Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Church_Militant]

sandusky:

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.

A revert is me! We are not apostates, but those who have fallen away from the fullness of the faith and if anything were misled by those who waved a Bible at us and told us that it meant certain things that we now know were not true. So…having been deceived to some degree then if there is a sin, it is mitigated.

Reverts are those of us who now know the facts of our faith and reject the errors that we held before.

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

This is a really twisted interpretation of this parable as the passage actually reads as follows:

Luke 8: 4 And when a very great multitude was gathered together, and hastened out of the cities unto him, he spoke by a similitude. 5 The sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

6 And other some fell upon a rock: and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And other some fell among thorns, and the thorns growing up with it, choked it. 8 And other some fell upon good ground; and being sprung up, yielded fruit a hundredfold. Saying these things, he cried out: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. 10 To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 And they by the way side are they that hear; then the devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved. 13 Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns, are they who have heard, and going their way, are choked with the cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and yield no fruit. 15 But that on the good ground, are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit in patience.

Where do you see anything in that passage that might support your interpretation? If anything verse 14 might apply to us reverts… I know that it would in my own case. It wasn’t about doctrine…it was all about morality.

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?

You are going to allege that this sermon (since it is not a letter) was written only to the Jews…“the Hebrews” if you will, but this is considered one of the universal writings that circulated to all the churches as well, just as did the letters to the specific churches. By your lights then only the book of Romans applies to the church in Rome etc? That just won’t wash Sandusky.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

This is a really twisted interpretation of this parable as the passage actually reads as follows

Interesting. I’ve twisted the parable.
Church Militant:

Where do you see anything in that passage that might support your interpretation? If anything verse 14 might apply to us reverts… I know that it would in my own case. It wasn’t about doctrine…it was all about morality.

Luke 8:13
13 “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

How long is a while? An hour? A day? A week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? A year? Two years? Ten Years? Twenty? How long. It doesn’t say, but it does say, “when they hear, they receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. How long is a while? Would they not appear as believers, for a while?
Church Militant:

You are going to allege that this sermon (since it is not a letter) was written only to the Jews…“the Hebrews” if you will, but this is considered one of the universal writings that circulated to all the churches as well, just as did the letters to the specific churches. By your lights then only the book of Romans applies to the church in Rome etc? That just won’t wash Sandusky.

Interesting. It is called “Hebrews,” and not “Gentiles,” isn’t it. And it is a part of the Canon as such, and its name was never changed. It is to Hebrews, and needs to be understood in light of that. The recipients are not said to be Hebrews or Gentiles only, but is filled with references to Hebrew history and religion and does not address any particular Gentile or pagan practice, and it must be understood in that light. If it is not, it will not be understood properly.

Based on the content of the letter, who is the audience?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hold it just a second here! Look at the verse that you quote.

Luke 8:13 “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

Apostasy is not the same as falling into temptation at all…apostasy is turning away from correct doctrine, this verse speaks of those who fall away into sin, which is immorality. Though one may lead to the other…they are not the same at all, and nothing in this passage supports your interpretation without twisting it to suit your interpretation. And that is just plain wrong.

Based on the content of the letter, who is the audience?

The church. (Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus:)

 

[Pax]

The audience is without question Hebrew converts. Even though this is true, it still applies to everyone. These converts are by definition “believers.” You cannot be a convert unless you believe. You do not need to take may word for defining the audience as “Hebrew converts” nor do you have to take the word of the Catholic Church. Try the following non-catholic sources:

Easton’s Book Synopsis
(4.) To whom addressed. Plainly it was intended for Jewish converts to the faith of the gospel, probably for the church at Jerusalem.

Gray’s Home Bible Commentary
No one can read it carefully without perceiving a two-fold object, viz: to comfort the Christians under persecution, and to restrain them from apostasy on account of it. And the persecution must have been very severe, judging by the nature of the temptation to which it gave rise. For the apostasy contemplated was not like that of the Galatians, the supplementing of faith by the works of the law, but the renunciation of that faith altogether and the return to Judaism.

Henry’s Concise Commentary
And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel

Morris bible Book Synopsis
Whoever the author was, this individual wanted to reassure Jewish believers that their faith in Jesus as Messiah was secure and reasonable.

The references in the book of Hebrews is to believers. There is no description of them as anything other than believers and it is a huge stretch to read into the passages that they were “not true believers.” It just won’t fly. The passages apply to us in the same way. Should we apostasize and repudiate the faith, then we too will suffer the eternal consequences described by the sacred author. The letter has universal meaning to all Christians…afterall we all believe in the Lord Jesus whether we were first a Jew, a Hindu, an atheist or whatever.

 

[Pax]

Le’s take a look at the parable of the Sower. First of all the parable does not distinguish between believers in the way that you do; the parable does not address the issue as “strictly” those that have no root *. Please keep in mind that this is a parable, or word picture, to give us an idea of what happens with people that hear the gospel. Jesus is describing people and how they respond to the word and God’s grace. The description that Jesus gives simply shows, by the use of figures of speech, the different ways that people respond and sometimes fall from faith. It says they believe even though the seed is upon rocky ground. They have faith and have been justified but they have no root because the soil is shallow (as they are shallow). The seed that falls among the thorns is described differently. It is not described as lacking root, but is instead lost in another fashion. It is lost by being choked by the cares and pleasures of the world (try understanding that in terms of sin). Your efforts to differentiate by saying that those that fall away do not have “true faith” is not supported by scripture and there is no logical or biblical reason to believe that a person cannot be given the gift of initial faith and justification without being given the grace of perseverance.

I find nothing compelling in your arguments or quotations to suggest anything to the contrary. This idea that someone is not a true believer as you present it, especially using the parable of the sower, is an interpretation that does not stand up to the test of scrutiny.*

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Hebrews is a circumcision epistle that was written by Peter and is addressed to the circumcision believers who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision prior to the revelation of the mystery being revealed to Paul. These Jewish believers and followers of Christ kept the Mosaic Law, including circumcision and abstaining from forbidden foods. They also had more than one baptism as Heb 6:2 informs us by referring to “baptisms”. They are a church or group of believers, but are not part of the Body of Christ.

In the Body of Christ, according to the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gal 2:7), there is only ONE baptism and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that seals those in the Body until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). Paul is the only one that writes specificly to those of us in the Body of Christ which still exists today. That is the reason why most of the New Testament is Paul’s Epistles.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist:

Hebrews is a circumcision epistle that was written by Peter and is addressed to the circumcision believers who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision prior to the revelation of the mystery being revealed to Paul. These Jewish believers and followers of Christ kept the Mosaic Law, including circumcision and abstaining from forbidden foods. They also had more than one baptism as Heb 6:2 informs us by referring to “baptisms”. They are a church or group of believers, but are not part of the Body of Christ.

In the Body of Christ, according to the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gal 2:7), there is only ONE baptism and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that seals those in the Body until the day of redemption (Eph 1:13-14). Paul is the only one that writes specificly to those of us in the Body of Christ which still exists today. That is the reason why most of the New Testament is Paul’s Epistles.

I don’t see much of anything in this post that serves as a refutation. First of all, you can’t even establish that Peter wrote this epistle and yours is the first time I have ever heard anyone make such a claim. Please show me in the epistle where it says that these converts are not part of the body of Christ. This is something you cannot possibly do. I have read this letter over innumerable times and have never come away with even a hint of what you are suggesting. A plain reading of this book denies what you claim. An exegetical study of the book denies what you claim. Every biblical commentary I have ever read denies your claim. There is simply no basis for your conjecture.

Your claims that Paul is the only NT writer that applies to NT believers today is an affront to the rest of scipture and is patently false. Please show me in scripture where it makes this statement. Virtually every NT epistle makes it abundantly clear that the authors are writing to Christian believers. I will give you but one example and that should end the debate.

The opening greeting by Peter in his second letter reads:

2 Peter 1:1
SIMEON PETER, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Please notice that the audience has obtained a faith of equal standing with Peter and the other disciples. There is no doubt that your position is absolutely untenable.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

I’ll take your comments in reverse order, just because I can

The opening greeting by Peter in his second letter reads:

2 Peter 1:1
SIMEON PETER, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Please notice that the audience has obtained a faith of equal standing with Peter and the other disciples. There is no doubt that your position is absolutely untenable.

What evidence do you have that Peter is writing to members of the Body of Christ? I find none.

As for my evidence that Peter is writing to Circumcision Believers there is an abundance of proof.

First of all, Peter affirming that those he is writing to have the same faith as his is a confirmation that he is writing to those who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to him at the beginning of Acts.

Also, in 1 Peter the epistle starts out like this

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

That Peter is writing to the Jews of the Diaspora is plainly stated here. The most striking evidence that everything Peter writes is to these Circumcision Believers is found in Gal 2:9

Galatians 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they [should go] to the circumcised.

There it is as plain as day. Peter and the other “pillars” of teh circumcision chose to minister to the circumcised or Jews. What are the Disapora, but dispersed Jews!

Here is some very good scholarship and research that you have never read before that shows that Hebrews was authored by Peter biblicalanswers.com/biblestudy_hebrews.htm

The most striking evidence that Paul did not write Hebrews is found in Heb 2:3 which states

Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.

From this key passage, we see, “salvation . . . was confirmed to us by those who heard”, the most important portion of scripture against the Pauline authorship. If Paul received his gospel from “those who heard,” how could he write Galatians 1:1,11,12,16; 2:2?

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

No one confirmed salvation to Paul. Christ solely and directly revealed the gospel to him.

Unless you accept blatant contradictions as truth, you should join me and many others who believe that Hebrews was authored by Peter or at the very least not authored by Paul.

you said angrily

Virtually every NT epistle makes it abundantly clear that the authors are writing to Christian believers.

Calling all believers Christian is not specific enough. We have to know what they believed, the content of their faith, and understand how that relates to doctrine. Those who believed the Gospel of the Circumcision believed and behaved differently then those who were saved through the Gospel of Uncircumcision.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

Your claims that Paul is the only NT writer that applies to NT believers today is an affront to the rest of scipture and is patently false. Please show me in scripture where it makes this statement.

Its not so much a direct statement, well, other than the fact that we know that to Paul was revealed the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:4-10; Col 1:26-27) and the dispensation of the grace of God (Eph 3:2) and that he was committed with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gal 2:7) and was sent to the Gentiles (1 Tim 2:7). Those are pretty direct statements that show us that God sent Paul to comunicate His salvation to us, the Body of Christ which is primarily Gentiles.

Its impossible for the Bible student to not reach this conclusion that Paul is the only one who writes specificly to the Body of Christ. That his gospel and doctrine are what we are to follow.

The choices between Paul and Peter and the rest are easily decided. Is circumcision required or not required? If you said not required then thats from Paul’s gospel, not Peter’s, James’ or John’s. Are we to abstain from certain foods? If you said no, we can eat anything we like, then that is from Paul’s gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25). Is there one baptism today or more than one baptism? If you said just one then you are going with Paul’s gospel and not Peter’s who wrote of baptisms in Heb 6:2 (more evidence that Paul did not author Hebrews). Do we gain salvation from obeying the Mosaic Law? Or is the righteousness we obtain apart from the Law? If you said apart from the Law, then you are going with Paul.

See how simple that is!

you asserted

First of all, you can’t even establish that Peter wrote this epistle and yours is the first time I have ever heard anyone make such a claim. Please show me in the epistle where it says that these converts are not part of the body of Christ. This is something you cannot possibly do. I have read this letter over innumerable times and have never come away with even a hint of what you are suggesting. A plain reading of this book denies what you claim. An exegetical study of the book denies what you claim. Every biblical commentary I have ever read denies your claim. There is simply no basis for your conjecture.

This tirade reveals that you are not very well read. Now you have excellent scholarship from the link I gave you that proves that Paul at the very least did not write Hebrews and that Peter is a very likely candidate.

Its amazing that you totally missed the huge contradictions between Heb 2:3 and Gal chapters 1 and 2. And also the contradiction of having just one baptism and having 2 or more baptisms. How did you miss that having studied the Bible so much?? Probably because you already had your conclusion and were looking for evidence ot back it up. Thats typical of Catholic apologetics. They programmed you to think that way, so don’t feel too bad pax

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky,

You never responded to my post 285. What gives?

Peace

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Hold it just a second here! Look at the verse that you quote.

Luke 8:13 “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

Apostasy is not the same as falling into temptation at all…apostasy is turning away from correct doctrine, this verse speaks of those who fall away into sin, which is immorality. Though one may lead to the other…they are not the same at all, and nothing in this passage supports your interpretation without twisting it to suit your interpretation. And that is just plain wrong.

Look at Matt 13:20, the same thing. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. That is the point of the parable. See also the parable of the wheat and tares, and read 1Jn 2:19.
Church Militant:

The church. (Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus

Oh please. You’re twisting the passage to suit your interpretation.

 

[sandusky]

dennisknapp:

sandusky,

You never responded to my post 285. What gives?

Peace

I have nothing to say in response to your post 285.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

The references in the book of Hebrews is to believers. There is no description of them as anything other than believers and it is a huge stretch to read into the passages that they were “not true believers.” It just won’t fly. The passages apply to us in the same way. Should we apostasize and repudiate the faith, then we too will suffer the eternal consequences described by the sacred author. The letter has universal meaning to all Christians…afterall we all believe in the Lord Jesus whether we were first a Jew, a Hindu, an atheist or whatever.

I’ve gone around with you before Pax, and it is not worth it. There are three separate groups addressed in this epistle, and I am not going to go into detail, because you’ll ignore what I say.

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky:

I have nothing to say in response to your post 285.

So, are you admitting the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide were not taught in the early Church?

Peace

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

Oh please. You’re twisting the passage to suit your interpretation.

It seems to me that that is what every and all persons who believe in Sola Scriptura by definition must do. Everybody takes their own interpretation out of the Scriptures. We know, however, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

What authority do you have to tell me that my interpretation is incorrect?

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 apologize if I have done so. There are periods where I am unable to come on here and I do miss things. I would be more than happy to address whichever questions you may have addressed to me. I do not recall any questions I have not answered, and this is likely becuase I did not read them due to my coming on a while after they were posted. Please ask me and I shall respond.

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.

16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. - NIV

I would also point out that this statement of mine is far more dependant upon 1 Peter than upon Romans 8. There is no question that 1 Peter says we will partake of the divine nature.

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.

What authority do you have to say that I am wrong? Why is your interpretation any better than mine? I am absolutely convinced that I am correct. You are as well. Who is to say which of us is right?

Preaching does not give people entrance into God’s kingdom, but it is necessary. Paul tells us clearly, “But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14).

Further, we know that Baptism does enter one into Christ’s kingdom. Peter makes this very clear, when he says, “Those flood waters [from Noah’s Ark] prefigured baptism, which now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[Lazerlike42]

dennisknap:

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?

This is a fantastic point. I’m disappointed this was overlooked. This is really a wonderful point made.

We, as creatures, can never, ever have any glory of ourselves. Sandusky, in saying that it is the believer’s glory that is spoken of, you counter your own beliefs. God has all the glory in the world. We, as creatures… as terribly sinful creatures at that, have absolutely no glory ourselves. We can never have glory. Going to heaven does not make us capable of producing our own glory, and does not make us something glorious ourselves. Only God has any glory at all. The only way any creature can have any glory is for God to share it. If we deny that God shares glory, we cannot say that those in Heaven are glorified as does the Scriptures. If we do say this, then we are saying that there exists glory outside and seperate from God. This is counters a very key aspect of Christianity, and the soul and core of Calvanism, namely that God is alone Good and Glorious and that we as creatures are sinners and without any inherint glory.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky-
Thank you for you thoughtful, well-written reply…

sandusky:

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.

First, Im not sure what you mean by Scripture “teaches”. I know some of what Scripture says and I can infer things from that - but that becomes my own interpretation - it should not be confused as being what Scripture teaches. Teachers teach - I am not a teacher. Calvin taught - Im not sure who granted him the authority to do so and I have no reason to hold his particular teachings in high regard, or as correct.
In addition, I know some of what Calvin taught and I find some of what he taught and what Scripture says to be incompatible.

Scripture teaches that salvation is a one-time completed event: foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

We’ve covered this a few times. Foreknown and predestined from Romans referred to the Israelites alone. That is a fact. You have chosen to extend the meaning of this verse to include all of the saved. I still haven’t been convinced of the validity of your reasons for doing so.

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.

And what, exactly, is God’s purpose? Is his “purpose” separate from his “wishes” or his “will”? I don’t think so - you must, however. Once again, if God is omniscient and omnipotent why would his “purpose”, his will and his wishes not all be the same thing? Tough question I know -this is the third I have asked you to answer it.

I agree, nothing unclean will enter heaven. Who are the unclean? Those who have not professed faith in Christ, ie., the unbeliever.

That certainly is one element - and a biggie. But is that the only element? Is that how Scripture defines those who will not be entering heaven? Doesn’t Christ refer to them as evil doers (Matt) who do not follow his will to love God and neighbor? And doesn’t Paul also say that liars, murderers, adulterers,etc will not go to heaven? Or do you mean to imply that the term “believer” encompasses, inseparable, both faith and action?

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.

I agree!

The cleansing is not a one-time cleansing (as was salvation), but an ongoing, continuous cleansing.

Oh I get it - we’re completely saved even though our sins haven’t yet been forgiven. Just out of curiousity, why would salvation be effected and complete in the eternal realm, while the forgiveness of sins - which is a pre-requisite of salvation - be accomplished in the temporal realm sequentially? That might be asking too much - I would understand if you simply said “we don’t know” - that would be my reply…
More practically, why would Jesus tell us explicitly that if we don’t forgive others their sins, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us ours - if in fact that forgiveness had already been secured?

Too long…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Sandusky Philthy

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.

“It is not what enters you…but that which comes from within you that defiles you.”

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.

No it isn’t. It’s Grace, through faith, working in love. If I accept the Grace of God and it bears fruit to whom do we credit the fruit? If I reject Him and produce thorns instead, who deserves condemnation? And who is still worthy of praise?

Works as a means, or meriting factor in salvation is not biblical.

Agreed.

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.

You mean, like, 1600 years’ worth of careful study?
Luther missed it…

God saves by His grace, not by your works.

Of course, but the fact remains that works, from OUR perspective on this side of eternity, are required regardless of the interpretation. Otherwise you don’t know your saved. Very simple. Please don’t misinterpret what I said: works are “required” in this life. Eternal salvation and earthly works are not separable. As you say the “true believer will persevere” in works. Therefore true belief and works are inseperable. This is Gods will, this is Christ’s example, this is our challenge and our affirmation. 2Cor 13:5 “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in faith. Test yourselves…” 2Pet 5
"For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue…knowledge…self-ccontrol…endurance…devotion…mutual affection…love.9 “Anyone who lacks them is shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins (past,present and future?).10 Therefore be all the more eager to make your call and election firm for in doing so, you will never stumble.” Think about that: I can make my “call and election firm”. How can that be if it is already a done deal?

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 **capable **of “losing the race.” Where does he say that?

Surely you jest - but I will comply with your “question”. Here is my paraphrase of 1Cor 10:25-27:
Athletes exercise discipline to win a perishable crown(the race), but we excercise it to win an imperishable crown (ie, eternal life). Therefore, I (Paul) do not run aimlessly nor do shadowbox. Rather, I drive my body and train myself (towards the eventual goal of winning the imperishable crown) because I fear that otherwise I might be **disqualified(**ie was qualified and has become disqualified) from winning the imperishable crown of eternal life.
Also, 1Cor10:12-13 “Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. No trial has come to you except what is human; God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out so that you may be able to bear it.”

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.

I never said that, and never implied it either. IF anything, I have simply implied that we are capable of making bad choices in moral situations and that those choices matter to God.

More later,

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky! We’re almost done…
I asked, “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)?” and “How can God wish all men to come to repentance- yet predestine some for unrepentance- and still remain omniscient, omnipotent and righteous?” And admitted that I dont get it. to which you responded:

(cont from post #294)
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.

Nice try! Unfortunately the solution to the above dilemma within the confines of Calvinism has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. And for the record, I never once said that my works contributed to my salvation, as you claim. These contradictions arose because of concepts we discussed and you promoted (at least in my understanding of what you promoted).
Rather than explaining why you believe* I* don’t understand it, would you please explain HOW you understand it?
Here is what you said:

Sandusky:

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

To which I responded: “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.”
And here,again, is my question:

Question A: 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)?

What is your answer to Question A?

I then suggested that in order so resolve such an apparent contradiction that you would have to separate Gods will from his wish or from his ability to effect them(make them occur). Here’s the quote:
“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.”

Question B is: How can an omniscient,omnipotent God can wish something but not will it(or not effect it).

What is your answer to Question B?

Question C is: How can God wish all men to come to repentance- yet predestine some for unrepentance- and still remain omniscient, omnipotent and righteous?

What is your answer to Question C?

I understand the last two questions overlap, but I didn’t want to put words into your mouth…

Thanks!

Phil