Replies

[FK as quoted by Alex:] "... before the sinner's prayer, one is not of the elect, but after saying the prayer, THEN one is of the elect ..."

I think that the Protestant belief would be that one is elect before the foundation of the world. This is also scripturally correct (Mt. 25).

ALEX! I write you a nice, friendly post, and this is what I get??? :) To be clear for EVERYONE, let us review what I actually said in 5,001:

I guess what has me squirming a little bit is that when I read what you wrote I think to myself that the view being expressed is that before the sinner's prayer, one is not of the elect, but after saying the prayer, THEN one is of the elect. Is this what you were thinking? (emphasis added)

I followed up with:

While we're at it, what is the Catholic view of the moment within time when a person becomes one of the elect? We would say from before all creation.

Do you think you were fairly representing what I was saying here??? It's fine if you don't want to answer my questions, but come on! :)

The Protestant belief stemming from this one is wrong: the notion that "saved" is a one time event in the life of man. It is not: one has been saved by the sacrifice of Christ, continues to be saved by working on his faith through his life time, and hopefully but not surely will end up saved at the end of his life in the Particular Judgment.(emphasis added)

I agree with everything I underlined. POTS is the difference between knowing it and wishing for it. If we are both Christians then we wind up in the same place, IMO.

That I realize; but the "point", the false doctrine of surety of salvation, objectively encourages cavalier attitude about sin.

Really? How do you know that? Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity? I have never heard of this happening, even once. That's because it isn't taught. For anyone to be doctrinally aware of OSAS, or POTS, it is almost always the case that they are also aware of the further teaching that scripture through Paul SPECIFICALLY REJECTS the attitude you are concerned about. "BY NO MEANS" says Paul over and over. You have to take into account the complete teaching, not just that HALF of it "sounds" bad.

I have definitly heard of that.

Do you think you were fairly representing what I was saying here???

I did not mean to imply that the part from you that I quoted in 5048 was representing your beliefs. I simply tried to indicate the part of your 5001 that I was responding to. My sentence, "I think that the Protestant belief would be ..." agrees with the Protestant concept of election, as far as "from the foundation of the world" goes.

I try to quote something when I am responding, so that the reader can catch the meaning by reference. But I try not to re-quote the entire post. Sometime, and this time, my quoting of the relevant part of the post becomes misleading, and I apologize.

I agree with everything I underlined.

In other words you disagree that the final particular Judgement at the end of one's life is secure, and you don't like to call it particular. But this is a major difference. While God knows His elect form the foundation of the world, we don't; we are given hope, but not firm knowledge. This is why the gospel is also a book of exhortations to good behavior (as well as, of course, the Good News of Christ's salvific work). The scripture is with me, and my prooftext is the opening passage of 2 Peter: "brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election".

Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity?

Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion. The Protestants dropped the teaching on the sinfullness of contraception; they allow remarriage after divorce, -- and I am not bringing up the proabort and pro-gay marriage Protestant groupings that you rightly consider beyond the pale. These two, contraception and remarriage, are not matters of interpretation of the scripture or matters of tradition, they are solidly scriptural, yet the Protestant teaching en masse caved in under the modernistic cultural pressure.

I agree that no pastor calls for total depravity when he himself understands it as such. My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.

Really? How do you know that? Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity? I have never heard of this happening, even once. That's because it isn't taught. For anyone to be doctrinally aware of OSAS, or POTS, it is almost always the case that they are also aware of the further teaching that scripture through Paul SPECIFICALLY REJECTS the attitude you are concerned about. "BY NO MEANS" says Paul over and over. You have to take into account the complete teaching, not just that HALF of it "sounds" bad.

And such is Sola Scriptura. You take the WHOLE of Scripture. Not just the parts you feel good about.

The "one can go out and live like the devil" is one of the biggest strawmen that was ever concocted. And you're absolutely right- I've never seen someone just resting on their "eternal security" and thinking they can go do whatever. Those who believe in the eternal security of the believer are usually more biblically aware than that and will take the WHOLE of Scripture as a rule of faith and practice.