“Once Saved Always Saved” ...

[guanophore]

Since you have not produced the offical teaching-interpretation on this i’ll take that it either it does not exist or you don’t know what it is.

You are free, of course to you can “take it” however you desire. I will stick to my conviction that it is necessary to lay a foundation in the elementary doctrines, before moving on to more complex issues.

Not sure i understand you here.

Clear evidence that more laying of the foundation is needed!

 

[guanophore]

I believe that you not correct on this. I think that if a person is truly saved, they are always saved. Now, this doesn’t go without saying that there are many many folks who claim that they have been saved for one reason or another but are truly not changed by Jesus and therefore are not yet saved. When these persons fall away for obvious reasons, they are not saved because they truly never were,** but when your name is written in the book of life, it is written in permanent ink. ** I think Paul spoke of us needing to know and have great certainty when we are truly saved.

Why do you think Jesus implies that a name written in that book can be blotted out? Why does He imply that He WILL blot it out if the disciples are not obedient?

Rev 3:4-6
5 If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Good deeds, through which reparations for sins are made, are not done" in the flesh" but are done in the Spirit. However, I agree that we cannot please God while acting " in the flesh". We do need HIm to save us, but He saves us for the purpose of doing good works.

Indeed God saves us for the purpose of doing works (or that is one reason why He saves us); however, our good works do not atone for our sins. One sacrifice for all sins, this is the central tenant of Christianity.

That being said indeed John tells us (in his epistles) that some sins are worse than others. Paul went as far as to kick people out of the early church. The idea here is elaborated on in Hebrews (the idea of “willful sin” versus unintentional sin). This means we will sin out of anger, or emotional weakness, or guilt, or a whole host of human frailties. These were the types of sins even the Apostles experienced. Paul got angry, Peter denied Christ out of fear, etc. These men were never perfect. However, they were counted as perfect by God by grace through faith.

Why do you suppose Jesus would command something that is impossible?

Perfection or righteousness is imputed through faith. We can never excel in the flesh. Again, even Paul (as we read in Romans 7) struggled with his human condition. You have to remember while Christ did say be perfect, He also said only God is perfect.

Here He distinguishes between the righteousness that is from faith and the human condition. Perfection is a matter of purity of intention, purity in action will to some extent follow – however, perfection in the flesh can never be acquired (to even think such a thing will set one up for failure).

Christ set about on creating a new man. The difference between us and those under the law is that a mere set of rules can never be obeyed without a change in the human heart. The law itself only served to amplify sin, not extinguish it. We know about sin through the law – that is its function. However, for those born again in spirit the law is written on our hearts.

We do not seek to obey the law so our community looks upon us favorably. That is only useful insofar as it aids in the divine plan. We seek to obey the law even in private; and when we fail because of the infirmities of the flesh we will feel guilt. However, we can know that we have an advocate before God & as long as we abide in faith we will never be put to shame. When we are born again in the spirit we will strive to love, strive to do unto others as we would have them do, and to obey the commandments.

We will not be perfect in these endeavors. We will get angry at people, we will think impure thoughts, we will slip up in minor ways from time to time. If we preach some fictional idea of absolute purity we set not only ourselves, but also the church up for failure. Every time there is a failing among one of our clergy members the world will say, look they can’t even practice what they preach. This is why it’s important to preach the right thing.

If we go about telling people they need to be perfect we shouldn’t wonder why the pews are empty on Sunday.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Why do you think Jesus implies that a name written in that book can be blotted out? Why does He imply that He WILL blot it out if the disciples are not obedient?

Rev 3:4-6
5 If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

There is some indication even the elect can fail – Augustine thought this. However, this is a complex topic, since the idea of names being blotted out rails against divine omniscience. Since God clearly states that He declared the end from the beginning we need to synthesize these ideas.

Only somewhat ambiguous reference is made to the book of life in Scripture. However, election is very clearly discussed, as is divine omniscience. So we should understand the tense of this statement.

The Bible sets about describing things in different tenses. Whenever we see something that is framed as present or future tense we must understand for God these things were all decreed prior to creation. In our reference frame in time God is active, He intervenes in our affairs, and His calling imposes duties upon us. However, even when we look back to ancient Israel and God’s discussion with the prophets, we see God foretelling that the Hebrews will break covenant with Him. He gives us commands while at the same time knowing whether we will obey or not. In fact it is a matter of decree.

You might say this doesn’t make sense. Why would God create some people wicked and elect others to salvation? Why would God seem to give commands in futility? The simple answer is God is really only talking to His elect. If there were no possibility of breaking rules then obedience would be meaningless. If there were no hate then there could be no thing called love. If there were no violence how could we know peace. God uses even wicked instruments to test and train His elect.

 

[guanophore]

I guess what you’re trying to say is that being “saved” is different than being predestined? That we can have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us one day and lose faith the next? Essentially I agree with you (in a sense).

God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Many are called but few are chosen. The Holy Spirit is only one aspect of grace; and it’s persuasions can be resisted (and will be by most).

It is good to see that you have not jettisoned this Catholic teaching.11:thumbsup:

We are not only elected for salvation, but also for a purpose here on earth. As I said this doesn’t mean we will all be born into good fortune, rather some might be born in the African desert somewhere and by what might seem like pure luck run into a missionary. Then that person may go onto save many souls in his own land.

People can save souls?

My point is predestination means predestination. Moreover, nothing happens by chance with God. He is never surprised by human affairs. He shapes our history. Those given to Christ can never be snatched out His hands.

No, but they can jump out.

However, we must seek our salvation with fear and trembling; and we must make our calling and election sure. This obviously implies affirmative duties for the Christian. However, once again if we don’t live up to these duties we obviously weren’t predestined to begin with; and moreover, those who are predestined are elected by grace.

Well, this is a bit of a non-Apostolic twist. Howeer, I do believe that none persevere without grace. It is possible to fall from grace thru one’s own obstinant will.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed God saves us for the purpose of doing works (or that is one reason why He saves us); however, our good works do not atone for our sins. One sacrifice for all sins, this is the central tenant of Christianity.

I think this is a semantics problem. There are eternal consquences to sin (death) that is paid by the blood of Christ. There are also temporatl consequences of sin for which it is possible for us to make reparation (amends). Some Catholics use the word “atone” for this, which I think is misleading.

That being said indeed John tells us (in his epistles) that some sins are worse than others. Paul went as far as to kick people out of the early church. The idea here is elaborated on in Hebrews (the idea of “willful sin” versus unintentional sin). This means we will sin out of anger, or emotional weakness, or guilt, or a whole host of human frailties. These were the types of sins even the Apostles experienced. Paul got angry, Peter denied Christ out of fear, etc. These men were never perfect. However, they were counted as perfect by God by grace through faith.

Then there is a “yardstick”?

Perfection or righteousness is imputed through faith. We can never excel in the flesh. Again, even Paul (as we read in Romans 7) struggled with his human condition. You have to remember while Christ did say be perfect, He also said only God is perfect.

Well, this is a reformed contamination of the Apostolic teaching. On the contrary, we can excel in the flesh, by grace, through faith. Jesus came to give us abundant life. This can only happen if we conquer the flesh, and excel in His Kingdom by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through faith.

Here He distinguishes between the righteousness that is from faith and the human condition. Perfection is a matter of purity of intention, purity in action will to some extent follow – however, perfection in the flesh can never be acquired (to even think such a thing will set one up for failure).

On the contrary, perfection of our flesh is exactly what Jesus intends for all of us. He demonstrated this by perfecting His own flesh, then taking it into heaven. He intends to perfect our humanity and bring us wholly into heaven.

Christ set about on creating a new man. The difference between us and those under the law is that a mere set of rules can never be obeyed without a change in the human heart. The law itself only served to amplify sin, not extinguish it. We know about sin through the law – that is its function. However, for those born again in spirit the law is written on our hearts.

I think that we will agree that we can only fulfill the Law of Christ by grace.

We do not seek to obey the law so our community looks upon us favorably. That is only useful insofar as it aids in the divine plan. We seek to obey the law even in private; and when we fail because of the infirmities of the flesh we will feel guilt. However, we can know that we have an advocate before God & as long as we abide in faith we will never be put to shame. When we are born again in the spirit we will strive to love, strive to do unto others as we would have them do, and to obey the commandments.

If you believe this, then why do you think that the HS is not able to accomplish this in the person of the faithful?

We will not be perfect in these endeavors. We will get angry at people, we will think impure thoughts, we will slip up in minor ways from time to time. If we preach some fictional idea of absolute purity we set not only ourselves, but also the church up for failure. Every time there is a failing among one of our clergy members the world will say, look they can’t even practice what they preach. This is why it’s important to preach the right thing.

If we go about telling people they need to be perfect we shouldn’t wonder why the pews are empty on Sunday.

Jesus was not concerned with filling the pews. Especially when He told people they need to be perfect!

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think this is a semantics problem. There are eternal consquences to sin (death) that is paid by the blood of Christ. There are also temporatl consequences of sin for which it is possible for us to make reparation (amends). Some Catholics use the word “atone” for this, which I think is misleading.

Obviously there’s temporal consequences for sin, but I didn’t have that in view in my prior statement. Of course we should seek to right our wrongs and make up for mistakes to those injured. However, this isn’t the idea of Catholic penance is it? If it is then I’m all for it.

Then there is a “yardstick”?

No there’s no yardstick. John spoke harshly of mortal sin. This idea is also discussed in Hebrews (willful sin versus sin that is not willful).

However, the simple formula (if you demand one) is those who commit the unforgivable sin will never, can never have faith again. They are cursed from Christ. There is an unforgivable sin, Christ said so, it is referred to by John, and defined in further detail by Hebrews.

We cannot keep crucifying Christ. Once saved and once the Holy Spirit resides in us mortal sin defiles the spirit. The only real definition we have of mortal sin is willful sin.

Whatever this means we must understand that if we do it we will know because no longer can we confess Christ, since as Paul tells us we can only confess Christ by the Holy Spirit.

By confessing Christ it’s not only with our lips, but also with our hearts. We should also understand that sanctification is a process. We don’t wake up one day from all our ills and suddenly become an angel. I wish we could – and so did Paul.

Well, this is a reformed contamination of the Apostolic teaching. On the contrary, we can excel in the flesh, by grace, through faith. Jesus came to give us abundant life. This can only happen if we conquer the flesh, and excel in His Kingdom by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through faith.

I hate to bring this up – but your response demands it. Tell me what of those priests (or pastors) who committed sexual abuse? What of the bishops who concealed their conduct?

Is there any point that simply going to confession and having the priest require you to say ten hail Mary’s and a few Our Fathers cannot be enough?

On the contrary, perfection of our flesh is exactly what Jesus intends for all of us. He demonstrated this by perfecting His own flesh, then taking it into heaven. He intends to perfect our humanity and bring us wholly into heaven.

Then no Catholic I know will be going to heaven?

I think that we will agree that we can only fulfill the Law of Christ by grace.

If you believe this, then why do you think that the HS is not able to accomplish this in the person of the faithful?

Because I never met a perfect man before – have you?

Jesus was not concerned with filling the pews. Especially when He told people they need to be perfect!

Again, He also said only God is perfect. How do you reconcile those two passages?

 

[Jimmy_B]

God forgives us for sin. Christ broke down the barrier of sin between God and man, so you’re wrong sin does not separate us from God. Through Christ we have redemption in spite of our sin nature (that is the whole purpose Jesus died after all).

2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

We in the reformed community believe there is no such thing as falling in and out of grace. If one loses faith at some future point we believe they never really had faith to begin with. The true saints will always persevere. So much is obvious by the presentation of predestination in Scripture. Election isn’t a ongoing process by God, it is a past event, already completed.

Hello sola_scriptura,

In your opinion, if a person is “saved”, will they cease sinning, altogether? Please answer “Yes” or “No”.

If you truly believe in the error, which is “predestination” then you should be able to answer this question without using semantics and without a lengthy “explanation”…right?

Additionally, are you implying that a "saved’ person is not required to ask for God’s forgiveness, for the rest of their life…once they have been “saved”?

Finally, please provide the Bible verses, which you claim support “predestination”.

Thank you.

 

[mikeledes]

John 15:1-6 contradicts the notion of OSAS.

1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"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.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Instead of imposing our own definitions based on our preconceived theological notions, why don’t we allow Christ to define His own terms. First of all, many proponents of OSAS want us to believe that when Christ says “every branch in Me”, he means “a person that is a member of My visible body (i.e. the Church) but that has not been spiritually united to Me.” Consequently, they make a distinction between being “in Christ” and being “in His visible body.” There are serious problems with this analysis. First of all, what does Jesus say “the Vine” represents? His visible body? No! He clearly states “*I *am the Vine.” In other words, the Vine represents the person of Christ. Branches are logically united to the vine and thus this metaphoric branch must be united to the person of Christ. That is the logical conclusion one draws without doing violence to the text. Otherwise, Jesus would not have referred to the person as a “branch,” since a branch – by definition – is an appendage of a plant (vine, tree, etc.).

Second of all, in every instance we find “in me” or a variant (i.e. “in him”, “in the Son”, etc.), it means a spiritual and salvific union with Christ.

1 John 2:24
24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

1 John 2:28
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

1 John 3:24
24The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

See also John 6:56. OSAS proponents even admit that all the other uses of “in me” in John 15 (highlighted above in blue) refer to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. So then why do they suddenly break away from the standard definition and use – by Christ and John - of “in Me” when it comes to John 15:2, making it the only exception of this established rule?

The third problem is that the “false professor” arguments contradicts Jesus’s own words. False professors can fool Christians, but they can never fool Christ. The “branch” in question is not the one identifying himself as being “in Christ” or having spiritual union with Christ. It is *Christ Himself *who identifies this person as being “in Me.” Christ knows those who are His and I would highly doubt He would identify a false professor as being “in Him,” a phrase that He and the Bible always uses as a reference to those who are genuinely saved.

Fourth of all, lets take another look at John 15:6:

6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned

The word “abide” in Greek is meno, which means to remain, continue, stay, etc. We find a variant of this same Greek word (epimeno) in Romans 11:22-23, which has a similar theme and clearly refers to true Christians:

**22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in (epimeno) His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in (epimeno) their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. **

We also find this same word (meno) used in the following passages, and the obvious meaning is to continue in the place, condition, or state one is already in:

1 Corinthians 7:11, 20

**11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. **

Acts 16:15

15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Other examples are Matthew 26:38, Acts 5:4, 9:43, 18:20, 21:7, 27:31, 1 Timothy 2:15, etc. So what place, condtion, or state does Jesus say we must abide/ continue/ stay in? He clearly says “IN ME.” Not in “my visible church” or in “fellowship”, but IN CHRIST. And in order to abide/continue/stay or not abide/continue/stay in Him, one must logically be in Him first. Which means that we can cease being in Christ, and hence cease being saved, since there is no salvation outside of Christ. This fits perfectly with what Jesus says regarding those who do not abide/continue/stay in Him. Here is the order of events:

1)cast forth
2)withered
3)cast into the fire and burned

The person/ branch is cut off from Christ the Vine, withers - which means death and is a result of the cutting off - and is cast into the fire (i.e. eternal damnation.) It makes sense that once cut off from the Vine the branch would wither because “life is in the Son” (! John 5:11). If you are cut off from the Son, you are cut off from the source of life and die. Once outside of Christ the Vine, the only end is hell.

Now there are proponents of OSAS who accept that the cast forth branches refer to genuine Christians, but that the “cast into the fire” is not a reference to hell, pointing to other passages that speak about fire (1 Corinthians 3:14-15). It’s true that “fire” in the Bible can refer to a number of different things. However, what gives meaning to a word is often the phrase in which it is being used. For example, "trinity"can mean three of anything. But “the Trinity” refers to God. Another example is the phrase “in Christ.” Used separately, those two words can be used in different senses. Used together, those words have only one meaning. So let’s allow Christ to define His own terms and let’s see how He actually uses “cast into the fire” in other passages.

Matthew 3:10,12

**10"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
12"His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." **

Matthew 13:49-50

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Other examples are Matthew 7:19, 18:40-42, etc. In every instance where Jesus uses “cast into the fire” during his preaching/ teaching ministry, He clearly uses it as a reference to eternal damnation. So why must we suddenly change the established use of this phrase in John 15:6? Moreover, note what He says in John 15:6:

**"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

Who is the “they” that does the gathering? This exactly corresponds to Jesus’s own description of eternal damnation:

Matthew 13:49-50

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Another example is Matthew 13:41-42. Consequently, the apostles would have clearly understood what Jesus said in John 15:6 as a reference to eternal damantion. Also note that it is the branch/ person that is cast into the fire and burned, not the person’s works (symbolized by fruit). So John 15:1-6 clearly contradicts the notion of OSAS.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ellammcg]

Another example is Matthew 13:41-42. Consequently, the apostles would have clearly understood what Jesus said in John 15:6 as a reference to eternal damantion. Also note that it is the branch/ person that is cast into the fire and burned, not the person’s works (symbolized by fruit). So John 15:1-6 clearly contradicts the notion of OSAS.

God Bless,
Michael

I think the belief in OSAS requires creative interpretation of Biblical passages rather than just plain reading them.

 

[SyCarl]

Hello sola_scriptura,

If you truly believe in the error, which is “predestination” then you should be able to answer this question without using semantics and without a lengthy “explanation”…right?

If you are suggesting that predestination is an error, I would suggest that you read Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on it. Their writings on it are too long to post here.

Augustine
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Aquinas
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q23.html

By the way I believe that God can predestine and still allow freewill even if we cannot understand how, since all things are possible with Him.

In that freewill still exists then once saved always saved is also not true, although perseverance is a gift of God.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello sola_scriptura,

In your opinion, if a person is “saved”, will they cease sinning, altogether? Please answer “Yes” or “No”.

If you truly believe in the error, which is “predestination” then you should be able to answer this question without using semantics and without a lengthy “explanation”…right?

Additionally, are you implying that a "saved’ person is not required to ask for God’s forgiveness, for the rest of their life…once they have been “saved”?

Finally, please provide the Bible verses, which you claim support “predestination”.

Thank you.

A complex topic cannot be addressed in a simplistic manner. However, for the benefit of brevity as you’ve requested I’ll be short.

A person must repent in order to be saved. Without repentance there is no salvation. The only way people can repent is by grace. So first they are regenerated by God and then they will seek the truth, confess Christ, and repent.

Upon our spiritual rebirth the Holy Spirit indwells in us. It is the spirit that produces a new man. God changes us we do not change ourselves. We are unable to change ourselves without the grace of God in a way that is pleasing to God.

Witness of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us is a changed heart. This means our wicked affections change to good.

This is not to say we can be perfect, for only God is perfect (Luke 18:19). However, by grace through faith we are empowered to avoid sin in our actions and deeds. When we do sin we can be confident that when we confess we have an advocate before God and we will be forgiven (see 1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 5:16-17).

Regarding predestination. Turn to Ephesians 1:4-5, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, etc.

Predestination is not a doctrine, as far as I know, the Catholic Church necessarily disputes (Augustine, one of the preeminent church fathers, was a strong proponent of predestination). However, the general objection among both Catholics & many Protestants is the idea of “double predestination” (meaning not only are people predestined to salvation, but also people are predestined to condemnation).

One of the main verses that in my mind show double predestination is John 3:18. There are many other verses that I could point to – but you asked for a short response. The reason this is a topic that does not lend itself to short explanations is because it is so intertwined with the providence and sovereignty of God; and salvation by grace (as opposed to works or human effort). However, I will stop here.

 

[sola_scriptura]

If you are suggesting that predestination is an error, I would suggest that you read Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on it. Their writings on it are too long to post here.

Augustine
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Aquinas
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q23.html

By the way I believe that God can predestine and still allow freewill even if we cannot understand how, since all things are possible with Him.

In that freewill still exists then once saved always saved is also not true, although perseverance is a gift of God.

The idea of perseverance is often mischaracterized. If we understand that being “saved” means predestined to salvation then perseverance logically follows. The only real difference here is truly a matter of wording rather than practice.

It’s not as if my denomination preaches it’s okay to sin if you confessed Christ at some earlier point in life. We believe if one reverts back to a life of sin and dies in a state of apostasy then they were likely never saved to begin with. If, however, one slips and reverts back into sin for a period but returns (as the prodigal son did) and repents and dies in right standing with God then we acknowledge they did not lose their salvation. In other words the doctrine simply acknowledges predestination for what it is – a past act by God not an ongoing process.

If God predestined you and I before the founding of the world (as Ephesians 1:4-5 clearly states) then if we are truly saved we will persevere. If we do not persevere then we were never saved to begin with. I think it would be a rare occurrence, if it’s possible at all, for one of the elect to be lost.

I’m not a Baptist or Evangelical so I’m not an expert on OSAS (except to note there are differences between OSAS and perseverance). I do, however, think that many Evangelicals don’t truly understand their own doctrine. I cannot believe that any church would preach we can confess Christ one day and then turn around and become a drunken, adulteress, criminal – and die with a swig of whiskey in our mouth, with our last word being a drunken belch. If this is what OSAS means then it’s heretical, but I don’t think that properly characterizes the doctrine.

As for free will versus determinism, it is a complex topic indeed.

The idea that we are saved by grace, and not of ourselves (meaning not through our own efforts or will) seems to abrogate the idea that we are responsible in any way for salvation.

However, obviously in our reference frame in time it certainly feels like we have free will, until of course we really think about it.

Just by caveat of birth different people have a different set of choices. An Ethiopian born in the sub-Saharan desert, who will die in his 30’s from malnutrition can hardly be said to have the same set of choices as an American.

A person born in a jungle to a primitive tribe who evangelists or missionaries will never reach can hardly be said to enjoy the same set of choices we enjoy here in the US or the broader western world.

We are limited by the physical laws of the universe (like gravity), we must eat, drink, and sleep. Indeed just by caveat of birth and the physical laws of the universe our will is severely limited.

Now take into account the circumstances we are all born into. Some born rich, others poor, some to abusive addicted parents, others to very good parents, etc. It is said that if a person had one addicted parent they have a 50% chance of becoming an addict, if they had two a 70% chance.

If one is not read to as an infant they will have a much harder time at literacy. I can go on and on but I think you get the point – our will is not completely free. It is constrained by the cards we were dealt. Well, who do you think deals the cards?

 

[mikeledes]

A complex topic cannot be addressed in a simplistic manner. However, for the benefit of brevity as you’ve requested I’ll be short.

A person must repent in order to be saved. Without repentance there is no salvation. The only way people can repent is by grace. So first they are regenerated by God and then they will seek the truth, confess Christ, and repent.

Upon our spiritual rebirth the Holy Spirit indwells in us. It is the spirit that produces a new man. God changes us we do not change ourselves. We are unable to change ourselves without the grace of God in a way that is pleasing to God.

Witness of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us is a changed heart. This means our wicked affections change to good.

This is not to say we can be perfect, for only God is perfect (Luke 18:19). However, by grace through faith we are empowered to avoid sin in our actions and deeds. When we do sin we can be confident that when we confess we have an advocate before God and we will be forgiven (see 1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 5:16-17).

Regarding predestination. Turn to Ephesians 1:4-5, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, etc.

Predestination is not a doctrine, as far as I know, the Catholic Church necessarily disputes (Augustine, one of the preeminent church fathers, was a strong proponent of predestination). However, the general objection among both Catholics & many Protestants is the idea of “double predestination” (meaning not only are people predestined to salvation, but also people are predestined to condemnation).

One of the main verses that in my mind show double predestination is John 3:18. There are many other verses that I could point to – but you asked for a short response. The reason this is a topic that does not lend itself to short explanations is because it is so intertwined with the providence and sovereignty of God; and salvation by grace (as opposed to works or human effort). However, I will stop here.

Catholics believe in predestination. However, like Augustine, Catholics do not believe that all of the justified are numbered among all of those predestined to glory, as demonstrated by passages like John 15. This is not something taught by Catholics only, but was taught by Martin Luther - who had a high view of predestination - and currently believed by Lutherans. The Calvinist notion of perseverance of the saints was not believed by any Christian prior to John Calvin.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Ruthie]

Sola Scriptura, you wrote:

I can go on and on but I think you get the point – our will is not completely free. It is constrained by the cards we were dealt. Well, who do you think deals the cards?

Are you saying that God creates evil?

Are you saying that we have no choice but to do evil if/because God demands it?

Spiritually, rationally, and logically, I cannot believe such a doctrine. If predestination were true, then there was no need for Jesus to come at all, let alone be tortured and sacrificed on the Cross.

He’s quoted in all 4 Gospels as saying, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
If predestination is true, what was Jesus talking about?

Ruthie

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sola Scriptura, you wrote:

I can go on and on but I think you get the point – our will is not completely free. It is constrained by the cards we were dealt. Well, who do you think deals the cards?

Are you saying that God creates evil?

Are you saying that we have no choice but to do evil if/because God demands it?

Spiritually, rationally, and logically, I cannot believe such a doctrine. If predestination were true, then there was no need for Jesus to come at all, let alone be tortured and sacrificed on the Cross.

He’s quoted in all 4 Gospels as saying, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
If predestination is true, what was Jesus talking about?

Ruthie

My own view is similar to sola_scriptura’s in many respects vis a vie predestination. However, there are some differences.

Differences aside, though, Ruthie, predestination is a teaching of Scripture and shouldn’t be denied. We should simply believe what Scripture teaches about it. Some of the conclusions that are drawn about it, however, must be rejected as well.

It is there in Scripture to comfort troubled Christians and not meant to reveal to us the hidden will of God.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If you are suggesting that predestination is an error, I would suggest that you read Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on it. Their writings on it are too long to post here.

Augustine
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Aquinas
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q23.html

By the way I believe that God can predestine and still allow freewill even if we cannot understand how, since all things are possible with Him.

In that freewill still exists then once saved always saved is also not true, although perseverance is a gift of God.

I have and they do not support the OSAS belief. BTW, not everything a Saint says or writes is infallible but you probably already knew that…right?

OK, I get it, first misinterpret the Bible and take it out of context, then misinterpret Catholic Saints and take them out of context.

Are you implying that St. Augustine or St. Aquinas were Protestants?….Sure sounds like it….They were not.

Nice try…please try again…thank you

This is just one more example of why the Protestant, non-Catholic belief in “personal interpretation of the Bible” has been a disaster for Christianity.

Peace.

 

[guanophore]

Obviously there’s temporal consequences for sin, but I didn’t have that in view in my prior statement. Of course we should seek to right our wrongs and make up for mistakes to those injured. However, this isn’t the idea of Catholic penance is it? If it is then I’m all for it.

Yes. This is it exactly. The word “penance” is a Latin rendering of “repent” (turn around and change your heart and actions). Doing pennance means living a lifestyle that befits repentance, and bearing fruit that demonstrates contrition of heart.

No there’s no yardstick. John spoke harshly of mortal sin. This idea is also discussed in Hebrews (willful sin versus sin that is not willful).

Then maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “yardstick”. It seems clear to me that there are some sins that are worse than others.

However, the simple formula (if you demand one) is those who commit the unforgivable sin will never, can never have faith again. They are cursed from Christ. There is an unforgivable sin, Christ said so, it is referred to by John, and defined in further detail by Hebrews.

Yes, except that Jesus became the curse for us, so that we can be spared. As long as a soul is still upon this earth, hope remains that they can return to faith.

We cannot keep crucifying Christ. Once saved and once the Holy Spirit resides in us mortal sin defiles the spirit. The only real definition we have of mortal sin is willful sin.

I agree that mortal sin is willful. However, there is more to defining that available, unless one rejects the Apostolic authority appointed by Christ.

Whatever this means we must understand that if we do it we will know because no longer can we confess Christ, since as Paul tells us we can only confess Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, there are those that still appear to call Him “Lord, Lord” while not doing what He says. I think it is quite possible to be in a state of mortal sin, and not know or accept that on is no longer “in Christ”. I would be so bold as to say this is the case with the majority of so called American Catholics.

By confessing Christ it’s not only with our lips, but also with our hearts. We should also understand that sanctification is a process. We don’t wake up one day from all our ills and suddenly become an angel. I wish we could – and so did Paul.

Yes. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that it is only those who persist until the end that will be saved.

I hate to bring this up – but your response demands it. Tell me what of those priests (or pastors) who committed sexual abuse? What of the bishops who concealed their conduct?

I don’t understand your question. Do I consider such actions a mortal sin? Yes. Do I think that such acts separate such persons from the grace of God? Yes. Can a person do such things, and be “in Christ”, not in my opinion. If they repent, will they be saved? I think the same offer made to all of us is open to them. You ask this in response to my assertion that God wants us to experience perfection in the flesh. Are you trying to “prove” that this cannot happen by focusing on those that fell short of God’s desire?

Is there any point that simply going to confession and having the priest require you to say ten hail Mary’s and a few Our Fathers cannot be enough?

Again I don’t understand the question. The point of going to confession is to have post - baptismal sin wiped away. Personally, I am not at all fond of such penances as these, but they are not the “reason” that one confesses sins.

Then no Catholic I know will be going to heaven?

Well, the Apostles taught us that the state of a soul before God is between that person and God alone. We are not to judge one another, or to try to pull out the weeds, but let all grow together until the harvest. Imperfections in the flesh will not necessarily keep us out of heaven, as God is able to remediate them. However to the extent that we fail to perfect our flesh here on earth to His purpose, we lack the experience of heaven in the present. God can bring about that which He commands. He told us to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect. He told us to consecrate our bodies to HIm, as well as our souls. It is possible to sanctify the flesh.

Because I never met a perfect man before – have you?

I know some very holy folks, who “buffet the body” to make it obedient with fastings and disciplines. I note that these practices make them powerful prayer warriors as well. When I read the lives of the saints, and see that God has allowed some bodies to avoid decay, I think He is sending us a message that the flesh can be purified.

Again, He also said only God is perfect. How do you reconcile those two passages?

That He is in us, and lives through us, and that we are partakers of the divine grace. It is Christ in us, the hope of glory. He is the perfector of our faith, and our flesh.

 

[estesbob]

This is just one more example of why the Protestant, non-Catholic belief in “personal interpretation of the Bible” has been a disaster for Christianity.

Peace.

Especially when they add personal interpretation of church fathers

 

[SyCarl]

I have and they do not support the OSAS belief. BTW, not everything a Saint says or writes is infallible but you probably already knew that…right?

OK, I get it, first misinterpret the Bible and take it out of context, then misinterpret Catholic Saints and take them out of context.

Are you implying that St. Augustine or St. Aquinas were Protestants?….Sure sounds like it….They were not.

Nice try…please try again…thank you

This is just one more example of why the Protestant, non-Catholic belief in “personal interpretation of the Bible” has been a disaster for Christianity.

Peace.

I was citing them on predestination, not OSAS. I am not misinterpretting them simply because I disagree with your interpretation. Or are you claiming that you can infallibly interpret Augustine or Aquinas. It doesn’t cut it to just say they weren’t Protestant or were Catholic. That doesn’t change what they said, even if it isn’t the same as present Catholic doctrine.

It is also interesting how many Catholics treat what the church fathers or saints said. If they agree with what you want then they seem to be of great value. If they don’t then they aren’t infallible. Pick and choose; if you like it fine, if you don’t, ignore it.