept Christ? How is that possible to know that? I suppose you are saying that GOD foresees that we would accept Christ? If that were the case, then God would keep everyone alive until that day - since God desires that all men be saved. We are now treading the waters of speculation...I prefer not to discuss such opinions on such a matter - who can know who is right?
The Bible says that those who do not obey God do not love God. And, as we discussed and agreed upon before, those who do not love God cannot have true faith.
"True faith"? I suppose that means faith with love? It appears that Protestants have an aversion to the word "love" prefering to "hide" it in the definition of "faith". Does a faith without works of love save? At what point does God "justify" a person, or "save" him? If it is at the sinner's prayer, what sort of love does that person possess with his faith?
I, as a Catholic, see it this way. We are justified, seen righteous in God's eyes by faith in Christ, a gift strictly from God. However, this justification, our being righteous in His eyes, is not necessarily permanent. We must become sanctified in Christ. It is a process. That initial justification is only the first step. We don't receive "loving faith" at the moment of our initial justification. Love comes from sanctification over the course of our lives. Love is learned. Love is practiced. Thus, when considering our eternal destiny, our faith that we received (and grows) must be added to the love we receive (and grows) for eternal salvation. If we are of the elect, this WILL happen. But we don't know. Thus, we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling".
It is the sincerity behind it caused by God's original intent
So YOUR intent of sincerity determines your eternal salvation? Doesn't that sound like a "work", something you earned? Another problem - what about those who were "sincere", but fell away 10 years later? I am sorry, but I just don't agree with the concept of entering eternal life based on a "sincere" sentence said long time ago.
By the way, I appreciate your answers. I hope I am not challenging you too much.
Regards
I'm with you so far! :)
For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished.
Here's my first step off the reservation. :) I would agree that sometimes God lets us lie in the beds we have made, but this says that God never bails us out of trouble and I just know from personal experience that this isn't the case! :)
I know he says later that for God to interpose and bail us out of anything would be to cancel the liberty of the will that God gave us. This honestly reminds me of parents who want to be friends with their young children instead of parents. Do you really see God as such a disinterested parent as Tertullian appears to see Him? From this reading, Tertullian was the uncle who let his nephews use crayons on his walls to allow them self expression. :) Is this right?
...would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it?
OH PLEASE! :) I don't know who this Marcion guy was, but it definitely sounds like Tertullian was afraid of him. Common human experience proves how pathetic this argument is, and we don't have nearly the sovereignty over our children that God has over us.
For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself,...
God allows man mastery of himself??? Yikes! Why doesn't this idea scare you to death? :)
Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, ...
This part I'll buy, but the rest of it... who is this guy? :)
Finally, and in an overall sense, while I would agree that man has the freedom to choose evil, I would say it doesn't start until salvation. Before that, we are dead in sin, and have no choice.
It's funny you should bring it up. About a million posts ago I was arguing once saved always saved, just because that was all that I knew. Then Harley showed me the much superior doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, which I quickly adopted. This doctrine includes the element of good works as a natural fruit of true salvation. It also, by default, includes the element of discernment, which is also a natural fruit of salvation through the Spirit we receive at regeneration. "We" could blow it and lose our salvation, but due to God's promises, that will not happen. It is not that 'once saved always saved' is completely wrong or evil, it is much more that it is clumsy and defenseless when faced with all the scriptures that talk about "running the race", etc. However, the general idea is still there.
I admit I don't know where the core idea came from, but here are some verses that seem to support it:
Eph 4:29-30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 1:12-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory.
John 10:26-30 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Rom 8:37-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I think the general idea is rooted in both God's sovereignty to order the universe as He sees fit, and also that once we are (from our POV) claimed and marked by God, it's a done deal.
This idea of an instant salvation I think is particularly dangerous, especially to people who really believe this has happened to them because then they can fall prey to all sorts of demonic mischief. Indeed,it seems to me that if anyone, and I do mean anyone, believes that he or she is saved in a particular instant and that is quite literally the end of that, the ticket has been punched and can't be unpunched, he has no discernment at all and is, likely, doomed to destruction by the Evil One. It says to me that these people have not been properly guided by someone in the capacity of a spiritual father, an elder if you will.
I could not agree with you more about this danger. Just as in your example, in my experience this is most frequently manifested in this type of person: "OK, John 3:16? Fine, whatever, I'll sign, see you next Easter." :) I have actually heard the equivalent of this. Just as you said, these people are in dire need of much further instruction, from God but through us.
I was pretty close to being that guy myself at one point. Then later, the Spirit touched me and led me to want to know more about my faith. Thank God! But, this isn't atypical for the process of sanctification. It always happens only on the Spirit's time table.
No, not particularly, He doesn't care for some. He cares for all. Sun shines on all, equally. But if some choose to shut their eyes or hide from it, the Sun will not force their eyes open or pull them out of their dark hiding places! They all know the Sun is out there, whether they like it or not. It's their choice to be in its light or to shun away from it.
Oh,please, don't flatter yourself! Just how do you know it was the Spirit? Everyone uses that phrase. I think it's using the Lord's name in vain, as some kind of warranty.
How do you know it wasn't Satan distorting your views? The answer is plain and simple: you don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.