Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[dennisknapp]

Lazerlike42:

Romans 8 clearly says that if we suffer with Christ, we will share in Christ’s Glory. Christ is God. If you are saying we will share in Christ’s Glory but not in God’s you are at best professing a belief in nestorianism (Christ’s humanity was seperate from His Divinity) and at worst polytheism. 1 Peter tells us that we will share in God’s Divine nature! This is proabably more shocking than the idea of sharing in His Glory. These two passages clearly teach this.

I also am not changing what dennisknap was trying to say or get off topic. I was only addressing your statement that we don’t share in God’s Glory. I actually don’t see how you can say from that quote that dennis is claiminga role in his own salvation. Nevertheless, we can turn to St. Paul for this, too, in which he says that by his suffering he is “making up for what was lacking in Christ’s sacrifice.”

In fact, the very idea of preaching the word and of baptising people allows us to share in God’s salvific work. We are actually preaching the word to bring others to the Truth, and baptising them that they may eneter God’s kingdom.

But what the Church teaches about this is that each and every one of these works is nothing less than God Himself acting through us. In all truth, we don’t do a single good work; they are all God’s.

We do do one thing: we say yes. That is the role we play. Just as Christ played a role by saying, 'yes I will be crucified," we too play a role by saying, “yes God I will cooperate with You and give this dollar to the man onj the street.” It is God’s work. So is preaching and baptising. But very importantly, we can say “no.” We can be disobedient to God.

This is exactly what I meant. Thanks!

Peace

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Didn’t realize you were expecting a response, thought you were just telling me my answers were not answers.

So in response, I am sorry that the answers I gave were not the answers you were expecting me to give.

It seems that you have something you want to say about all of that. Why not just say it?

This is the 3rd time I have responded to this post - the first 2 got “lost”. No doubt that is part of God’s grand scheme…
Anyhow, the one thing I wanted to say was it sounds like I offended you with my post 186 - I didn’t mean to and am sorry if I did.
I simply wanted to understand why you believe God has the power to save all men. You answered “because he is God”. That’s a little vague, don’t you think? I just wondered why you thought that: what biblical reason or what theological reason. I assumed it was because of his omnipotence, but I don’t know - I was waiting to hear from you. I don’t believe omnipotence means that God has the power to do anything because omnipotence is only one characteristic: it does not obviate his righteousness, for example. Saving someone unworthy of salvation would be an example of something God “cant” do because his power is limited by his righteousness.
Anyhow, why do you think/where did you get the notion that God has the power to save all men?

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42,

My conscious has convicted me. It was wrong for me to say, “you win.” I have given you the wrong impression. Therefore, I will post a brief reply.

When I said, “you win,” I meant it sarcastically. I should have told you the truth: I don’t have time for you. Your understanding on this post from Jn 10 to Phil 3, and every Scripture you have cited is incorrect, and your paraphrasing is careless.

You have avoided some very pointed questions by me regarding eternal security, addressed directly to you, because to answer them honestly, would seriously damage your position—the believer has no eternal security.

I did not say, “you win,” simply because of this most recent encounter, rather, it is because of all of the encounters that I have had with you on this thread.

Rom 8 does not say, “if we suffer with Christ, we will share in Christ’s Glory,” re-read it. Christ’s glory is not in view in the chapter, it is the believer’s glory that is spoken of.

You shifted away from what dennisknapp said, that is why I pointed it out to you.

If you want to understand partaking in the divine nature to be sharing in the glory of Christ’s work on the Cross, go ahead, but you are wrong.

If you want to understand that preaching and baptizing is what gives people entrance into God’s kingdom, go ahead, but you are wrong.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Anyhow, the one thing I wanted to say was it sounds like I offended you with my post 186 - I didn’t mean to and am sorry if I did.

No, Philthy, you did not offend me.

Philthy:

I don’t believe omnipotence means that God has the power to do anything because omnipotence is only one characteristic: it does not obviate his righteousness, for example.

That is true. But you never qualified your question, except to say that if I appealed to God’s omnipotence—which is what I appealed to when I said, “because He is God,”—you thought that was wrong.

Philthy:

Saving someone unworthy of salvation would be an example of something God “cant” do because his power is limited by his righteousness.

That is the problem. I believe that everyone God saves is unworthy of salvation.

Let me give you another answer: God could have granted repentance to all men, instead of only to some men.

 

[dennisknapp]

Lazerlike42,

My conscious has convicted me. It was wrong for me to say, “you win.” I have given you the wrong impression. Therefore, I will post a brief reply.

When I said, “you win,” I meant it sarcastically. I should have told you the truth: I don’t have time for you. Your understanding on this post from Jn 10 to Phil 3, and every Scripture you have cited is incorrect, and your paraphrasing is careless.

This is the problem with debating Catholics, we don’t buy into the 16th century innovation known as sola scriptura. You are going to have to use more than your personal interpretation of Scripture if you want to get anywhere with us.

sandusky:

You have avoided some very pointed questions by me regarding eternal security, addressed directly to you, because to answer them honestly, would seriously damage your position—the believer has no eternal security.

I did not say, “you win,” simply because of this most recent encounter, rather, it is because of all of the encounters that I have had with you on this thread.

That is the problem. Sacred Scripture does not speak of eternal security as you believe. Eternal security is another innovation of the Reformation. Show me one person in the early Church who believed it as you do?

sandusky:

Rom 8 does not say, “if we suffer with Christ, we will share in Christ’s Glory,” re-read it. Christ’s glory is not in view in the chapter, it is the believer’s glory that is spoken of…

Where does the believer’s glory come from? Do we gain it from ourselves?

sandusky:

You shifted away from what dennisknapp said, that is why I pointed it out to you…

How did he? All salvation is from God, but he chose, in His infinite wisdom, to make us apart of it as well, all the while losing none of the credit. God is not some glory hog, he seeks to share Himself with us. He is the Giver of Life.

sandusky:

If you want to understand partaking in the divine nature to be sharing in the glory of Christ’s work on the Cross, go ahead, but you are wrong…

What do you think it means? In what way does the believer partake in the divine nature?

sandusky:

If you want to understand that preaching and baptizing is what gives people entrance into God’s kingdom, go ahead, but you are wrong.

This is what the early Church taught, and every Christian up until the 16th century. I will side with them.

Check out this page

www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Peace

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

No, Philthy, you did not offend me.

I feel better…

sandusky:

That is the problem. I believe that everyone God saves is unworthy of salvation.

One needs to be very careful with the wording here: Does God save people who are unworthy or does he simply make them worthy before saving them? Scripture affirms that everything(everyone?) which enters Heaven is “perfect”. This would seem to imply that we will actually be worthy of salvation (a conditional of being perfect) when we enter heaven. This would be a difficult conclusion for one of the Calvinist bent to accept because “coming to repentance” and salvation are thought of as an instantaneous, complete and permanent event occuring simultaneously and therefore inseparable. Such a view would require that we are “perfect” when we are “born again” (saved). Unfortunately, reality is relentless in not bearing this out.

sandusky:

Let me give you another answer: God could have granted repentance to all men, instead of only to some men.

Im not sure what you are answering or how this applies to the topic of God’s omnipotence being insufficient to effect the salvation of all men.
But here’s what I don’t get and why I brought this topic up:
We know from Scripture that God “wishes all men to come to repentance”. That it is God’s will that all come to repentance.
(If you don’t accept that last statement, then please explain how an omniscient God would wish something but refrain from willing it - good luck.)
In addition, your personal belief is that God, by virtue of his omnipotence, has the power to save all men (through repentance or whatever means).
And finally, we both agree that not everyone is brought to salvation.
So my question is, “How do you reconcile that God wishes all men to be saved, has the power to accomplish it, yet does not?”
Its a very easy question to answer within the realm of Catholic theology, but I don’t get how one would reconcile it in your theology.
Would you mind explaining this to me? It doesn’t need to be too long of an expanation - just longer than “because he is God”

Thanks,

Phil

 

[Matt16_18]

Philthy:

We know from Scripture that God “wishes all men to come to repentance”. That it is God’s will that all come to repentance. (If you don’t accept that last statement, then please explain how an omniscient God would wish something but refrain from willing it - good luck.)

Indeed, how do the “Reformers” grapple with the question that an omniscient God could reveal something publicly as his will, but then not have what he has publicly revealed manifest itself in creation? This question goes to the core of what is defective within the thinking of the Reformers. In the end, the Calvinists are forced to believe in a deceitful God that publicly reveals his will as one thing, but at the same time maintains a secret will that contradicts his public will.

Right from the first book in the Bible, the Calvinist gets tangled into a knot of contradiction over the question of God’s will and original sin. In the Book of Genesis, God publicly revealed his will to Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For Calvinists, this is a huge problem because they believe that neither angels or men have free will, and that that angels and men cannot do anything that is against the will of God. But we know that Adam and Eve were created in a state of sanctifying grace, that they were not created in state of “total” depravity. And we also know that even though Adam and Eve were living in a state of grace without sin, they did, in fact, choose to be disobedient to God’s publicly revealed will. Adam and Eve were disobedient to God’s publicly revealed will and fell from grace. How does the Calvinist resolve this problem?

Instead of abandoning the absurdity that men have no free will, Calvin developed the even more absurd (and blasphemous) doctrine that God is a liar that publicly reveals his will as one thing, but secretly wills the opposite. God publicly revealed to Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he secretly willed that they would be disobedient to the public revelation of God’s will. This then is the absurdity that is Calvinism - that Adam and Eve really were not disobedient to God’s real will, because God secretly willed Adam and Eve to commit sin!

The denial that men and angels have free will is heresy, and this ridiculous idea leads to one heresy after another within Calvinism, leading ultimately to blasphemy that God is the author of all evil. … here we come upon the primal mystery to which in his argument Calvin recurs again and again. This Supreme Will fixes an absolute order, physical, ethical, religious, never to be modified by anything we can attempt. For we cannot act upon God, else He would cease to be the First Cause. Holding this clue, it is comparatively simple to trace Calvin’s footsteps along the paths of history and revelation.

Luther had written that man’s will is enslaved either to God or to Satan, but it is never free. Melanchthon declaimed against the “impious dogma of Free Will,” adding that since all things happen by necessity according to Divine predestination, no room was left for it. This was truly the article by which the Reformation should stand or fall. God is sole agent. Therefore creation, redemption, election, reprobation are in such sense His acts that man becomes merely their vehicle and himself does nothing.

…Both [Calvin] and Luther found a way of escape from the moral dilemma inflicted on them by distinguishing two wills in the Divine Nature, one public or apparent, which commanded good and forbade evil as the Scripture teaches, the other just, but secret and unsearchable, predetermining that Adam and all the reprobate should fall into sin and perish. At no time did Calvin grant that Adam’s transgression was due to his own free will.

Calvinism, The Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Matt16_18]

Let us reflect for a moment upon the nutty idea that God has a public will that is in contradiction to his secret will.

Scriptures are the public revelation of God’s will. But the Calvinists maintain that God’s secret will can be the opposite of what God publicly reveals. Why then, should anyone accept a Calvinist argument based upon his quoting of scriptures? If scriptures don’t give us knowledge of God’s real will, (his secret will) then why should anyone trust what is revealed by scriptures? Just because God commands that we should not commit adultery, perhaps his real s-e-c-r-e-t will is for the elect to have affairs… or to murder, or to steal, or to worship Satan, or to be racists that believe that bushmen are the damned whom God wills to be enslaved …

Calvinism is absurdity piled upon absurdity because it teaches that men have no free will.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Matt16_18:

Let us reflect for a moment upon the nutty idea that God has a public will that is in contradiction to his secret will.

Scriptures are the public revelation of God’s will. But the Calvinists maintain that God’s secret will can be the opposite of what God publicly reveals. Why then, should anyone accept a Calvinist argument based upon his quoting of scriptures? If scriptures don’t give us knowledge of God’s real will, (his secret will) then why should anyone trust what is revealed by scriptures? Just because God commands that we should not commit adultery, perhaps his real s-e-c-r-e-t will is for the elect to have affairs… or to murder, or to steal, or to worship Satan, or to be racists that believe that bushmen are the damned whom God wills to be enslaved …

Calvinism is absurdity piled upon absurdity because it teaches that men have no free will.

Are you kidding me? I have always heard of these multiple wills of God that Calvinists tell me when I ask things like if God made Adam sin or if God “allowed” or whatever, but I didnt understand what they were saying.

So where do I look in Calvin’s Institutes for this stuff on a secret will? If this is true and there are citations this is probably the most damming evidence against Calvinism.

If I can find the right quotes this really is the dagger in the heart of Calvinism, two wills, one “revealed” the other “secret”, at times contradicting one another. I have got to look into this.

This kind of stuff reminds me of those dramas on TV where the wicked family members think the family fortune is going to be left to them when the father dies, but when he dies it turns out there was a secret will that left everything to the dog, cat or nanny or whatever.

Or better yet, like the movie Mr Deeds where it turns out they had it all wrong about the Will and family forutune.

 

[sandusky]

Hey Philthy,

You ask:

Philthy:

Does God save people who are unworthy or does he simply make them worthy before saving them?

Christ says in Mt 9:13, that He “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners (cf Mk 2:17; Lk 5:32; 1 Tim 1:15). Isn’t making them “worthy” saving them? Even after being saved, they are still unworthy, IMHO. That is why grace is an unmerited favor shown by God.

Philthy:

Scripture affirms that everything(everyone?) which enters Heaven is “perfect”. This would seem to imply that we will actually be worthy of salvation (a conditional of being perfect) when we enter heaven. This would be a difficult conclusion for one of the Calvinist bent to accept because “coming to repentance” and salvation are thought of as an instantaneous, complete and permanent event occuring simultaneously and therefore inseparable. Such a view would require that we are “perfect” when we are “born again” (saved). Unfortunately, reality is relentless in not bearing this out.

Philthy, I was an worthy sinner before being saved, and I am unworthy sinner now that I am saved. So the Calvinist sees the sinner as always unworthy. Paul says, in 1 Tim 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am (present tense) foremost. Paul, too, viewed himself as a sinner, even though securely saved.

Philthy:

Im not sure what you are answering or how this applies to the topic of God’s omnipotence being insufficient to effect the salvation of all men.

Actually, I said that God, because He is omnipotent, could save all men; I did not say that He couldn’t.

Philthy:

But here’s what I don’t get and why I brought this topic up:
We know from Scripture that God “wishes all men to come to repentance”. That it is God’s will that all come to repentance.
(If you don’t accept that last statement, then please explain how an omniscient God would wish something but refrain from willing it - good luck.)

So, you understand the phrase “God wishes all men to come to repentance,” to be saying, “God has willed unfailing that all men will come to repentance, absolutely.” Is that your understanding of the verse?

Philthy:

So my question is, “How do you reconcile that God wishes all men to be saved, has the power to accomplish it, yet does not?”

Simply stated: God’s wish, is not an absolute unfailing purpose that will be accomplished. It is an expressed desire, not a fixed certainty.

Philthy:

Its a very easy question to answer within the realm of Catholic theology, but I don’t get how one would reconcile it in your theology.
Would you mind explaining this to me? It doesn’t need to be too long of an expanation - just longer than “because he is God”

See last statement.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky

sandusky:

Hey Philthy,

Christ says in Mt 9:13, that He “did not come to call the righteous, but sinners (cf Mk 2:17; Lk 5:32; 1 Tim 1:15). Isn’t making them “worthy” saving them? Even after being saved, they are still unworthy, IMHO. That is why grace is an unmerited favor shown by God.

This is where our differences in terminology become important. Your insistence on salvation as an instantaneous, complete and permanent event has created a problem. You recognize yourself as completely “saved” but imperfect. Remember my comment regarding only “the perfect” entering heaven? You seem to have ignored it in this response. How can we be completely saved, yet imperfect? Somehow, there is a change in ours souls from the state of being “saved” (yet imperfect) in Protestant terminology to the state of being “perfect” to enter heaven. God will in fact make us perfect, and the degree to which that is accomplished in this life is the degree to which you use the “talent” He gives you to accomplish it. Even if you disagree with this statement, you need to explain exactly what happens after death to bring us from imperfection to perfection. Again, simple in Catholic theology - more difficult in Protestant theology.

Philthy, I was an worthy sinner before being saved, and I am unworthy sinner now that I am saved. So the Calvinist sees the sinner as always unworthy. Paul says, in 1 Tim 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am (present tense) foremost. Paul, too, viewed himself as a sinner, even though securely saved.

Actually you’ve played a little loose here. Always implicit in the OSAS concept of salvation is the instantaneous, complete and permanent nature of salvation. Paul did describe himself as securely saved, but also as capable of “losing the race” for the crown of righteousness. In short, your concept of permanency regarding salvation in this life would appear to be different from Pauls: he saw the necesity of completing the race and struggling to do so and persevering to the end…

So, you understand the phrase “God wishes all men to come to repentance,” to be saying, “God has willed unfailing that all men will come to repentance, absolutely.” Is that your understanding of the verse?

Absolutely not! I understand it to mean that God, because of his love and mercy, wishes it and grants the availability of salvation to all men through Christ, but that not all men will choose it - some will reject it. And I beleive that those who do not choose it do so by their own free will. And I believe that saving them is incompatible with a righteous God and that this places limits on Gods omnipotence with respect to salvation.

Simply stated: God’s wish, is not an absolute unfailing purpose that will be accomplished. It is an expressed desire, not a fixed certainty.

Of course, I know that, and I will add the caveat that we are discussing exclusively within the context of humanity. The problem is that you are the one defending predestination as an absolute, unfailing expressed desire of God - and therefore a certainty - in one breath, and in the other saying that God’s wish (all men coming to repentance) is not an absolute unfailing purpose that will be accomplished. That is my point precisely! Your position doesn’t seem to make sense to me. I see a distinct contradiction there. Why should we believe that God has any better control over his “wish” to predestine some one to heaven than he does his wish for all men to come to repentance (a prerequisite of salvation)? I don’t get it. You now have to explain how an omniscient,omnipotent God can wish something but not will it(or not effect it). That, of course, is impossible. And that was my entire reason for bringing this up. God cannot wish all men to come to repentance yet predestine some for unrepentance and still remain omniscient, omnipotent and righteous.

Phil

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Basically what Phil is saying is Titus Ch2:
11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

 

[Veritas41]

I am a former Calvinist and a convert to the Catholic faith. There are alot of misconceptions among even Protestants as to what Calvinists believe. Calvinists don’t believe you have to be a Calvinist to be one of the elect, and not all Calvinists are anti-Catholic to the point where they would say that all Catholics are reprobate. There really is alot of common ground Calvinists share with Catholic theology regarding predestination. I highly recommend an article by Jimmy Akin on his Nazareth Resource Library website, “A Tiptoe Through the Tulip” that compares and contrasts Catholic and Calvinist teaching on predestination, the atonement, etc.

The major difference I see is in the definition of “elect.” In Catholic teaching, the “elect” are those who persevere in grace to the end. This is as a result of predestination, but Catholic teaching doesn’t deny free will the way Calvinism does. However, in Calvinist theology (and even non-Calvinist Protestants who believe in “once saved, always saved”) the elect are those who experience conversion to Christ and will automatically persevere in grace. They do not allow for the possibility of a Christian losing salvation. So, a Calvinist would have assurance of being one of the elect if he has experienced a conversion to Christ that has resulted in personal change oriented towards living for Christ and trusting in Him for salvation. Of course, someone brought up a good point – what if a person lives a faithful life for a while, but then slips into a life of sin? The Calvinist would explain that two ways : either that person never really experienced a genuine conversion to Christ to begin with, or the person has merely “backslidden” and will eventually be brought back to repentance by God.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

This is where our differences in terminology become important. Your insistence on salvation as an instantaneous, complete and permanent event has created a problem. You recognize yourself as completely “saved” but imperfect. Remember my comment regarding only “the perfect” entering heaven? You seem to have ignored it in this response. How can we be completely saved, yet imperfect? Somehow, there is a change in ours souls from the state of being “saved” (yet imperfect) in Protestant terminology to the state of being “perfect” to enter heaven. God will in fact make us perfect, and the degree to which that is accomplished in this life is the degree to which you use the “talent” He gives you to accomplish it. Even if you disagree with this statement, you need to explain exactly what happens after death to bring us from imperfection to perfection. Again, simple in Catholic theology - more difficult in Protestant theology.

Philthy, it is more than a difference in terminology, it is a difference in the understanding of what Scripture teaches, and what you call Calvinism. The reason that you are having difficulty is that you are not operating from a position of understanding what is being taught by Scripture and articulated by Calvin.

Scripture teaches that salvation is a one-time completed event: foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. That is complete salvation, that is in the aorist, or past-tense, it occurred in eternity, and it was completed in eternity, and it will be worked out in time, and it will happen as determined; God will not fail in His purpose.

I agree, nothing unclean will enter heaven. Who are the unclean? Those who have not professed faith in Christ, ie., the unbeliever. The believer is clean and will enter heaven. 1 Jn 1:7 says the blood of Christ cleanses us (the believer) from all unrighteousness. That is in the present tense. The present tense in the Greek is one of continuous action. So John is saying that the blood of Christ [continuously] cleanses the believer from all unrighteousness. The cleansing is not a one-time cleansing (as was salvation), but an ongoing, continuous cleansing. When the believer dies, the sin that resides in his flesh dies with his flesh; he is, at last, free from all sin; no further cleansing is needed.

Your statement that, “God will in fact make us perfect, and the degree to which that is accomplished in this life is the degree to which you use the ‘talent’ He gives you to accomplish it,” is works. Works as a means, or meriting factor in salvation is not biblical. An appeal to James is always made, but James is not making works a condition of salvation, but an evidence; a careful study of the passage yields that truth. God saves by His grace, not by your works.

Philthy:

Actually you’ve played a little loose here. Always implicit in the OSAS concept of salvation is the instantaneous, complete and permanent nature of salvation. Paul did describe himself as securely saved, but also as capable of “losing the race” for the crown of righteousness. In short, your concept of permanency regarding salvation in this life would appear to be different from Pauls: he saw the necesity of completing the race and struggling to do so and persevering to the end…

As Paul teaches, perseverance is necessary, and the true believer will persevere. I see the charge often on this forum, that Paul says he is incapable of “losing the race.” Where does he say that?

Philthy:

Absolutely not! I understand it to mean that God, because of his love and mercy, wishes it and grants the availability of salvation to all men through Christ, but that not all men will choose it - some will reject it. And I beleive that those who do not choose it do so by their own free will. And I believe that saving them is incompatible with a righteous God and that this places limits on Gods omnipotence with respect to salvation.

The availability of Christ’s work is proclaimed, “Come unto me…the one who comes to me, I will not cast out.” etc., etc. Those who reject, do so of by an act of the will; those who believe do so by an act of the will; the difference is God changes the understanding of the one who believes by regeneration, and gives him the ability to believe. The one who believes has been appointed to believe (Acts 13:48); the one who believes has been granted the right to believe (Jn 1:12-13; Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:4ff; Phil 1:29). The one left to himself is incapable of belief. You believe that man is merely wounded, and basically he is good, and capable of choosing to do the right thing; that is not scriptural.

(cont)

 

[sandusky]

(cont from post #294)

Philthy:

That is my point precisely! Your position doesn’t seem to make sense to me. I see a distinct contradiction there. Why should we believe that God has any better control over his “wish” to predestine some one to heaven than he does his wish for all men to come to repentance (a prerequisite of salvation)? I don’t get it.

That is because you believe that you have the ability to contribute to your salvation by your works which emanate from your good disposition. That is not scriptural

There are only two religions in the world:

The religion of divine accomplishment: God has done it all.
The religion of human achievement: God has done some, I must do the rest.

It is the former that Scripture teaches: God has done it all.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic dude:

Basically what Phil is saying is Titus Ch2:

11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Is that all men without exception, or all men without distinction? It cannot be all without exception, as Christ often talks of those who will be cast into the lake of fire.

In Jn 12, Christ says that when he is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself. Is that all men without exception, or all men without distinction? It cannot be all men without exception, because men reject Him. The Greek word “all” is context-driven, it may mean all without exception, without distinction, or all within a specified group. It depends on the context, and so other clear teaching of Scripture must be considered when deciding what “all” means.

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

Veritas41
I am a former Calvinist and a convert to the Catholic faith. There are alot of misconceptions among even Protestants as to what Calvinists believe. Calvinists don’t believe you have to be a Calvinist to be one of the elect, and not all Calvinists are anti-Catholic to the point where they would say that all Catholics are reprobate. There really is alot of common ground Calvinists share with Catholic theology regarding predestination. I highly recommend an article by Jimmy Akin on his Nazareth Resource Library website, “A Tiptoe Through the Tulip” that compares and contrasts Catholic and Calvinist teaching on predestination, the atonement, etc.

I have read the article. Re-read it more carefully. There is not a lot of common ground. As I recall, Akin changes the meaning of predestination. Once he does that, he is talking about something other than that which I understand of predestination. IMHO, he uses “sleight-of-hand” in his article.

Veritas41:

Of course, someone brought up a good point – what if a person lives a faithful life for a while, but then slips into a life of sin? The Calvinist would explain that two ways : either that person never really experienced a genuine conversion to Christ to begin with, or the person has merely “backslidden” and will eventually be brought back to repentance by God.

Christ explains it in the parable of the sower in Lk 8:11-15. Some may slip for awhile, and some are not truly believers.

 

[Pax]

It should be noted that James Akin’s Salvation Controversy[which is a fuller treatment of Tip Toe] gives a very even handed comparison of Catholic and Calvinistic teachings. Akin’s goal is to show the common ground. It is not his intention to emphasize or give an in depth treatment to the differences. Their really is no sleight of hand treatment. It’s simply a matter of approach and emphasis.

 

[Pax]

The argument that the book of Hebrews is not addressing true believers needs to be examined a little further. Please note that in
Heb 2: 1 it says,

“THEREFORE, WE must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and “

The author over and over uses the word “we” and continues to do so in the letter. While there are many things to quote in Hebrews, we can get to the heart of the matter by focusing on some things in Chapter five that clearly establish that the author is addressing believing Christians. Hebrews 5:12-14 says, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” Now please notice that the author tells those receiving his letter that by now they ought to be teachers, but that they are immature. He does not say that they are non-believers. Instead, the criticism of immaturity is explained by the fact that they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness.” They still need practice to distinguish good from evil, even though they should already be passed that. It is then that chapter six begins and the author warns these same people of apostasy. Right after the warning the author returns to exhorting them saying, “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”[Hebrews 6:11-12]

The notion that those to whom the writer is addressing are not true believers, ignores the clear words of scripture, and ignores the fact that someone cannot commit apostasy unless they are a believer. Apostasy is the public abandoning of your faith for another. The Romans persecuted Christians with torture and death. If you committed apostasy and swore the appropriate oaths against Jesus in favor of the Emperor, the Romans would spare your life. Some chose martyrdom and some chose apostasy. You claim that apostates were not true believers, but that is a myth and is not supported by scripture. You cannot fall away from something that you did not already believe. Logic, linguistics, hermeneutics, and history deny your thinking.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

The notion that those to whom the writer is addressing are not true believers, ignores the clear words of scripture, and ignores the fact that someone cannot commit apostasy unless they are a believer. Apostasy is the public abandoning of your faith for another.

That is what I understand apostasy to be. I’ll ask you then, what is a Catholic Revert? Has he committed the sin of apostasy? According to your definition, he has.

Pax:

You claim that apostates were not true believers, but that is a myth and is not supported by scripture. You cannot fall away from something that you did not already believe. Logic, linguistics, hermeneutics, and history deny your thinking.

See the parable of the sower, Lk 8. There are those who embrace and later walk away, or apostatize. The elect cannot apostatize.

As far as your understanding of Hebrews, you are missing a key point to understanding the book and keep that understanding consistent with the rest of Scripture. What is that key point? Who is the audience, Pax?