Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Isn't the New Covenant open to ALL men? Didn't Christ die for the remission of the sin of the WORLD? Paul in Romans wrote that EVERYONE had God's "Law" written on their hearts. They had NO EXCUSE for not following God. I see the Catholic position as the natural development of Christ and Paul's teachings. Your view appears to be rather exclusive, similar more to the ancient Jews than to Christianity and the concept of catholicity (universal).
I believe I can rest assured in my salvation but I can't know about others based upon what scripture tells me.
Listen, Harley. I feel that today, if I were to die, I would not go to hell - I feel that Christ abides in me. Proof of that is that I obey the commandment, I love others. Not perfectly, certainly. But 1 John is a wonderful testimony on how we can know we are abiding in Christ. And it is by our love. So yes, I, as a Catholic, can say I have moral assurance that I am "saved". I don't know absolutely, but based on God's promises in Scripture, I feel pretty sure.
My concern, brother, is PRESUMING that I am of the elect and that I CANNOT FALL. This is totally against Scripture. We must continue to walk in Christ. Just because I walk in Christ today doesn't guarantee I will continue next year in Christ. All of us go through crisis of faith, bouts of doubt, temptations, etc. Paul warns against presumption. He HIMSELF says he continues his work so as not to be disqualified! Thus, I disagree with you here. That Harley can know he is of the elect - so that even in 20 years, you KNOW you are saved. There is nothing in Scripture that guarantees that. We base our judgments of walking in the Lord based on today or the past, not the future.
You've told me that even though you must come to God you really don't know if you have God's grace. Therefore you must work for God to secure your salvation.
I didn't say I couldn't know I have God's Graces! 1 John, again, clearly states that if I am obeying the commandments, if I am loving, then Christ is abiding within me. The Church teaches that we receive graces as a result of the Sacraments - even if my disposition is imperfect - I still receive grace. I receive grace when I read Scriptures or pray. Of course I can know I am receiving grace. The question is whether all of this has ANYTHING to do with the distant future.
I know people who appeared very strong in their faith. They denied the possibility of falling. They went off to mission in Africa. They saw so much hunger and death, it shook them. They fell away - "how could God allow such suffering to children?" The point - you do NOT know what your future holds. Thus, it is a sin of presumption to make the claim that YOU are of the elect. We cannot see into the future. We must then continue in our walk with Christ. This is not "work". We are not earning anything. But God expects us to walk in faith throughout our lives.
Regards
you replied : All this time, you've been a crypto-Calvinist!?!?!?!?!
LOL!!! perish the thought! Catholics do believe in predestination of the elect - that God will inevitably steer His chosen back to Him. However, we do believe that the elect freely have chosen God, as well. We don't believe in fate or that God is a puppet master of men. Also, we do not believe that God actively predestines the reprobate - which says that God creates men so that He can send them to hell, regardless of their actions.
Regards
Yes, I would agree. The OT point to things that were to come.
Paul says NO ONE has an excuse. God has written His Law on the hearts of ALL men, even the Gentiles - but yet, many go off and do their own thing, rather than God's will. If someone is not saved, it is their own fault, as Paul wrote in Romans 1-2.
So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have?
In Galatians, Paul wrote that even if an angel of light were to teach another Gospel, let him be anathema. Luther would have to have some pretty solid evidence that he was more than an angel of light, because his gospel was not Paul's, nor was it Christ's. Luther's Gospel is a poor interpretation of Scripture based on a misinterpretation of Romans 3:28, where he ASSUMED that Paul meant "we are saved by faith ALONE". The language does not force one to make that assumption! Paul merely wrote we are saved by faith, not by works of the law. But elsewhere, Paul makes it quite clear that we are saved by faith AND works of LOVE! Thus, faith ALONE is a contradiction to Paul's writings. This is why the Church cast Luther out and you should as well. It is not the Gospel.
We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself.
You declare it? Under whose authority? Where did Christ give someone other than the Apostles such authority? It sounds like you are taking upon yourself authority that you don't have. Jesus gave the APOSTLES the power to bind and loosen, not the entire community.
I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel.
Luther was a very proud man. He often claimed to be a messenger from God. He ranted and raved about the book of James - saying that upon HIS authority, it should be cast into the river and removed from Scripture. Upon HIS authority!!! He DEMANDED that the Scripture be changed to include the word "ALONE" into Romans 3:28. "If anyone asks why I added this word into Scripture, tell them Doctor Luther will have it as such"....If that is not the devil talking, I don't know what is. Follow whom you will.
If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?
The Pope has ultimate visible authority, but the Apostle's successors, the bishops, are infallible when they come together and teach the faith. The Spirit speaks through the consensus, the sense of the faithful. But it is the successors of the Apostles who "read" this sense/consensus. Only they have been given the power to bind and loosen. Generally, they do not make infallible decisions unless their is a heretical teaching that is playing havoc among the sheep, such as Luther or Arius. Then, the Church is compelled to restate or clarify what the Church ALREADY believes and has taught by consensus.
I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us.
Spiritually, He is closer to us than ourselves. But visibly, we don't see or hear Him - at least publically. Some claim that God comes to them in visions and so forth. Perhaps He does. But we are not bound to such revelations. The Church remains Christ's visible presence on the earth - His healing and teaching ministry. His authoritative ministry. If there was no authoritative body, I don't see how we'd really KNOW what God teaches. You do realize that if 5 Baptists read the same chapter of Scripture, they'd get 7 interpretations among them, don't you? :)
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)
So you and the visible and Glorious Christ talk as you and I talk with each other? You sit down and eat with Him, He chews His food? The two of you go bowling? I am beginning to think you are pulling my leg here...
I said : The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.
You said :Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)
Sigh...Language is quite flexible. Words have different meanings. Sentences can be taken to mean many things. Here is an example:
I didn't say you stole the car.
What do I mean? That can be interpreted in several ways...
"I" didn't say it, Fred said it
I didn't "say" it, I wrote it
I didn't say you stole a "car", I said you stole a bicycle
I didn't say you "stole" a car, I said you borrowed it
Such a simple sentence, and you don't have a clue what I meant when I wrote it. And you are going to tell me that the Bible has only one meaning? That is pretty naive, frankly. ALL heresy comes from misinterpretating Scripture away from the writer's intent. Without a point of reference, a living authority, you'll never know what the writer meant, even on such "obvious" statements as "Jesus is the Son of God"
Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)
I already told you many posts ago - that Paul is telling the proud Jews that THEY are not immune from falling away from God. He then give a litany of Psalms written by David directed at WICKED JEWS! Being a Jew doesn't make one holy and righteous. Consider reading the very end of Chapter 2 to get an idea of what Paul is going to discuss in Chapter 3. Context, brother. He continues this line of thought at the end of Chapter 3 (not saved by works of the law) and Chapter 4 (circumcision doesn't save - as Abraham was righteous BEFORE the ritual). Paul is attacking the Jewish idea of salvation, not making some universal statement that all men are wicked (which would apparently include Christ, as Paul never makes that exception anywhere in Romans). This is called reading one's own preconceived theology into Scripture and twisting it to mean something else.
Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets.
You are missing the point. They interpret the Greek using different English words than the author intended - and this is proven by the Church Fathers and their interpretations of Scripture, esp. John 1. The point is that people can come to different conclusions ON THEIR OWN by reading the Bible, some that are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Were you aware that Luther did not rule out polygamy from daily Christian practice? He claimed that the Scripture did not prevent its practice! That's freaky stuff...
Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is?
Because on the surface, it often appears to contradict itself. It is written by men of different ages, some who appear to give different messages. Peter himself wrote that we should beware when reading Paul, since many people have done damage to their faith by twisting it to their own detriment (oh, yes.)
We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.
Sounds like lip service to the party line. If it was written clearly in plain language, there would be no disagreements on key issues. But there is NUMEROUS issues where we disagree over. You are avoiding the reality on the ground.
You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages.
As have you. I have given you at least a dozen Scripture verses that show that men can fall away AFTER being 'saved'. Your refusal to deal with this AND the reality that people fall away today tells us that Salvation to Eternal Life cannot be absolutely guaranteed from our point of view. If that doesn't appear obvious from your own experiences, than I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Regards
You wrote : LOL! I'm laughing because I am very confident that we both deeply and honestly believe this is the absolute truth, and yet look at us ... :)
When one says "revealed", that means it was told to us, given to us. It doesn't come FROM us! The teachings have been passed down to us - we don't make them up by reading a book and figuring out for ourselves what Romans 3 means. That is the difference between our two views. You think "revealed" means that your opinions and feelings are from God. I think that "revealed" means that God gave some men in time a message that was given to succeeding generations.
Regards
Where is that in the Scripture?
I'm sure many places, in addition to Harley's Prov. 20:24, here is another one:
Eph. 1:11 : In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ... (emphasis added)
"Everything" would include the fall of Adam. Here is an excerpt from an article called "Did God's Decree Bring About the Fall?" on the Monergism website that speaks to this:
"God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin [coercively] he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11)."
"As for how it could be that God decreed the fall. Obviously it is ultimately for His glory. In it He showed to the angels and all creation His manifest wisdom, justice and mercy and all of His perfections. He does not operate people like puppets. Adam freely chose to rebel ... God did not coerce him... and now fallen men freely choose to reject Christ, apart from grace. You ask, how could God ordain evil? Well, let me give you a clear biblical example which shows that he does, so you don't think I am just blowing smoke."
"Consider that Christ's crucifixion was a certainty which God [planned] in eternity and prophesied would come to pass in the Old Testament. But also consider that men would freely choose to crucify the Son of God. See Acts 2:23 which brings the two together -- "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." This concurrent series of events taking place simultaneously is called compatibilism, which is how the Scriptures really answer this question."
"So God foreordained the most evil event in history, the crucifixion, yet He lays blame for it completely on the choice of godless men, according to this passage. You must embrace the teaching in the Scriptures that God ordained an innocent man's death at the hands of sinners, yet they freely did so because they wanted to. You may not understand how God works in such a way without coercion, but you must submit to the fact the the Holy Scripture, through and through, teaches this quite matter-of-factly. Why does God do this? Well, for one, after the crucifixion event we now begin to understand that Christ did this for the good of His people, though we may not have seen it at the time. Prior to His execution, the disciples were told by Jesus, "you do not now understand what I am doing" and even Peter tried to dissuade Him. However, God used evil for good and did so blamelessly."
"There is a similar idea in Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
People do fall away. John writes they were never believers to begin with. They might seem like the greatest Christian ever but let a trial come their way and they denounce everything. Some have no roots.
Others, true believers like Peter, fall but then shuffle back. It may be the next day, the next month, or ten years. Who knows but I wouldn't make the assumption they have lost their faith. You can't see all ends.
I don't know what the future holds. Our faith is not centered around trying to make sense of a corrupt and dying world along with all the injustices that takes place. Our faith should be centered around understanding that God is just and wise and is going to rectify this entire situation justly. If not on earth then certainly in the our next life.
Every single year, without fail, and many more, Lord Willing, when the first snowfall occurs I'm beside myself with love for the Majesty that IS and issues from our Triune God.
I am not comfortable with "on her own". ...
I thought that was your view. I have learned much from you, my brother. :)
However, the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception relies strictly on God's initiative - Mary was saved the loss of sanctifying grace at her birth. We believe that this gift and His continuing graces allowed Mary to remain sinless through out her life (which the Orthodox also believe). I believe our [Catholic/Orthodox] point of disagreement is not over whether Mary sinned or not, but how Mary was able to remain sinless. We believe God gave her a singular grace, along with Mary's own pure will (purified by God), while I believe the Orthodox think that Mary was sinless as a result of her raised theosis/divinization.
Yes, what I think I have learned from my Orthodox brothers is that Mary was born in the normal sense and did not sin because she did not have the capacity to sin as a small child. Then, at a tender age, perhaps three, she was given a special grace and there was "The Entrance". She entered the Church for the rest of her upbringing, and through this grace was thereby sinless from the age of reason forward.
[FK to Kosta:] "So, then to be absolutely clear, under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us."
The singer "Sting" said it best "If you love someone, set them free". What sort of freedom and eternal happiness is God giving a person by FORCING them to be in heaven?
Would the cookie mother love her daughter so much that she would set her daughter free to go play in traffic? That's what you are advocating. :) And, again, I disagree with the idea of God "forcing" people into heaven because the obvious connotation is that it is against their will. The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.
[continuing ...] I am detecting a fundamental difference between what you believe happens in heaven and what the Scriptures state. Heaven is not just an earthly paradise (like the Muslims think).
Heaven is total spiritual union with God. How is that going to happen if a person has totally separated themselves from God's love on this earth? God is granting what that person desires - an eternal life without Him AND showing His justice to us, as well.
And, ... just what part of the second paragraph do I disagree with (because I don't know :)? In what do you detect a disconnect?
I didn't ask "did Christ's blood cover only those who accept Him". I asked "Did Christ die for the remission of the sin of the entire world"?
The Church/church has always held this view until recently. It is a warp perspective on theology and the history of the Church/church to include everyone
Warped? Christ taught that EVERYONE was our neighbor and that the Gospel was to go to all men - to help ALL men KNOW more about God. The "law" that is placed on ALL men's heart is not as good as the Gospel preached to men. Original sin has distorted our own conscience of what is right and wrong. However, the very fact that God printed a law on ALL men speaks volumes to this subject that God doesn't desire all men to be saved.
Do you believe that our Lord Jesus is powerful enough that He can keep you and will help to see you home? If He wants to save you do you think He will keep you?
Of course. And He will do just that for the elect. I am pretty sure I am of the elect, if I was to die while typing this letter. But 10 years from now? That is our difference. I don't know I am of the elect, so I can only judge my own actions to gauge whether I am or not TODAY. I abide in Christ if I keep the Commandments. How do I know I will next year? I don't. IF I had access to the Book of the Elect, and saw my name there, well then certainly, I would then KNOW. But I don't have that level of security. Don't you remember those verses I gave you from Ezekiel that stated that a righteous person who did wicked deeds would no longer be considered righteous and would "die"?
Paul was talking about his works and reputation.
I disagree. He didn't care about his reputation - he called himself the worse of sinners.
How many ministers and priests have "ship wreak" their ministries by doing something foolish?
What does Jesus say about those who lead "these little ones" to sin? I recall something about being cast into the ocean with a millstone around their necks! I think it is safe to presume that pastors have quite a responsibility to their flock - failure to live up to it has some heavy consequences that go beyond "losing their ministry"!
Undoubtedly they've lost rewards.
The reward of eternal life.
People do fall away. John writes they were never believers to begin with. They might seem like the greatest Christian ever but let a trial come their way and they denounce everything. Some have no roots.
I am not so sure that is what John meant by saying that. That makes YOU the determinant of your salvation. If you only have "x" amount of faith, then all is well. If you have it today, but next year, you don't, well, then you added up your faith quotient wrong. I don't think so. If a person was obeying the Commandments in love, then Christ was abiding in that person. NO falling away in the future can change that!
I don't know what the future holds. Our faith is not centered around trying to make sense of a corrupt and dying world along with all the injustices that takes place. Our faith should be centered around understanding that God is just and wise and is going to rectify this entire situation justly. If not on earth then certainly in the our next life.
Well said.
Regards
Aw, shucks... Well, I appreciate your openness to listening to a point of view that you do not always disagree with. Most people would have gave up on me by now.
She entered the Church for the rest of her upbringing, and through this grace was thereby sinless from the age of reason forward.
That Mary was sinless, the entire Apostolic Church agrees on. HOW this happened, my Orthodox brothers are not sure - because they have not subscribed to Counciliar decisions after the Seventh one. I pray that some day that will change.
Would the cookie mother love her daughter so much that she would set her daughter free to go play in traffic? That's what you are advocating. :) And, again, I disagree with the idea of God "forcing" people into heaven because the obvious connotation is that it is against their will. The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.
Your response regarding the cookie analogy on "allowing the daughter to play in the street" is another answer that I am using to judge how our ideas of heaven are different (as I will respond below). As all analogies, the cookie analogy is not complete to describe the relationship between us and God. In the physical world, a three year old daughter does not know that it is dangerous to her health that playing in the street. Thus, the mother protects the child by forbidding the action.
With God, though, WE CANNOT claim that lack of knowledge! We DO know. Let me post this from Paul and I will comment:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions" Romans 1:18-26a
THIS is how God's wrath is manifest. He let's man have what they desire. If man imperfectly desires Goodness, God will grace Him and lead Him to Truth. If man refuses the writing of the Law on their hearts...
"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" Romans 2:14-15
...then they will be left to their vile passions. In other words, yes, the mother will let her daughter play in traffic - because the DAUGHTER knows it is against her mother's will, is against the Law of her conscience, and yet desires to do it anyway. She is still a daughter, but the daughter has disowned her mother by this action. Recall the Prodigal Son...
The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.
I think I should write a "macro" that states "we don't know we are of the elect", so I don't have to type it every letter I respond to you! Of course the elect will not refuse. But you don't know you are of the elect - since your Sinner's Prayer might not have taken. In ten years, you might fall away and then every Protestant will say you never had faith to begin with!
I wrote : Heaven is total spiritual union with God. How is that going to happen if a person has totally separated themselves from God's love on this earth? God is granting what that person desires - an eternal life without Him AND showing His justice to us, as well. And you responded : And, ... just what part of the second paragraph do I disagree with (because I don't know :)? In what do you detect a disconnect?
Oh, sorry for not clarifying. Going to heaven is not just a big party in where we show up and have a good ol' time. Heaven is a total union with God. Our will ENTIRELY MATCHES God's will. That is not possible if our free will chooses to turn away from God in a permanent fashion while on earth. WE are responsible for our decisions. Certainly, some decisions are not made with ALL information available. Thus, God will grant the invincibly ignorant :)some leeway when making His judgment on one's deeds. Thus, a person who has claimed "being saved" but turns from God CANNOT unite with this HOLY and DIVINE Nature for eternity.
Regards
Yes, man can have either or both dependent and independent free will, depending on the circumstances. (This is just my way of putting it. :) Someone who is "saved", by my definition, does have dependent free will to do good in God's eyes. This person also has independent free will to sin, because God is not the author of sin. In contrast, a "lost" person has no free will at all to do good in God's eyes. He also has the independent free will to sin, but it is because all he has to work with is his original sin nature, so it is a fait accompli that he will sin.
Show me any post where I have said or implied that God irresistibly causes us to do everything, and I will eat my hat! :) I have said that God is in control of everything, but that is a very different concept. We are responsible for our sin, and you are most definitely called to obey the Commandments. I'll bet we'd even agree on the scriptures that say so! :)
I AM trying to understand you, but I am confused. Perhaps it is because we have different definitions of "being saved", and what IS "sanctification" for. Apparently, you believe that sanctification has nothing to do with our eternal destiny, that it only shows proof of our inevitable end.
OK, then I appreciate that you are trying. :) I will do the same.
I don't think I would use the words "sanctification has nothing to do with our eternal destiny". Barring some freak situation, a truly regenerated heart will be sanctified, necessarily. It's like a definitional thing, such a heart will want to grow in the Lord. Therefore, if a self-proclaimed saved person never experiences any sanctification, that would be an evidence that he was never saved. Regeneration is to birth as sanctification is to growth, and God's children will grow in Him.
The problem is that you seem to know you are going to heaven, regardless of what happens after your Sinner's Prayer. (despite our agreement that people fall away)
That has never been my argument since I was kindly showed Perseverence of the Saints, early on in this thread. That gets rid of the "regardless" issue, and proves that it both does matter what happens after what we call salvation, and that God will ensure that it does happen for His elect. Here is an article called Can a Christian lose his or her Salvation? which lays out the position:
"1. Classic Arminianism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
“The believer who loses his faith is damned.”
2. Antinomianism
• One need not persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers can lose their faith.
• Those who lose their faith are saved, since they once believed.
“The believer who loses his faith is saved.”
3. Classic Calvinism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.
• God will preserve true believers and they will be saved.
“The ‘believer’ who loses his faith never really had it—or at least it wasn’t in Jesus.”
Proponents of the first two approaches quote biblical references, but each must strain to explain away the other group's biblical data. How can an Arminian read Romans 8, then tell true believers that they may screw up and go to hell??? Then again, how can Charles Stanley read Hebrews 6 and 10 and tell unbelievers who once professed faith not to worry, that they will be saved??? Any true biblical teaching must “fit” with ALL the biblical data, without pitting one text against another and without having to explain away a single “jot or tittle” of God's inerrant Word. I believe that only the classical Calvinist model takes into account all of the biblical data.
Arminians are right when they say the Bible teaches that only those who persevere will be saved, and they’re right in accusing Antinomians of easy-believism and cheap grace. Antinomians (they wouldn’t use the term) are right in telling committed believers that they are secure in Christ and “once saved, always saved.” But both of these views are wrong is assuming that a true believer can lose his faith and fall away from Christ. Faith is “a gift of God—not by works, lest any man boast.” Paul was confident that, since Christ had begun a good work in believers, He would continue that work until completion (Phil. 1). John said that those who fell away were never really true Christians, since true believers don't leave the faith (1 John 2:19).
Scripture teaches that believers must persevere until the end, but also that believers will persevere until the end by God's grace. As the Westminster Assembly concluded, Christians might temporarily yield to Satan's temptations, even to excess, but like Peter when he denied Christ three times, God will still restore and preserve the faith of the Christian, a faith which God gave in the first place! Peter went on to be chief among the apostles! Two biblical principles must be held side-by-side:
1. You Must Persevere until the End: God's Requirement of His People
God does not merely command us to begin to believe for a time, and then fall away. He requires us to continue to believe until the end, living lives of repentance and covenant faithfulness. Granted, He does not ask for a perfect faith, but He does ask for a real faith, one that produces real, lasting change.
• Colossians 1:21-23
• 1 John 1:5-10; 3:3-6
• Hebrews 10:26-31
• Hebrews 12:1
2. You Will Persevere Until the End: God's Preservation of His People
We will persevere because God preserves us. God will keep us from falling—not one will be lost of all those who belong to the Son. True believers are not able to leave Christ, for Christ is at work within them.
• John 6:38-40
• John 10:28-29
• Romans 8:28-39
• Philippians 1:4-6
• Philippians 2:12-13
• 1 John 2:19
This first set of texts cannot be used to refute the second (Arminianism); nor can the second set of texts be used to refute the first (cheap grace). The point that makes the two compatible is the biblical teaching that faith (while commanded of everyone) is a gift from God to His elect. If faith is simply a human action of a free will, then it can be lost. But if saving faith is God's gift, then it cannot be lost. Can professing Christians fall away? Yes, and they will perish. Can true Christians fall away? No, for they are kept by the invincible power of God in Christ. The Bible teaches us that professing Christians who leave the faith were never truly believers (1 John 2:19; and notice the qualification even in Hebrews 10:39).
This is speculation on the scripture. It is not scripture. The only scripture you showed is "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will", which lacks the detail necessary to falsify or agree with the fine semantic distinctions between "coercing", "foreseeing" and "ordaining" made by the author of Monergism website.
BINGO! Great posts, Harley, both here and in 3269! The argument I have been getting on this is that God chooses us, AND, we choose God, AND, that since God is outside of time, these two things happen exactly simultaneously. How does that work? It's a mystery. I'm not mocking, because there really are mysteries when it comes to God. It's just that I am still struggling with this particular mystery. :) My view is that scripture fully supports that in real time, from either God's or our POV, that He chose us first, and only that led to us ever choosing Him.
Sigh...How can there be a "first" or "before" WITHIN a moment of time that is unchanging??? From God's point of view, all time is NOW. Thus, the first moment and last one are rolled into one moment to Him. How can God NOT see our response to our actions?
God's ways are not our ways. Isn't that clear this also refers to Time?
Regards
I have not the slightest doubt in either case. :) Thank you so much, Dr. E., for those wonderful passages. I truly feel that this whole experience has been such an incredible blessing.
I'll spare you lunch, but you have countless times told me you are of the elect - THUS - you are irresistibly caused to do His Will. We both agree that the elect MUST do God's Will inevitably.
Barring some freak situation, a truly regenerated heart will be sanctified, necessarily.
yes, and how do you know if your heart is truly "regenerated" so that it will not fail to be elected? You have already told me that if you subsequently fell away, your knowledge of your "regeneration" must have been false!
Therefore, if a self-proclaimed saved person never experiences any sanctification, that would be an evidence that he was never saved.
That is why Catholics place the "salvation" event at the end, then we don't have to worry about such subterfuge and second-guessing and double talk. When Paul says we are saved as a result of our Baptism, he is speaking of our first step to eternal life - NOT that we have automatically received it. He is clear that we can fall away from this Baptismal saving.
Answer me this... If a Protestant of your brand does good deeds, is walking the walk, etc. and makes the claim to be of the elect - but then falls away, what happened to all of those good deeds? Who did them? HOW DID THIS PERSON DO GOOD? BY HIMSELF OR BY CHRIST? The problem with your view is that you discount all of the good that a man did - saying that Christ NEVER was within Him to begin with! But it is clear from Scripture that we can do nothing good WITHOUT GOD! So how did that fallen away person do good if He never had Christ to begin with? Oi. If you can answer that, you are on your way to explaining this "now you see it, now you don't" theology.
I wrote : The problem is that you seem to know you are going to heaven, regardless of what happens after your Sinner's Prayer. (despite our agreement that people fall away)
You wrote :That has never been my argument...
AHHH! [more hair flying around]. Oh boy...
You :He {Jesus} paid for the sins of His elect and forgave them their sins past, present, and future. When we ask God for forgiveness now for our sins, it is not to earn our way into heaven....Asking for forgiveness, after being saved, is an obedience to God, as He commands that we do so. It is for our own good, and when we obey Him we love Him. It is part of our sanctification
You: I know that we have different ideas of salvation, but when you say that a person's status can't be known until death, even if a hypothetical, then you are evading. [while you know your final status]
Me: So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it [sinner's prayer]?
You : You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages. Your leaders interpret them all out of existence, or assign new meanings to them contrary to plain meaning.
Me : Why doesn't God grant you full information? How do you explain that someone who calls himself the elect not know everything about God?
You : But God did grant me full information. That is, all the information I needed to come to Him. He made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so I experienced the "choice" of choosing Him. No one can ever know everything about God, but we can aspire to know everything that we need. That is available to the elect [you].
Perhaps I am getting the wrong message, but the above quotes from you in the last couple days are telling me that you think you are of the elect - today, tommorrow, next year, and forever. There are even more from earlier converstations. Your posts are full of such claims that you are of the elect! Why do you think I keep trying to tell you that people fall away???
Proponents of the first two approaches quote biblical references, but each must strain to explain away the other group's biblical data
In this very thread, I have posted NUMEROUS verses from Scripture that are IGNORED by Calvinists such as yourself. Let's be honest. Over and over, I have given you Scripture that you have not responded to or TRIED to explain away, such as my tagline, but not convincingly at all.
Scripture teaches that believers must persevere until the end, but also that believers will persevere until the end by God's grace.
When Scripture says this, it is presuming that one is WALKING IN THEIR FAITH. For what good is faith without love? Also, what is ignored over and over is that a believer today does not guarantee a believer next year. If you want to persevere, you must believe UNTIL THE END.
Can true Christians fall away? No, for they are kept by the invincible power of God in Christ
A true Christian can only be identified in the present, not the future. We are judged by our fruit NOW, not by speculating what we "should" provide ten years from now.
Regards
Did Christ die for the release of sin for the entire world? No.
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, "We see," your sin remains" John 9:41
If any man's work which he has buit on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." 1 Cor 3:13
1) God said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).
2) God said He'll keep me safe. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." (John 10:27)
3) I believe God's word.
Amen.
"We love him, because he first loved us." -- 1 John 4:19
It's important to keep the order straight.
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" -- Phil. 1:28-29"And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Isn't this amazing Scripture? Paul is telling us that the ungodly see our lack of fear as a sign of our ruin.
But we are not to fear. Indeed, we know our certainty is "a token of our salvation," God-given and God-ordained because He rose from the dead and it's all true -- we have been saved by His mercy alone. None can hurt us nor pry us from His grasp.
Yes, what I think I have learned from my Orthodox brothers is that Mary was born in the normal sense and did not sin because she did not have the capacity to sin as a small child. Then, at a tender age, perhaps three, she was given a special grace and there was "The Entrance" [Forest Keeper]
Jo is right in the first part of his statement – Orthodox/Catholic disagree why, but not if she was sinless. God simply foreknew her choices from eternity. So there was no need for God to intervene. But we certainly share with our Catholic brothers the view, the only possible view, that she had to be sinless in her life, and by her own choice.
Catholics consider Immaculate Conception a unique Baptism, but do not assign BEV Mary any special or superhuman qualities by it any more than they would to any baptized individual – we are still subject to sin and death. Immaculate Conception is necessary because of the Augustinian view of the Fall to which the Catholic Church and all of Western Christianity, as a Roman Catholic derivative. The East never held that view and it was not a theological issue of schism as long as it was not proclaimed a Roman Catholic dogma in the mid 19th century.
So, ... under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us [FK to Kosta]
The alternative is worse, FK, because it suggests that God prizes our mindlessness more than our freedom. I have no doubt that God values our freedom of choice in His own way because anything else is coerced or compelled. And true love must well from within and not be created from without.
You see, the New Testament is like a beautiful rose that opened up and revealed its full beauty. It is in that Scripture that we begin to understand God as Trinity, a perfect loving relationship of three divine Hypostases in one divine Essence, a completely different God (from our POV) and a completely new theology altogether; same God, different level of knowledge of Him.
It is through the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ that we begin to relate to God personally and are indeed commanded to equate our belief with love and not with the Law. For if we love God, we will obey His commandments. The reverse is not true necessarily. So, the basis, the very foundation of our faith and what this is all about is love, love of God form us first and foremost and then our love for Him. One of my fortune cookies said "You will many loves, but only one true love." That would be God.
My point is that yes God cares about us and our freedom because only the free can claim not to be compelled. And we are truly elect of God if we come to Him on our free will, out of love. Can we fall in love on our own? Yes, of course we can. The more you learn about something, the more you feel drawn to it. Thus, God draws us to Him by love, but he does not violate our freedom. We are free to choose and He knows what our choices are.
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.