Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I know God doesn't guess, but I'm trying to figure out how your theology gets around that very conclusion. You have to balance man's free will with God's omniscience. (I don't, but you do.) I would imagine this is very tricky. It's a chicken and egg argument, who made the first move? It appears that the Catholic solution is to magically declare a SIMULTANEOUS occurrence! God chose a particular man to be in His elect at the precise moment that He foresaw that the man would choose God.
If man really chooses first, then this technique absolves you from having to admit that man determines his own salvation, because it is hidden in "simultaneousness". However, if God chooses first, then you can still preserve free will, because it is hidden in "simultaneousness". It is very clever, but as of the post I am responding to now, no one has explained how any of this works. Obviously, it is no where in the Bible.
God gives everyone enough information to be saved or choose the good that they read in their hearts.
You must be kidding. According to your beliefs, God gave everyone reasonably enough information, of course tailored to the individual's capacities, etc., to make a decision between spending eternity, in God's presence, in perfect Heaven with all love abounding infinitely all around us, OR burning for all eternity in a fiery pit, with wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal pain and torment? Part of me wants to agree with you that this is a very difficult choice, seeing as how God gave everyone enough information. :)
However, I just can't bring myself to think that people with the "enough" information that you say God gives everyone would actively choose Hell over Heaven. Since everyone has been graced with "enough" information, put yourself into the shoes of a person who chose against God. What would the plus-minus column look like, with "enough" information?
Some people do NOT want to love, to serve. Some people do NOT desire to love.
I agree with you. Why would you say that is? Chance? Does that lack of desire seem consistent to you with the basic human animal? I would assume you would say that this is them choosing against God, whereas I would say it is God not granting grace. Could God put love into these hearts if He wanted to? If you say 'yes', then it is a sign of His respect and love for them when He decides not to do so, because it would interfere with their free will?
[Re: Eph. 1:4-6] Is it your opinion that Paul is including ALL Christians, all who have spoken on a Sunday afternoon the "sinner's prayer"?
No, only His elect. Isn't the number of Americans who call themselves "Christian" over 80%? Clearly, not all of them are of the elect.
Absolute assurance means that there is absolutely no chance of you falling away. We just don't have that level of knowledge. That is why we have hope.
That's a very high standard, but I'll take it because God is good on His promises. I would need to know more on how you define "falling away". Surely it happens that saved Christians go through dark times and neglect their faiths, but God always pulls His elect through. Every single time. You say that your unassurance is why you have "hope". But, as I said long, long, ago, "hope" means much more than "wish for".
If you can ever potentially claim that a Christian's sinner's prayer was ineffective and didn't save, then there is NO ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE. How much clearer can I be? If you don't know your sinner's prayer took, where is the absolute assurance?
You have always looked for the guarantee in the wrong place. You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. His word will show whether Johnny's prayer was any good or not. Since I can only speak for myself, I am confident in my assurance, and that my prayer "took". :)
Sorry, you'll have to do something other than assert that you are irrefutably part of the elect without any sort of evidence or proof. God's promises are for those who follow Him, not for those who make a one-time claim and then next month do something totally against God's ways.
Wow! You're strict. What would you accept as evidence or proof? How many God points do I need? :) You surprise me when you say that God's promises are only for those who follow Him, but do not make a mistake (presumably any time) later. What is the use of confession, if God's promises are of no value to any person who sins after being baptized? With due apologies to all other Protestants I do feel that I can speak for all of us on this point: we all do make mistakes and not follow God from time to time. According to you, therefore, God's promises are not to us. That's OK. I will give you that you are consistent.
Paul presumes that those Christians he write to will CONTINUE walking the walk.
Please indicate when you are quoting yourself. :) I know you usually do, so no problem. I just got confused for a minute. :)
As long as we pick up our cross and follow our Lord, we are of the elect (from our point of view). But if we drop the cross and go off and do OUR will and not God's will, are we STILL of the elect?
Your question "are we still of the elect?" says everything. When it comes to the elect, there is no "still". One is either a member from before time began and for all time, or one is not, and never will be. God is the only judge of what "falling away" means, how long and how much. That's another reason why we are so careful not to speculate on the salvation of others.
FK: "Saved" ALSO means to heal. You left out other, perhaps more prominent definitions. Here is something from a website called "Truth or Tradition?"
Nothing in there suggests permanency. The word 'saved' does not preclude the necessity of being saved again...
Nothing suggests permanency??? Here is a repeat post of a quote from the website:
"Therefore we define “salvation” as a state of being saved, rescued or delivered from something that threatens death or destruction, that is, being brought to a place of safety. The Hebrew word for “salvation” also means a place of safety (yasha). Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place."
When you read this, you get no idea of permanency from the author? The last sentence doesn't seal it?
You have to invent the idea of being saved over and over again. (Not you personally, of course :) You also must throw into the trash the normal meaning of the word "saved", past tense. What do you think Jesus meant when He said "It is finished"? Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?
Christ died for all men - but some CHOOSE not to accept this gift. See the tagline below. ["I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19"]
I just wanted to point out that you are quoting Moses, even though it sounds like the quote might be from God. And, no, I'm not accusing you of anything. :) My point is only that the POV is human and not divine.
I have no problem with the first possibility because God did give Eve the right choice — not to eat the fruit. In a more general sense, we know what is morally right, so our decisions should always conform to God's goodness, as revealed to us. But they don't.
God did not make us purposefully imperfect. We are not God, but only God-like (at best); everything else is a deformed image of that. Our thinking and decisions, therefore, are also God-like (at best), or a various degree of corruption thereof. As long as we cleave to God, use God rather than man as a measure, we will function within our created capacity to make rational decisions of good moral character. Using God as your guide and golden standard is the only way we can be fully human — rational and morally just beings.
But your other quote is problematic. First, if God deceives, does that mean we can too? After all, if we are created to be God-like, then the way you interpret the OT tells us that YES! deception is God-like, morally justified thing to do. And if God kills, then we can kill too.
This goes back to my earlier assertion somewhere (maybe on another thread) that while I trust that the faith of Jesus and the Apostles was that of Abraham, I simply do not see Christ-like anything in most of the OT quotes. I wish someone would show me otherwise. I do see Christ-like God in Gensis, but as we move into other books of Moses that likeness takes on a different and often unrecognizable luster.
And the only place and time when we will be "safe" from all corruption will be in heaven; for this is a corrupt world subject to change. Ergo, salvation is something that has not yet occurred, as is obvious from the tense used in the Greek original. if we cleave to the image of Christ in our actions and deeds we are more likely to find that narrow path that leads to salvation than if we give in to our human desires as a guide.
That is contrary to what the New Testament teaches us.
Nowhere did I say our righteousness was based on ourselves without God.
The fact of the matter remains that it is whether we cooperate with God that determines our righteousness. He guides us, He is our helper. He works within us both the will and desire to do good. But in the end, it is US who is judged based on whether we do this good or not.
Regards
Twist Scripture? Do a concordance search on "righteousness" or "righteous" as a noun in the OT. Seems a number of people are called "righteous" in the Bible. This is not twisting Scripture, this is merely noting what is written.
Regards
Aren't the serpents steps from the Lord as well? (Assuming serpents have feet.) ;O)
There is a difference between "sent" and "allowed". Such is the difference between positive reprobation, declared a heresy by the Church at the Council of Orange 2, and negative reprobation, believed by the Church's greatest theologians, such as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas.
Regards
Those who believe in "imputed righteousness" alone believe that God covers us with Christ's righteousness - that a man (even abiding in Christ) is insufficient to be considered "righteous". Thus, the legal status invented by some. God treats us as His children. Children are not required to be perfect to be loved and rewarded for their actions.
However, the mother was still always in complete control. Such is similar with God.
I still think we can use the cookie analogy here, as well. The Mother IS in "complete control". But she ALLOWS the cookies to be made with her daughter's input. In other words, some of the cookies will be mishapened. Some will be different sized, or funky-looking. Again, the mother ALLOWS this daughter to be a secondary cause of how the cookies turn out. And I believe God does the same with us. He allows us to struggle through life, not fulfilling the Commandments perfectly, but struggling to abide in Him, He accepts this imperfect sacrifice and effort. As a loving Father, He is happy that we are trying to use His gifts, even if they are not used perfectly. He is in control, but He doesn't use that control to overtake our efforts. God is not surprised by what we do, nor does He micromanage us where our efforts count for nothing.
God gives His elect an offer they can't refuse. An offer SO GOOD, that no man can say 'No'. I don't see this as the same thing as "forcing".
God stirs within us the desire for God that is innate in ALL people. Some will react to this differently. However, "an offer they can't refuse"? You are presuming that a person TRUSTS God completely and totally from the get-go. Trust is learned. Honestly, even those who make the Sinner's Prayer, how much do they REALLY trust this "God" who is unseen and virtually undetected in their lives? We learn to trust God in our lives - so this "offer" CAN be refused (but God knows who will and who will not refuse). Scripture says that God's graces can come to us in vain because of us.
Jesus, the man, showed us exactly what our attitude should be. It's OK to say what you think, but always pray that the will of God will be done.
True. But why is it necessary that we pray that the will of God be done, if God's will is ALWAYS done? Consider Jesus' prayer for unity in John's Gospel during the Last Supper. His desire was for unity among His followers, both present and future.
I've said many times that God promises that no one, not even the person himself, can snatch him out of God's hands.
And again, Scripture never makes that claim. It tells us that we CAN fall away. WE. The Devil cannot take us from God. Other powers cannot. But God leaves open the decision of acceptance to us. I do not agree that it is an offer that I cannot refuse. I feel led to continue in the Lord, but I realize there is a voice within me battling and tempting me to "forget about all of this Lent stuff. Why sacrifice? For what?" We will always battle the serpent - and he will try to get us to refuse the Lord. The very idea of temptation makes our acceptance of the Lord valuable and meritorious - not automatic.
I rely on that to know that if I am of the elect today, that I will be 5 years from now.
Well, of course, IF IF IF you are of the elect...You don't know the mind of the Lord on this matter. All you or I can do is HOPE we are of the elect, continuing to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Anything else is presumption, a sin against God's mercy and justice.
All those who are saved are of the elect and all those of the elect will be saved.
A wonderful circular argument!
"I am of the elect"
"How do you know"?, asks Jo
"Because I am saved".
"Meaning?" asks Jo.
"I am of the elect"
Oh boy... It's all beginning to give me a headache.
We humans can't be absolutely certain about that for other people, but God provides that we may be sure about ourselves
LOL!!! Which Protestant believes that that after saying the Sinner's Prayer, that they are not of the elect? The only one who believes it didn't work are those who judge other people after the fact when a person falls - "He was never saved to begin with" What device did God give that person to indicate that this person would falter?
Through my sanctification I have been able to appropriate God's truth on this matter, so I say that I can have assurance that I am of the elect.
That's only useful for the PRESENT - we don't know what may happen down the road, AND is based on our OWN ideas of salvation. We disagree on some matters of salvation. If you are wrong, your assurance is just delusional, correct? When IF Christ meant that a person must eat His flesh to be saved for eternal life? Have you received the Eucharist as HE implemented it at the Last Supper and practiced by Christians for 2000 years? The point of this is that your assurances are based on presumptions. Presumptions that you will remain faithful until the end, that you will persevere, AND presumptions that your interpretations of Scripture are entirely in line with God's intent.
This is no longer absolute assurance.
I am certain that we will all face a judgment based on our walk in faith. Interestingly, my Pastor preached on this point yesterday. That makes two weeks in a row that his sermon has been directly on point in this thread. Maybe he's lurking. :) Anyway, no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love. God gives the elect love, which we use to love Him back. He loved us first.
So then we are not saved by faith alone, correct? Furthermore, if we are judged on our walk, what happens if our walk was insufficient, for example, as Jesus describes on several occasions in Matthew 25 with three parables? Are those who are judged unworthy entering heaven?
Regards
It is interesting that the Catholics and Orthodox make such a deep comparison of Eve and Mary. Never in the Bible is this comparison made. On the contrary, Paul compares Adam and Christ-not Eve and Mary.
"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5
God killed people all the time in scripture. He flooded the world, rained fire on Sodom, drowned the Egyptian army, ordered Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of the Promise Land, and on and on and on. This is God's wrath on us miserable creatures who cannot even remotely understand God's glory unless, through His grace, He takes and sets us in the right direction.
The early church fathers sought to harmonize the scriptures, not ignore them. The question becomes how much are you dedicated to understanding God's word as the INSPIRED word of God and being true to understanding God as He has revealed Himself to us?
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." Prov 16:33
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword... he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life on My account will find it." Matthew 10:34, 38,39
This sounds very much like The Father to me. Different instructions or circumstances, to be sure, but His words have come to pass and then some.
Harley and Dr. E, it's rather easy for me to accept that all comes from God, that he is the Creator of everything and anything under the sun, both what I understand (which is infinitesimally small) and what I don't understand (which comprises nearly everything). I don't see how it could be any other way.
As regards free will, my sense of things is that I do possess it, but my free will directed freely by myself has led me to sin, and to sin exceedingly.
And, that any impulse that I have to please the Lord while seeming to come from my will, seems only to be possible because it is infused by the Counsel of the Holy Spirit. I'm looking to the Lord for approbation of thought, word and deed. And that looking to the Lord is only because it was according to His Gracious and Perfect Will that he called me to Him, and when he called me to Him, I was filthy. My own will is pure bondage, and the liberation of it is strictly the Plan of God and the Work of the Holy Spirit.
Adam and Eve, even while in perfect communion with God were not able to resist sinning. They threw Paradise away over nothing. They thought they could be like God. There is no greater conceit than that.
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." Prov 16:33
I can interpret that to mean that God is involved in every decision. IF every decision rests entirely with the Lord, explain my tagline. YOU CHOOSE...
Regards
The Marriage Tribunal makes that decision, not the spouse. Annulments are investigations that search for such impediments. Not having full knowledge of the Catholic teachings on marriage is insufficient by itself. The act of the spouse is what is examined.
if annulments are not Catholic divorces, and are granted only in those cases where no marriage ever took place because of it being illicit or invalid in some respect or another, then Catholic annulment rates should approach non-Catholic annulment rates rather than non-Catholic divorce rates (as is actually the case.)
I already explained the reasons why there are more Catholic annulments in the last 50 years. Go back and read my previous post.
Part of the difference between Orthodox and Catholic approaches probably comes from our differing view of what happens at our respective marriage services. Catholic/Western marriage ceremonies center around an exchanging of vows, and have the characteristic of a contractual agreement. This is in keeping with generally legalistic Catholic views of Christianity.
That's a stereotype that is clearly not the case. The marriage sacrament is a COVENANT agreement, not a contract. It is thinking like yours that turns people so readily to separation. A covenant is binding, even when the other party falters.
Christ insisted on the original intention of the Father who willed that Marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accomodations that slipped into the Old Law. You concept merely adds them back in. This is not the intent of the New Law. Can old wine be poured into new skins???
The service then begins, and in neither the betrothal nor the wedding service are there anything resembling vows.
So is making a vow a bad thing in the thinking of Orthodoxy? Is binding oneself to another a sin?
Therefore, it wouldn't occur to us for the most part that any Orthodox wedding would be invalid. This would be tantamount to saying that the bread and wine at the Divine Liturgy didn't become the Body and Blood of Christ for a particular communicant because he didn't have any clue about what he was receiving.
You are now talking oranges and apples. Sacraments are visible signs of invisible graces. But in the Eucharist, Christ is ACTUALLY present, whether the communicant realizes it or not. In the other sacraments, the fruit of the grace bestowed on the recipient is dependent on the recipient. If one enters into Marriage without intending it to be indissoluble, then grace will not be efficacious.
Do you tell the couple and the priest that they aren't ready for a Catholic marriage, and if they want to get married, that they need to do so outside of the Church? And what exactly would that do for their souls? Would you argue that the many Catholics over the years who left the Catholic church and became Protestants so that they could remarry are spiritually better off from your perspective than had they been able to go through the penitential process of an ecclesiastical divorce prior to being allowed to remarry (in a more subdued ceremony) in the Catholic church?
We tell people what is expected of them as a result of the sacrament of Marriage. It is indissoluble. We suggest they NOT get married if they do not feel they would stay together through better or worse. But it takes some very obstinate thinking on the part of the couple for the priest to refuse the sacrament. Are many former Catholics who left the Church better off spiritually? I don't know. I can't determine another's soul in relationship to God. Maybe that person feels better or is at peace, but then, people who are wicked also feel good about what they do, as well. Feelings doesn't constitute our relationship with God.
But to deal with this problem through the use of the technique of annulment -- saying that a couple who had a Christian wedding, who have lived together and been physically joined together for years, and often borne children together -- that this man and woman were never actually married (sorry, you bastard children), boggles the mind when one realizes that this is supposedly New Testament Christianity in action.
Annulments are not automatically granted. In the above case, I would doubt that the Church would grant an annulment so readily. By the way, the children are not considered bastard children in such cases. The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided by Canon Law (CIC 1151-1155). If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. (CCC #2383).
The point, though, is that the SEPARATION is allowed - but one cannot re-enter into marriage with another person. This clearly is adultery, as defined by Jesus Christ. So while spouses may separate, one is not free to remarry or take up with another person.
For this is surely at the root of the ubiquitous easy annulments that take place throughout Catholicism. Most people are going to remarry, and the question is whether they are going to leave the Catholic church or not in order to be able to do so.
The Church is called to teach the Truth. Sometimes, the Truth hurts, doesn't it?
"Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ". Gal 1:10
The Church is called to be pastoral towards such concerns, but we don't turn a blind eye to the truth because "it might hurt someone's feelings" or "they might leave the Church otherwise" if they didn't get their way.
If a person feels the call to willingly disobey Christ so that that person can marry another in an adulterous relationship, what can I say? Change the Church's rules? So if someone came along and said "we are saved by faith alone", is the Church supposed to change its beliefs to accomodate that person so they won't leave the Church?
Regards
This is a great truth. There are only two wills in the Bible. God's will is perfect, just and holy. What is man's will? It doesn't leave much to the imagination.
"The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light....But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." Rom 13:12-14
We can either put on Christ and be in His will or be subject to our "deeds of darkness".
I only have time to respond to a couple of points. I did read your explanation for why there are so many annulments in the Catholic Church today. Here it is:
"The truth of the matter is that society has made divorce too easy. Couples don't truly try to work things out. Why should they? Everyone tells them about no-fault divorce. People are more interested in “getting out while the getting is good...” As a result, it is not surprising that the Church grants more annulments than it once did. There is NOT the full and free commitment to the indissolubility of the covenant as there once was."
So basically, you are saying that because of the effects of society, lots of Catholics are being married in the Catholic Church without a "full and free commitment to the indissolubility of the covenant", and "they don't try to work things out." Therefore, there will as a matter of course be a lot more annulments than in the past.
Yet later, you tell me that in the case of a married couple with children that the Church won't "readily" grant an annulment. You go on to say that separation is permitted under canon law, but not remarriage.
But remarriage is, in practice, the ultimate point to annulments, isn't it? Without it, a Catholic cannot get remarried and still be a communicating member of the Catholic Church. How often, really, are annulments sought in cases where neither member of the couple is wanting to remarry?
I'm not casting stones in a glass house, because in practice, that is when Orthodox ecclesiastical divorces are granted. The purpose to the process is to see if the original marriage is salvagable (which it basically isn't, at this point), to see about the spiritual welfare of the children of the previous marriage, and to give an opportunity for the Church to interject a strong sense of seriousness about the proposed remarriage -- that it is a falling short of the ideal and requires repentance, and that the reason the first marriage fell apart was because there was something spiritually wrong in the first situation that needs to be addressed.
Almost by definition, a couple that is getting divorced does not involve people who are deeply involved in the life of Christ through the Church. Broken marriages involve broken people. The question is how should the Church approach broken people? Christ's actions should make that clear. He always forgave sins, restored them to fellowship, and told them to "go and sin no more." This no more means that Christ was approving of those sins than does the fact that the Orthodox Church allows up to two remarriages mean that we approve of divorce, and it is basically what the Orthodox Church does in the process of granting an ecclesiastical divorce.
Believe me, we in the Orthodox Church take very seriously the ideal of the one-time marriage. In fact, remarriage after the death of a spouse is discouraged, and in the case of clergy, forbidden (to make clear what the ideal is.)
It's our decision but God already knows our decision. He made us so we will act just as He predicts we will act. He is not surprise. For example Adam was given the task of naming the animals. Adam could name them anything he wanted and God would not interfer. God knew Adam would "chose" the correct name and what that name would be; simply because God gave Adam his knowledge and fashioned his understanding.
As far as you tagline, I believe I've already address that. Deut 30:19, "Choose life..." is the outward calling of God. Read Deut 31:16,
God commands, but then He must give what He commands. God commands us to have faith in Him. Yet He is the one who gives us our faith. Instead of reaching inside ourselves for something that just isn't there, we should be praying to God to give us the thing that He has commanded.
What does Scripture say?
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" -- Philippians 3:9"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Go ahead and trust in your own righteousness. I prefer to trust in His.
Hmm. How else can I explain this? You still place God within time. Perhaps this might help. Look at the Nicean Creed: "{Jesus} is eternally begotten from the Father". If we look at things from your point of view, HOW can we say Jesus IS being begotten??? That is because you are failing to see that God sees time as one now, one event. The Creation and the end of time are seen in one glance. Eternally begotten doesn't mean He was begotten during a particular time, but it ETERNALLY BEING begotten. There is no time for God, so there is no question about the "chicken or the egg"!
God sees our creation, birth, response to His Spirit, our death, and union with Him in heaven (if of the elect) as one event. How can God NOT see our response "before" we choose? It's all one event.
I never said man chooses God first. To us, He takes the initiative. But it is perfectly feasible to see that He would "see" our response as part of His initiative. There is not a time that is not accessible to God all at once. God doesn't think about us, then create us, then watch us being born, then ensure that we receive the graces proper to the elect in His point of view. That is from our vantage point, since we are in time. To God, all of the above is done simultaneously, since there He is beyond Time.
Obviously, it is no where in the Bible.
That God is not bound by creation? Do I need to prove that?
According to your beliefs, God gave everyone reasonably enough information, of course tailored to the individual's capacities, etc., to make a decision between spending eternity, in God's presence, in perfect Heaven with all love abounding infinitely all around us, OR burning for all eternity in a fiery pit, with wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal pain and torment? Part of me wants to agree with you that this is a very difficult choice, seeing as how God gave everyone enough information. :)
God doesn't give everyone that sort of information. God gives EVEN THE GENTILES (Romans 2) a Natural Law, a law written on EVERYONE'S heart that tells them what is right and what is wrong. Everyone "knows" the Golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do to you". Everyone "knows" that stealing is wrong, because if someone steals from THEM, they get upset...Why get upset if someone doesn't perceive something wrong being done to them? A person can decide to follow this Golden Rule, to do for others what are written out in the Decalogue. When a person abides in Christ by the man's love, He is a son of God, in an unknown and mysterious manner. We cannot love without Christ. By loving others for their own sake, we KNOW Christ abides in that person. Thus, a person doesn't have to know about heaven or hell. A person is to choose between doing good to others or being selfish and concerned only about themselves. It is clear that EVERYONE can make these decisions - with God's guidance and help, they will choose the good.
I would assume you would say that this is them choosing against God, whereas I would say it is God not granting grace
God rains down His grace upon all, the good and the evil. God spreads His "seed" upon ALL ground. God even DIED for ALL men, not just the elect...Scripture clearly notes you are incorrect. God gives everyone sufficient grace, since He desires ALL men to be saved.
Could God put love into these hearts if He wanted to?
"PUT" love into one's heart? Is that love? A person can be disposed of to serve others, to be more open to God's graces and blessings, but in the end, love is not love if one does not choose.
God is good on His promises. I would need to know more on how you define "falling away". Surely it happens that saved Christians go through dark times and neglect their faiths, but God always pulls His elect through. Every single time. You say that your unassurance is why you have "hope". But, as I said long, long, ago, "hope" means much more than "wish for".
God didn't promise you personally that you were of the elect. You can judge that you are based on your love, your faith in God, your response to God. But this tells us little of our response in 2010. We HOPE we will remain in Christ. But those who do not abide in Christ will not be saved.
You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. His word will show whether Johnny's prayer was any good or not. Since I can only speak for myself, I am confident in my assurance, and that my prayer "took". :)
God's word? You hear voices? What are you talking about? As to your confidence that your prayers took, how confident were you immediately following the first time you did it - then fell away, a proposition that could have lasted until your death? Yes, we can have confidence that we are in the Lord, but that doesn't assure that we are of the elect. It only helps us trust in the Lord today.
Wow! You're strict. What would you accept as evidence or proof? How many God points do I need? :)
There is NOTHING you can do that will prove you are of the elect 5 years from now. What sort of question is that? All we can do is look at our current stance with the Lord and our past - trusting in God's mercy that if we were to die today, He would have brought us into heaven.
You surprise me when you say that God's promises are only for those who follow Him, but do not make a mistake (presumably any time) later. What is the use of confession, if God's promises are of no value to any person who sins after being baptized?
That is from God's eternal point of view. Only His sheep will follow Him. But that doesn't mean every minute of the day. Confession is for those who desire to rectify their relationship with God and others. God doesn't make promises to those who turn away from Him without repentance.
According to you, therefore, God's promises are not to us. That's OK. I will give you that you are consistent.
I have never judged you this way. I am only saying that you are being presumptuous on your status with the Lord 5 years from now, or the day of your death. God's promises are not for those who turn away and don't repent. It has nothing to do with being Protestant or being Catholic.
When it comes to the elect, there is no "still". One is either a member from before time began and for all time, or one is not, and never will be. God is the only judge of what "falling away" means, how long and how much. That's another reason why we are so careful not to speculate on the salvation of others.
Looking from God's perspective, again... You just don't have that information about your future - God knows whether you are of the elect, but you don't know. Haven't you admitted that reciting the Sinner's Prayer does not make you of the Elect? Thus, you are saying that your good deeds are the basis for your understanding of your being of the elect. But how do you know you will continue in your good deeds - and thus, your foundation for determining your salvation in heaven is taken away? I know of people who were Christian for many years, and fell away from Christ. Who would have thought - 20 years of good deeds - now they are agnostic... but you know you won't be that way...
Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place."
Please. That is not logical. Nothing there about permanent safety is suggested by your quote. After King David expanded Israel's territory, providing peace and safety to all Jews during his rule, did that prevent the Assyrians and Babylonians from conquering ALL of Israel??? A safe place today can be VERY unsafe tommorrow...
You have to invent the idea of being saved over and over again. (Not you personally, of course :) You also must throw into the trash the normal meaning of the word "saved", past tense. What do you think Jesus meant when He said "It is finished"? Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?
I am merely reading Scripture. "Being saved" refers to past, present, and future utilizations. Paul uses all three tenses. If you like, I will post them. When Jesus healed someone, did that mean they never got sick again??? When Jesus said "it was finished", it means His life was finished. He died. The suffering was over. He had completed His Father's will. That doesn't mean HIS WORK was done! Christ's work continues to this day! He continues to bring people into the Kingdom of God! For example, I recall that Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD! Why would He do that if "His work was finished"? Why His continued teachings? Why breathe upon the Disciples, giving them the power to forgive sins? Why the Great Commission?
I just wanted to point out that you are quoting Moses (Dt 30:19), even though it sounds like the quote might be from God. And, no, I'm not accusing you of anything. :) My point is only that the POV is human and not divine.
Sorry, Moses is giving God's revelation - or do you doubt that Scripture is God's Word?
"These [are] the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." Dt 29:1.
Moses continues for several chapters revealing what God's commands were...What can I say?
Sure, the point of view is human. From our point of view, we CHOOSE God or not. From our point of view, we have free will to make this decision. God allows us to choose - since love demands it.
Regards
No it is not. The "because" part needs elaboration. Eve was told by the Serpent that she will not die eating the fruit and in fact be like God. That was a lie. What is the next thing Eve does? She tests the lie by examining the fruit. At this point, and based on her own senses, she forms her own free-will decision. Eve was not made eat the fruit by the Serpent, as is demonstrated by verses 3 6 in Genesis 3.
Symmetrically, when Mary is told that she will have the Messiah born of her, she tests the news by questioning the angel for consistency of his prediction. After the angel explains, apparently based on her own knowledge and intellect, she agrees to do as God wills under her own free will. The angel did not make her consort with the Holy Ghost as is demonstrated by verses 34 and 38 in Luke 1.
I believe I commented on Mary and Eve earlier in this thread, sorry if it sounds repetitive.
Indeed St. Paul saw Christ as second Adam. The insight that Mary was second Eve belongs to Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 100), written early in the 2 century. This is a natural extension of Adam-Christ symmetry.
He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. 14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world.(Phillipians 2)
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.