“Me? Your verses refer to those whom God has chosen.”
You should probably be horrified at the idea (the way you understand it), since it implies that you can not be chosen; after all, you don’t believe you are chosen because of the grace of God without works. You believe you are chosen because of your works. And if you are chosen because of them, you can be lost because of them.
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
But the “choice” being made isn’t based on our merits, but on the sovereign grace of God who foreknows us and predestinates us so that we are conformed to the image of His Son. It is for the purpose that we, through the power of God, are conformed to holiness; not because He foreknew that we would conform ourselves to holiness.
If all of this is true, we know that even faith itself is the gift of God, wrought in us through the illuminating and quickening power of the Holy Spirit. We know that our works cannot in any way add or take away from our salvation, but rather that good works shall be the fruit of our faith, and our falling away from it will in no way damn those of us who rest easily in the promises of Jesus Christ:
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
If I shall not be thrown out, who is drawn to the Father, shall I live in the terrible life of a Romanist who rests in Roman carnal ordinances that in no way saves you or makes you a better person?
“It does not call out anyone in particular for certain.”
The effectual call is to all believers ordained before the foundation of the world:
Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
And not only do I believe as they do, the Spirit witnesses of my own salvation:
Rom 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
This is not in the Mormon sense, a fuzzy feeling in the bossom. This is in the very real sense of changes and fruit in the life of the believer. Though I still sin, yet my life is very different from what it was before. Though I am wretched, I receive very real answers to prayers showing the hand of God on my life. Is there any doubt that I have faith in Jesus Christ, and that my faith is counted for righteousness? And that this faith is a living faith, which produces good works? Mind you, I am one of the most evil men on this planet, and the fruit of my faith belongs to God wholly, who works in me and loves me, though I often times am His enemy.
Shall I forsake the witness of the Spirit, the very real change in the life of a believer, for the cold and musky comfort of the Roman tomb? How many Catholics have I known who have come home from mass, only to grab a pack of Tarot cards?
Well, considering in Tobith, the angel actually encourages witchcraft (burning fish guts to war off evil spirits), I suppose that isn’t as big a contradiction for the Romanists as it would be for me.
“Piffle. Those who talk about the “Roman” church or “Romanists” and so on say a lot of mush like this that really doesn’t mean anything. Augustine contributed much, but at one point in his life, he drifted into heresy. I don’t hold those heretical beliefs, if that’s what you mean.”
Can you please provide evidence that Augustine’s “Calvinist” views and their use in the rejection of Pelagianism is in fact heresy or was considered heresy? No doubt it is today, but can you provide evidence that it was at that time?
And after that, can you address the quotes from “Pope” Gregory the first and Theodoret wherein the “Primacy of Peter” is applied to three separate Bishops who all possess the throne of Peter?
Maybe then I can take you seriously, and not regard you as someone who argues when he has no foundation for it.
You should probably be horrified at the idea (the way you understand it), since it implies that you can not be chosen; after all, you don’t believe you are chosen because of the grace of God without works.
Ah, you are a rerun antiCatholic after all. Mind telling us your former screen name(s)?
What horrifies me is the assumption that the dude in the mirror is saved simply because he declares it. That puts God in a position of subservience to you. Nope. Or else we have the assumption that only some are saved and some are discarded at God's whim. In that case, your stated position is untenable again. Or else we have the assumption that all are saved. Again, untenable. There is no nonCatholic position that holds water when one reads and understands Scripture.
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
But the “choice” being made isn’t based on our merits, but on the sovereign grace of God who foreknows us and predestinates us so that we are conformed to the image of His Son. It is for the purpose that we, through the power of God, are conformed to holiness; not because He foreknew that we would conform ourselves to holiness. Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
If I shall not be thrown out, who is drawn to the Father, shall I live in the terrible life of a Romanist who rests in Roman carnal ordinances that in no way saves you or makes you a better person?
If? Now we are quibbling and running around trying to mask the shifting sands of our position? How do you know that you are saved? Do you follow the Great Commandments of Jesus? Do you think that they are applicable to you the individual?
The effectual call is to all believers ordained before the foundation of the world:
Yeah? You count yourself in that group? Why?
“Piffle. Those who talk about the “Roman” church or “Romanists” and so on say a lot of mush like this that really doesn’t mean anything. Augustine contributed much, but at one point in his life, he drifted into heresy. I don’t hold those heretical beliefs, if that’s what you mean.”
Can you please provide evidence that Augustine’s “Calvinist” views and their use in the rejection of Pelagianism is in fact heresy or was considered heresy? No doubt it is today, but can you provide evidence that it was at that time?
Sure. Google up Ambrose's chats with Augustine and see what the Church believed and believes today. Ambrose never fell out with the Church.
And after that, can you address the quotes from “Pope” Gregory the first and Theodoret wherein the “Primacy of Peter” is applied to three separate Bishops who all possess the throne of Peter?
Mind providing me a link? I'd like to see what source you are referring to.
Maybe then I can take you seriously, and not regard you as someone who argues when he has no foundation for it.
You are far too kind. I most appreciate the antiCatholics that I have met on FR and elsewhere. They have strengthened my Faith to an extent that I would not previously have believed. Perhaps God has nudged us together so that I may believe more deeply and grow in the Faith that is handed down to us from the Apostles, who received it directly from Christ Himself.