Mateo el Feo Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='OneForTruth' post='1401289' date='Oct 12 2007, 01:55 PM']Again - one who has been born of God WILL NOT fall away. 1 John clearly says this. He that has ears to hear - let him hear.[/quote]And yet, we believers are warned in [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1john/1john5.htm#v16"]1 John 5:16,21[/url] to watch out for "deadly sin" (i.e. something which results in eternal death of the soul) and against false idols. Such a warning doesn't make sense if we are all eternally secure. If you would like to defend your doctrine of eternal security, I created a thread a while ago in which I presented a hypothetical group of "born again" believers and asked the question, "How many would be eternally secure?" May I suggest that you read through the thread in order to see where we are coming from on this subject? After reading it, I would welcome any comments you had. Here is the link: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67642"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67642[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrockthefirst Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1401156' date='Oct 12 2007, 07:45 AM']A Protestant friend who was out to convert me once said, "Vicky, there is nothing better than knowing that you are saved." I replied, "No. There is nothing better than knowing that you are loved."[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 OneForTruth, Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have many good friends who are either Calvinist or prescribe to some form of predestination of a Calvinist degree, and I attended a Calvinist school from K through High School, so I have heard this discussion many times before. I think you might find this article by Jimmy Akin, himself a former Calvinist, helpful in explaining the different Christian views on predestination, in particular how modern Calvinist scholars are proposing a reform to the popular interpretation of "TULIP." Aside from the Akin article, which is quite in depth, and addresses all the issues that have been referenced so far on this site, I do want to point out another verse which has not been considered. Matthew 23:37. It is one of over 80 such New Testament verses (more discussion of this in the Akin article, of course) that illustrate Free Will and the possibility for some to reject salvation even though Christ wills it for [u]all[/u]. (KJV text): [quote]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, [u]how often would I have gathered thy children together[/u], even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and [u]ye would not[/u]![/quote] ---- Here's an intro to the article, with a link for the [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp"]full text[/url]. God bless and thanks again for your thoughts. [quote]It is important for Catholics to know about these subjects: First, Catholics are often attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic position on these issues. Second, Catholics often misunderstand the teaching of their own Church on predestination. Third, in recent years there has been a large number of Calvinists who have become Catholics [Including Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others]. By understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more Calvinists make the jump.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1401156' date='Oct 12 2007, 08:45 AM']... A Protestant friend who was out to convert me once said, "Vicky, there is nothing better than knowing that you are saved." I replied, "No. There is nothing better than knowing that you are loved." God's love is the only certainty I need, which is why I am very much at peace when I say, "I live in hope of Heaven."[/quote] That's awesome. Amen to that. [quote name='GodChild' post='1401204' date='Oct 12 2007, 10:56 AM']God has given all of his love - he expects nothing less in return ... If you "believe" your saved and have a loud mouth - quick to proclaim your "holier than thou" saved-ness but you don't obey the command of God which is perfect Love. Your loud mouth, your Bible quoting and your "belief" will NOT save you. Love MUST be repaid with love - as God loves you - you must love Him & in this you are saved because love to such a degree, to such perfection is possible only with God's help Is God my Saviour? Yes - only God is my savior but I am not "saved" by believing in Him, I am saved by loving Him Cause believe me - it is easier to "believe" with a intellectual acknowledgment - with a "what do I get out of this" belief that many protestants adopt. Oh I'll believe in Jesus cause I get my bum out of hell and hey, its a 'free' gift - with no effort on my part As opposed to true "belief" in God - which isn't mere belief but true faith. And faith that saves - true faith - only exists if it is a living faith - borne, sustained, beginning, ending, depending on the "grace" of God - His Merciful Love - and thankfully received and lived out in my life through little insignificant "works" which I do to show God I am thankful for His mercy and that I love Him. I am not saved by works - God's mercy alone saves me - but I try to do good "works", love manifested in action, to obey God and please Him. There is a scripture writing, I can't remember it, but in doing works of love (good works) when their done I don't say "oh look I'm 2% more saved now" I say "i have done my duty as I was commanded to do". Love is repaid with Love alone - Much love has been given, much is expected in return[/quote] This is a great post. GodChild, you have really opened my heart today with this. My prayer life has been slipping, and that's due to the fact that I forget to do it out of love. Now that I see the Catholic responses, I conclude that we put an emphasis on love for sure. It's a big thing which can easily be forgotten. Heck, the pope's first encyclical is Deus Caritas Est - God is love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneForTruth Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1401303' date='Oct 12 2007, 12:24 PM']And yet, we believers are warned in [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1john/1john5.htm#v16"]1 John 5:16,21[/url] to watch out for "deadly sin" (i.e. something which results in eternal death of the soul) and against false idols. Such a warning doesn't make sense if we are all eternally secure. If you would like to defend your doctrine of eternal security, I created a thread a while ago in which I presented a hypothetical group of "born again" believers and asked the question, "How many would be eternally secure?" May I suggest that you read through the thread in order to see where we are coming from on this subject? After reading it, I would welcome any comments you had. Here is the link: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67642"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67642[/url][/quote] The elect must and they WILL. Scripture remains clear. The warnings are for the keeping of the elect. That is the purpose of the warnings. Jer 32:40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts [b]so that they will not turn away from Me[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneForTruth Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1401322' date='Oct 12 2007, 01:19 PM']OneForTruth, Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have many good friends who are either Calvinist or prescribe to some form of predestination of a Calvinist degree, and I attended a Calvinist school from K through High School, so I have heard this discussion many times before. I think you might find this article by Jimmy Akin, himself a former Calvinist, helpful in explaining the different Christian views on predestination, in particular how modern Calvinist scholars are proposing a reform to the popular interpretation of "TULIP." Aside from the Akin article, which is quite in depth, and addresses all the issues that have been referenced so far on this site, I do want to point out another verse which has not been considered. Matthew 23:37. It is one of over 80 such New Testament verses (more discussion of this in the Akin article, of course) that illustrate Free Will and the possibility for some to reject salvation even though Christ wills it for [u]all[/u]. (KJV text): ---- Here's an intro to the article, with a link for the [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp"]full text[/url]. God bless and thanks again for your thoughts.[/quote] I have read some of Akin's stuff and it has not been helpful. I was quite sceptical of his interpretations. He was trying to show that justificiation and sanctification are intertwined but there is no teaching of this in scripture. Justification is a past [i]event[/i][u][/u] in the life of a Christian and those who have been justified will be glorified. So, I do not necessarily trust his writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='OneForTruth' post='1401363' date='Oct 12 2007, 02:12 PM']I have read some of Akin's stuff and it has not been helpful. I was quite sceptical of his interpretations. He was trying to show that justificiation and sanctification are intertwined but there is no teaching of this in scripture. Justification is a past [i]event[/i][u][/u] in the life of a Christian and those who have been justified will be glorified. So, I do not necessarily trust his writings.[/quote] Well, my friend, that is where this conversation seems to always die. If we all have equal authority to interpret Scripture, then there is no way to settle disputes like this. Consider the 30,000 Protestant denominations, most of which not prescribing to any sort of Calvinist view of predestination. For you to hold to Calvinist teaching, you have to deny their interpretations as well, keeping in mind they would call your reading of Scripture equally "skeptical." It's not just Catholics and Orthodox, the vast majority of Protestants do not hold to what Calvin teaches. And what does Scripture tell us to do when there are disputes among Christians? Matthew 18:17 [quote]If he refuses to listen to [the one or two witnesses], [u]tell it to the Church[/u]; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.[/quote] We can go in circles all day debating the beliefs of a man who splintered off from the Church less than 500 years ago and preached [i]his[/i] view as the truth. Or, we can appeal to the authority that Christ left us in Matthew's Gospel. Christ establishes a Church for just such a reason, so that we could be One (John 17:20-23). Jesus, after all, did not leave us the Bible. He left us the authority of the Church, which then produced the Bible over the next few decades. Paul talks about the authority and tradition passed on by the apostles in 2 Thes 2:15: [quote]So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the [u]traditions[/u] which you were taught by us, either by [u]word of mouth[/u] or by [u]letter[/u].[/quote] Praise be to Christ for such a gift of the Church! Were we left all to our own interpretations, there would be no authority, no ability to settle disputes, and no ability to be One in Christ. What a dark fate Jesus saved us from with his words in Matthew 16, by staving off the very gates of hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='OneForTruth' post='1401361' date='Oct 12 2007, 05:09 PM']The elect must and they WILL. Scripture remains clear. The warnings are for the keeping of the elect. That is the purpose of the warnings.[/quote]If someone is among the elect, then they need no warning...unless you think that failing to heed the warnings will "unelect" someone. In any event, this begs the question, "What criteria do we use for definitively deciding whether someone is among the elect?" I provided the link to the other thread since it addresses this issue head-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starets Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='OneForTruth' post='1401361' date='Oct 12 2007, 04:09 PM']The elect must and they WILL. Scripture remains clear. The warnings are for the keeping of the elect. That is the purpose of the warnings. Jer 32:40 "I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts [b]so that they will not turn away from Me[/b].[/quote] In that case you don't REALLY know if you are one of the Elect until you drop dead, do you? after all, if you suddenly go on a sinning spree just before dropping dead then "obviously" you weren't one of the Elect! You didn't perservere. And since the saints WILL persevere (your word, remember), then obviously that person wasnt a saint even if he was godly in all ways until the day he died and on the day he died he went on his sinning spree. its because of hypothetical scenarios like that that i don't believe in OSAS and don't think the Bible is as clear on that point as you seem to. But what do I know. I am a bear of little brain :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Philip Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 [quote name='jesussaves' post='1401012' date='Oct 11 2007, 08:25 PM']in your analogy, jesus only gave you the means to save yourself. you are the savior of yourself, and he is helping. you can't make the statement that he is your savior, cause he is not unless you're in rome already.[/quote] I can hardly add to the tremendous amount of biblical evidence provided by others in this thread (great job everyone!), but I did want to respond to this argument made by jesussaves. Let me change the analogy a little bit. Suppose you are lost at sea and you are floating in the middle of the ocean, almost ready to drown. Then someone comes with a boat and throws out the life saver to you. You grab it, and you are reeled in. Now, according to your statement in that last message, this person lost at sea must be considered to have "saved himself". Yet anyone with an ounce of common sense sees that it would be stark raving mad to make such an assertion. Can you imagine hearing about this on television and hearing the water-logged person say "Whew! It is a good thing I saved myself!" No indeed. We would expect him to give all the credit to the boatman, and this would be correct. The person had no power to save himself. Saying that because he took the action of grabbing the life-saver he must therefore be considered to have saved himself is just silly. Now let us carry things to the depth necessary: the concepts that go beyond analogy. For you, salvation is something that is invisible and happens outside this realm at the very moment of faith. We believe this is true to an extent as well. [b]But Salvation is more than this.[/b] Salvation for us is something visible. I am not merely acquitted in a trial, I am adopted as a son. My relationship with Jesus Christ is not something that merely "covers" me like snow over a dung hill. My relationship with Jesus involves him, like a husband to his wife (pardon the graphic imagery, but this is what the mystics have said, not just me), coming into me. Him bringing his grace into my life necessarily changes me and makes me pregnant with good works. A woman saying "I do" at the altar is not the end of the story, it is the beginning. Salvation, just as Christ himself, must be incarnated into this world, and we have a choice whether we let that happen or not. Going back to the analogy of the boat and the ocean, one has to hold fast to the life-saver as one is pulled toward the boat. One will hit waves and foam and tempests. If the person holds fast until the end (as the Scriptures say), he will be saved. PERIOD. This is also insightful for the idea that we as Christians "have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved." When the life-saver is thrown out to you, you say "I have been saved!" And you say it rightly. During the long and difficult process of being pulled in, you say, "I am being saved and will be saved!" And you say this rightly. God bless you all, Philip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneForTruth Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 [quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1401369' date='Oct 12 2007, 03:39 PM']Well, my friend, that is where this conversation seems to always die. If we all have equal authority to interpret Scripture, then there is no way to settle disputes like this. Consider the 30,000 Protestant denominations, most of which not prescribing to any sort of Calvinist view of predestination. For you to hold to Calvinist teaching, you have to deny their interpretations as well, keeping in mind they would call your reading of Scripture equally "skeptical." It's not just Catholics and Orthodox, the vast majority of Protestants do not hold to what Calvin teaches. And what does Scripture tell us to do when there are disputes among Christians? Matthew 18:17 We can go in circles all day debating the beliefs of a man who splintered off from the Church less than 500 years ago and preached [i]his[/i] view as the truth. Or, we can appeal to the authority that Christ left us in Matthew's Gospel. Christ establishes a Church for just such a reason, so that we could be One (John 17:20-23). Jesus, after all, did not leave us the Bible. He left us the authority of the Church, which then produced the Bible over the next few decades. Paul talks about the authority and tradition passed on by the apostles in 2 Thes 2:15: Praise be to Christ for such a gift of the Church! Were we left all to our own interpretations, there would be no authority, no ability to settle disputes, and no ability to be One in Christ. What a dark fate Jesus saved us from with his words in Matthew 16, by staving off the very gates of hell.[/quote] What do you do with John 6:44??? Obviously, this is one of many verses/passages explaining the elect coming to Christ...but, I like this one... Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. You know - let me add one more... Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. What does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneForTruth Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 To address another one of your questions... Assuming that God has the right and power to call whom he pleases effectually to faith, how can it be consistent for God to pass over people and leave them in their sin and condemnation when Ezekiel 18:32 says, "For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God, so turn and live"? If God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but, in fact, Jesus weeps over the unbelief of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; 19:41–42), then why does he not effectually call them all? Or, turning it around, if he weeps over their unbelief, can we really believe that he has himself made the choice ahead of time who will believe and who will not? First, we remind ourselves that Jesus said things even in Matthew and Luke that make his tears look puzzling; we are not forcing some strange doctrine onto Jesus. Matthew 11:25–27—Jesus seems to rejoice that God has hid his meaning from certain wise ones in Israel. Matthew 15:13—"Every plant that my Father has not planted will be rooted up." Matthew 16:17—He says God reveals to Peter the true meaning of Christ. Matthew 22:14—"Many are called but few are chosen." Matthew 24:24—He refers to the elect who cannot possibly be led astray by the false prophets. Luke 19:41–42—Right in the passage where Jesus is weeping he says, "But now they are hidden from your eyes." This is what he had said also in 18:34 and 9:45. Both Matthew (13:10–17) and Luke (8:9–10) taught that the purpose of the parables was to conceal the truth of Jesus mission. Deuteronomy 28:63 says, "And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." This is apparently the opposite of Ezekiel 18:32. God does in some sense or in some circumstances delight in the death of the wicked! From all this we do not throw the question out. We simply steady our hand so that we don't jump to unwarranted conclusions about the impossibility of grieving over the unbelief of Jerusalem and the death of the wicked on the one hand, and concealing the saving truth from them and delighting in their judgment on the other hand. We prepare ourselves for some complex and deep mind in God and in his Son. Second, we consider the possibility that God has the capacity to will something in one sense that he disapproves of in another sense. We consider this because it seems to be the case again and again in Scripture, which is the only place we can find out clear and reliable things about God. For example, God willed the death of his Son (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Yet this was a terrible sin that Jesus should be killed. Did God delight in this occurrence or not? I think he did, insofar as he contemplated it as an act of redemption for the accomplishment of his wise and holy purposes. But I think that he did not delight in it insofar as he contemplated it as an act of sin in the intentions of the Pharisees and Pilate and Herod. He was angry and grieved. From this I conclude that God's will is not a simple thing. He can will a thing in one sense and not will it in another sense. When we read that God wills a thing or that he does not will a thing; or when we read that he delights in a thing or that he has no delight in a thing, we must always be ready to admit that this simple statement of what he wills or delights in is not the whole story. Take Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 28, for example. Must we say that these are simply contradictory, or should we not say that in one sense God does delight in the judgment of the wicked (insofar as he contemplates the judgment in relation to the greatness of their wickedness and in relation to the preservation of his justice and glory and in relation to the other good things for other generations that will come from it, etc.), and in another sense he has no delight in the death of the wicked (insofar as he contemplates it narrowly as the destruction of his creature created in his image with potential for his praise and as a tactical victory of the evil one)? Similarly with Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem. In one sense he is grieved as he considers the sin of the people, the dishonor of his Father, the loss of life in spite of the fact that they had had such great advantages in the Word of God. But in another sense he gives hearty approval of God's overarching design to suffer a temporary hardening and blindness to lie upon Israel. He even "rejoices in the Holy Spirit and says, 'I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for so it was well pleasing to thee.'" Whether he is weeping or rejoicing depends on the angle of vision, or on whether Jesus is contemplating the universality of things or the narrow nature of sin and death for itself in isolation. Therefore, the numerous texts in the Bible that describe God willing and yearning that men and women be saved should not be ignored, or diluted. We should let them stand and, in fact, we should join God in his tears and longings. But then we should realize that the mind and heart of the infinite God are more complex than we may have at first thought and may indeed allow for another sense in which for good and wise purposes he ordains to come to pass what in itself he hates (like the death of his innocent Son). This is the way that I would be inclined to understand the passages in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 if the contexts of these passages did not provide a different solution—which I think they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Nothing worse than plagiarism on a debate board, OneForTruth. I was wondering why your text wasn't addressing what we were talking about. [url="http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1985/514_Those_Whom_He_Predestined_He_Also_Caled_Part_2/"]http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary..._Called_Part_2/[/url] I'm proud of you, you can cut-and-paste. When you can find words for yourself, please let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 PS: I noticed that some of your previous posts were also cut-and-pastes of posts you had previously made here at Phatmass and on Catholic.com's forum. Were they originally your words, or were they taken from someone else, too? BTW, this is what I'm referring to: [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+God%27s+decree+is+to+come+to+fulfillment%22&hl=en&fiddler=0"]http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+God%2...en&fiddler=0[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1401760' date='Oct 13 2007, 02:05 PM']PS: I noticed that some of your previous posts were also cut-and-pastes of posts you had previously made here at Phatmass and on Catholic.com's forum. Were they originally your words, or were they taken from someone else, too? BTW, this is what I'm referring to: [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+God%27s+decree+is+to+come+to+fulfillment%22&hl=en&fiddler=0"]http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+God%2...en&fiddler=0[/url][/quote] Thanks for pointing this out. I was wondering, too, why our friend wasn't addressing the specific passages I mentioned. No response about authority to settle disputes... No response about authority to interpret Scripture... No response about Jesus saying belief AND baptism necessary for salvation... No response about Paul putting love about faith in 1 Corinthians... No response about Jesus willing [u]all[/u] to himself in Matthew 23... No response to tradition of the Apostles in 2 Thes 2:15... Etc, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now