Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

You are mistaken about the authorship of Hebrews and you are mistaken as to the general position of the Catholic Church on its authorship. I have before me the Jerome Biblical Commentary. It happens to b a catholic commentary if you didn’t know. The opening line of the introduction written about the letter to the Hebrews says, “The identity of the author of Heb is unknown.” After much discussion of the authorship it eventually says that “…most of the reasons given for denying Pauline authorship are of such weight as to be compelling.”

The possibilities for authorship extend to Barnabas per Tertullian. The early Church, however, leaned heavily toward Paul as the author based on Eusebius, Clement, and Origen. There is an important qualifier in this regard and I’ll quote it for you. “Origen accepted its Pauline authorship only in a wide sense, for he remarked that ‘anyone who is able to discern differences of style’ would not fail to see the dissimilarity with Paul’s writings. He felt that the thoughts were Paul’s, whereas the ‘style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teaching’; who that was, ‘only God knows.’ (quoted by Eusebius, HE 6.25, 11-13).

This particular commentary goes on at great length on this subject but never once mentions Peter as a possible author and apparently none of the early Church Father did so either. I’ve checked the following non-Catholic commentaries that I have at my home and none of them mentions Peter as a possible candidate. The commentaries are: Easton’s, Grays, and Morris’s. They do mention, however, the possibility of Silas, Paul’s companion, Clement of Rome, or Luke, or Barnabas, or some unknown Alexandrian Christian, or Apollos. Right or wrong, Easton’s concludes that it was probably authored by Paul. Morris’s adds the possibility proposed by Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris that it could have been written by Priscilla (Prisca), and also mentions that William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip.

Please be advised that the suggestion that it was Peter is unique to dispensationalists and the idea was never floated anywhere until Dispensation Theology appeared on the scene a little over 100 years ago. Since I have never accepted Dispensation Theology I do not read their commentaries. If that means that I am not well read, then I am guilty as charged. That not withstanding I stand by all that I have said.

I have read the link you posted twice and I know what it says about Peter authoring Hebrews. IMHO and apparently the opinion Peter did not write the Book of Hebrews, and I did not find what you believe to be a scholarly work on the subject to be at all compelling. You have placed considerable weight on this theory about Peter to develop a highly speculative theory concerning the meaning of the Book of Hebrews. I find no logical or compelling reason to give weight to any of it.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

I did get the impression that you didn’t seem to think that Paul preached to the Jewish converts. The reason I said this is because of your statements concerning “the gospel of circumcision” and “Paul’s gospel of uncircumcision.” You have pressed the issue and belief that the Jewish converts are not part of the body of Christ and that Paul preaches to the body of Christ.
Now if I mistakenly drew the wrong conclusion then I apologize.

I do, however, find it difficult to imagine Paul preaching the same gospel to both Jews and Gentiles if he had two different gospels for two different groups. Your theories are quite convoluted and don’t fit with scripture. It is for this reason that I gave the events and passages that I did.

You have based a great deal on Galatians 2:7 to establish the idea of two different gospels. This clearly seems to be an error in understanding based on the way you interpret the KJV translation.

The verse does not mean what you apparently think it does, and should be translated in modern English as follows:

– RSV Bible
“but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”

– NRSV Bible
“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncirmcised.”

– Living Bible
In fact, when Peter, James, and John, who were known as the pillars of the church, saw how greatly God had used me in winning the Gentiles, just as Peter had been blessed so greatly in his preaching to the Jews–for the same God gave us each our special gifts–they shook hands with Barnabas and me and encouraged us to keep right on with our preaching to the Gentiles while they continued their work with the Jews.

– Simple English Bible
Those leaders saw that God had entrusted me with telling the Good News to non-Jewish people, just as God had given Peter telling the Good News to Jews.

Please notice that none of these translations are of Catholic origin. The passage refers to the one gospel of Jesus being carried by two pillars of the Church to two different groups. It does not mean that the two men took different gospels to two different groups.

Since we are clearly in danger of veering further off the topic of this thread I will not argue any other points that we have exchanged thus far. Although a few minor clarifications could be made, I will I rest on my arguments as presented.

 

[Pax]

TheOpenTheist,

I will address one more thing since you seemed to get into such a fuss over it, and that is the issue of baptisms in Hebrews 6:2. Please relax a little. I used the example of John’s baptism as a possibility and not an absolute. Clearly, John’s baptism had a legacy of its own, but it had its own roots in Jewish practice. Baptisms of repentence were part of Jewish custom and a discussion of these baptismal customs certainly could be part of a general instruction concerning baptisms for Jewish converts. This would be important for them so that they would have an appreciation and understanding, by contrast, of the grace filled baptism instituted by Jesus.

This could and would be done as evidenced by Paul’s preaching to the Jews in Acts 13:16-25 where he specifically mentions John and his baptism of repentence among other things as part of the presentation of the good news. We also read about this same kind of thing in Acts 18:24-28 where it says," Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.
And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus."

Based on these two examples alone, I find my suggested explanation far more plausible then that which you posited.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Pax:

TheOpenTheist,

I will address one more thing since you seemed to get into such a fuss over it, and that is the issue of baptisms in Hebrews 6:2. Please relax a little. I used the example of John’s baptism as a possibility and not an absolute. Clearly, John’s baptism had a legacy of its own, but it had its own roots in Jewish practice. Baptisms of repentence were part of Jewish custom and a discussion of these baptismal customs certainly could be part of a general instruction concerning baptisms for Jewish converts. This would be important for them so that they would have an appreciation and understanding, by contrast, of the grace filled baptism instituted by Jesus.

This could and would be done as evidenced by Paul’s preaching to the Jews in Acts 13:16-25 where he specifically mentions John and his baptism of repentence among other things as part of the presentation of the good news. We also read about this same kind of thing in Acts 18:24-28 where it says," Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.
And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus."

Based on these two examples alone, I find my suggested explanation far more plausible then that which you posited.

Another thing to point out is:
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
all this talk is clearly talking to Christians, not old Jewish rituals.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky! :yup:

Sandusky/Philthy

Yes we have covered this a few times. The foreknown and predestined of Rom 8 are not the Israelites alone; they are all of the elect.

Here’s what’s recorded in Scripture:

Rom 10:21 - 11:1-2
"But regarding Israel he says, “All day long I stretched out my hands at a disobedient and contentious people.” I ask then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

God’s purpose is to save those whom He has foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified in Rom 8. God’s wish for all men to be saved is not His purpose, which is to save those He has foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

That clears it up. Despite having the benefit of infinite wisdom, omnipotence and righteousness, God wishes something that he finds unacceptable to will or purpose - and all without external (name removed by moderator)ut! It seems inconsistent to me, but when you explain it so forcefully, “his wish is not his will or purpose”, all the loose ends just fall in place. Thank you.

I do not jest. The verses are actually in Chapter 9, which begins, “Am I not an apostle?”. The issue of disqualification has nothing to do with losing an imperishable crown. Notice in v26, Paul runs with “certainty,” and what he is talking about being disqualified from is “preaching” the gospel in v27. Again, the chapter is not about salvation, but Paul’s authority as an apostle.

So you think the last verse of the chapter should go like this:
"No, I drive my body and train it for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified from preaching to others." ??? Im content to let Scripture have the final say:

“I have become all things to all, to** SAVE** at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel so that I too may have a share in it. Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize?..They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an **IMPERISHABLE CROWN. **Thus I do not run aimlessly;…No, I drive my body and train it for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.”

One cannot lose his salvation, as is said, “God is faithful, and will not let you be tried beyond your strength.” Very clear. The elect cannot lose their salvation, because God is faithful.

What seems clearest is that you have started with the unrelated opinion “One cannot lose his salvation” and then cut and paste verses, not entirely in context, to support it. Once again, I am comfortable letting Scripture speak for itself as to the context and meaning of this verse:
1Cor 10:1-13
"I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed throught the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses…All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Yet God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the desert. These things happened as examples for us, so that we MIGHT not desire evil things as they did…Let us not indulge in immorality as some of them did…Let us not test Christ as some of them did, and suffered death by …the destroyer. These things happened as an example, and they have been written down as a WARNING to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come. **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.

Continued…

 

[Philthy]

Sandusky and Philthy

That is the crux of the problem. That is why none of my answers make sense to you. You are Catholic; I am not.

Im sorry, but this is offensive and unjustifiable from just about every perspective. :tsktsk:
From the perspective of pure intellectual exchange, I have asked some difficult questions, I know. But the full burden for explaining the contradictions we have gotten into as a result of these mutual exchanges and the ideas you have put forward rests squarely on your shoulders. And I greatly appreciate the time you have taken in an attempt to do so. My Catholicity, however, does not impede my logical acumen at all and does not prevent me from understanding your position. We may simply disagree as a result of our differing theologies, but that is not a barrier to understanding each others position. Your claim that it is is disappointing.
From the perspective of your own theology , you do not have the luxury or authority in assuming that I am not one of the elect. If you were in a position to make such a judgement, then you might have some basis for such a claim, but you aren’t in a position of judgement. This, in itself, renders your contention - that I dont understand because of my current theology - invalid within the context of Calvinism. You have no basis for such a claim and should be able to present your message to me in a clear coherent fashion oblivious of the knowlege of whether God has predestined me to “hear his voice” and follow him.

Philthy believe what you will about God. In fact, God more than, “wishes,” all men to come to repentance, He has commanded that they should (Acts 17:30). If they don’t, they go down in flames.

This is probably the most intellectually satisfying answer I could have hoped for. Why? Because you can’t actually explain the contradiction we arrived at (thereby validating the question), you apparently are not comfortable exercising the “I don’t know” option which I offered as totally acceptable, and you attempt to somehow shift the blame for your difficulty on me - “believe what you will about God”. That all points in one direction…

You are confusing an expressed desire of God, with a determined decree.
Well it is getting a little complicated. Ill make a list

• Will
• Wishes
• Commandments
• Purpose
• Decress
• Hidden desires
• Expressed desires
• Thoughts

Remember: Despite having all the information and the ability to process it all, these characteristics of God often conflict with one another as conflicting ends For example: God may Wish all men to be saved, and although he controls everything including man’s desire to repent in order to be saved, He wills that NOT all men are saved. And the reason this is so is because he is God.

Again, God does more than wish for all men to come to repentance, He as commanded that they should.
This is the fifth time I have answered your questions, it is also the last time.

He commands them to, wishes them to, but creates them unable to. That is odd to me - doesn’t make me right, however. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are his ways above our ways.

Thank you for doing your best to resolve my problems - I honestly appreciate your time, and I am fully satisfied with our exchanges. I apologize for being a bother - you are not the first person to become impatient with my stubborn persistence. I am not particularly smart, that is why I need to continually ascertain explicitly what people mean - that usually requires some repetition for clarification.

Again, thank you for your patience and may you be blessed with the peace of God which surpasses all understanding.

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Let me start at the end of your post:

Philthy:

Thank you for doing your best to resolve my problems - I honestly appreciate your time, and I am fully satisfied with our exchanges. I apologize for being a bother - you are not the first person to become impatient with my stubborn persistence. I am not particularly smart, that is why I need to continually ascertain explicitly what people mean - that usually requires some repetition for clarification.

You have made think that I have offended you, and forgive me if I have. You are not a bother, you are smart, and you are persistent. I don’t mind the persistence, except that we are now caught in a “loop,” and are not making any progress.

My statement about you are a Catholic, and I am not, is the crux of this “loop.” I adhere to a theology that is totally opposite, and contradictory to what you hold. That is an impediment in this discussion.

Again, you believe that the foreknown of Rom 8 are the Israelites, I do not. We will just have to leave it at that.

As far as Paul’s comment about his disqualification, to read salvation into that verse is inconsistent with Paul’s teaching; Paul teaches election, and the security of the believer, so to claim that he is not sure of his salvation is inconsistent with what he teaches about salvation. Christ, and the rest of the N.T. writers, also teach the security of the elect.

As far as you not being one of the elect, I have never said that Philthy, never.

Philthy:

He commands them to, wishes them to, but creates them unable to. That is odd to me - doesn’t make me right, however.

God commands repentance, desires repentance, but He has not created man unable to do so. God created man upright, and in a state of righteousness, and holiness. All, men, however, fell in the garden, with Adam. Man is unable to repent because of his own actions, not God’s, and if it were not for God choosing to save some, none would be saved.

Put election aside; Christ says “come to me, all who are weary, and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest…and the one who comes to me, I will not cast out.”

I believe that Christ is true to His word.

God Bless you, Philthy

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

Let me start at the end of your post:

You have made think that I have offended you, and forgive me if I have. You are not a bother, you are smart, and you are persistent. I don’t mind the persistence, except that we are now caught in a “loop,” and are not making any progress.

My statement about you are a Catholic, and I am not, is the crux of this “loop.” I adhere to a theology that is totally opposite, and contradictory to what you hold. That is an impediment in this discussion.

Again, you believe that the foreknown of Rom 8 are the Israelites, I do not. We will just have to leave it at that.

As far as Paul’s comment about his disqualification, to read salvation into that verse is inconsistent with Paul’s teaching; Paul teaches election, and the security of the believer, so to claim that he is not sure of his salvation is inconsistent with what he teaches about salvation. Christ, and the rest of the N.T. writers, also teach the security of the elect.

As far as you not being one of the elect, I have never said that Philthy, never.

God commands repentance, desires repentance, but He has not created man unable to do so. God created man upright, and in a state of righteousness, and holiness. All, men, however, fell in the garden, with Adam. Man is unable to repent because of his own actions, not God’s, and if it were not for God choosing to save some, none would be saved.

Put election aside; Christ says “come to me, all who are weary, and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest…and the one who comes to me, I will not cast out.”

I believe that Christ is true to His word.

God Bless you, Philthy

Sandusky,

While we may disagree on many things I want to let you know that I enjoyed reading this particular post. Your style and congeniality contained in this post are appreciated. God bless you.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

As far as Paul’s comment about his disqualification, to read salvation into that verse is inconsistent with Paul’s teaching; Paul teaches election, and the security of the believer, so to claim that he is not sure of his salvation is inconsistent with what he teaches about salvation. Christ, and the rest of the N.T. writers, also teach the security of the elect.

This is my problem with so many non-Catholic interpreters. They start out with the idea that X is what Paul teaches, so whenever they come across an verse of Paul’s that seems to go against that, they say that it is not what he means. Rarely do they have an idea of what it actually means if it doesn’t mean what it seems to. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul says that he could be disqualified from winning a “crown that will last forever.” Heaven is the only thing that will last forever (other than Hell, but Hell could not be described as a prize or a crown). Verse 25 tells us that Paul is talking about Heaven and salvation. The fact is that all verses have equal weight. This passage means just as much as Romans 8, and just as much as 1 John, and just as much as any other verse or passage.

This is my other problem with the majority of non-Catholic interpretation of the Bible. It requires taking verses over other verses. As Catholics, we believe what it says in 2 Tim 3:15-17, that all Scripture is useful for teaching. We don’t believe some is more useful than others, but that all is useful. In other words, every verse has equal weight. That’s what I find so amazing about Catholic theology. When you have a background of Catholic theology and read the Bible, every verse truly comes out to be equal. Every verse is equal and none are ever stressed over another.

Paul cannot be inconsistent with Paul. If Paul says that we are predestined, but also that he could be disqualified from the eternal prize, then they must both be true. It is the assurance of salvation theology that is inconsistent with Paul, not Paul who is inconsistent with himself.

If we come into the Bible with a preconception of what it should say, such as that it teaches assurance of salvation, then we will have to take verses and say that they don’t mean what they say. If we just read the entire Bible as a whole and composite, then we don’t have this problem. If we give each verse equal footing, it will work.

It’s like a math problem. Say that a+b+c+x+y=20. Each variable is like another verse. 20 is the sum of the whole: it is the whole BIble. Now some numbers we know. We know a=5. We know b=4, and c=6. What about x and y? Say we know that y=3, and x is either 2 or 1. How do we solve the problem? Do we try to guess what x is and put it in, then plug in y? Of course not. We put in y first, and realize that x has to be 2. If it is 1 instead, the left side equals 19 and it doesn’t equate. It doesn’t fit together. The only way to make it work if we start with x and make it 1 is to change y into a 4 and make it something it’s not.

It’s the same with the Bible. We know Jesus saves us. We know we can’t save ourselves. We know we must have faith. Now, we know that Paul can be disqualified. Now, we know that we are predestined, and it either means we are predestined to something with assurance of salvation, or without. What do we do? Do we start with picking which predestination we believe, or do we start by saying Paul can lose his salvation and determining the predestination based on that? We start by looking at what we know, that Paul can be disqualified from the eternal prize, and then figuring out the rest based on that. If we do it the other way around, we are going to have to change what Paul said.

Just like we can’t just make 3=4, we can’t make a statement that Paul can lose his prize mean that he can lose something else. We can’t change Scripture.

Put election aside; Christ says “come to me, all who are weary, and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest…and the one who comes to me, I will not cast out.”

I believe that Christ is true to His word.

He is true to His word, to His whole word.

“So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I will cast you out of my mouth.”

This is one of those Bible contradictions that skeptics love to point out. If we believe in assurance of salvation, then I say yes, it is a contradiction. But if we look at the whole Bible instead of these two verses, it is easy to see why this is not a contradiction at all.

God Bless you, Philthy

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42

An outline of 1 Cor 9:

I. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY—PAUL’S APPROACH (9:1–23): How the apostle views his liberty in Christ and his rights as a believer.
A. The basis of his rights (9:1–3)

1. He is an apostle of Christ (9:1a).

2. He has seen Christ (9:1b).

3. He has led many to Christ (9:1c–3).B.     The extent of his rights (9:4–12a, 13–14): Paul’s rights include:

4. The right of hospitality (9:4): Paul has earned the right to be entertained by other believers.

5. The right to travel with his family (9:5–6)

6. The right to enjoy financial support (9:7–12a, 13–14)[INDENT]a.     A soldier is paid for his services (9:7a).

b. A vineyard owner eats from the grapes he harvests (9:7b).
c. A shepherd drinks from the milk of his flock (9:7c).
d. A farmer shares in the fruit of his crops (9:8–12a).
e. A priest partakes from the animal sacrifices he offers (9:13–14).[/INDENT]C. The use of his rights (9:12b, 15–18, 20–22): How Paul employs his rights.

1. What he does not do (9:12b, 15–18): Paul chooses not to use his rights but supplies his own needs.

2. What he does (9:19–22a): He becomes a servant to everyone.[INDENT]a.     To the Jews he becomes like a Jew (9:19–20).

b. To the Gentiles he becomes like a Gentile (9:21).
c. To the weak he becomes weak (9:22a).[/INDENT]3. Why he does it (9:22b–23): He becomes all things to all people so that he might save some.
II. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY (9:24–27): Paul makes an appeal.
A. The apostle’s challenge (9:24–26)

1. Run to win the race (9:24–25).

2. Fight to win the battle (9:26).B.     The apostle’s concern (9:27)

3. What he does (9:27a): He keeps his body in subjection by punishing it like an athlete would do.

4. Why he does it (9:27b): He does not want sin to creep in and disqualify him from the battle.

The battle being for the souls of others, not for his soul, nor for his salvation, which is assuredly his.

Do you understand?

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

B. The apostle’s concern (9:27)1. What he does (9:27a): He keeps his body in subjection by punishing it like an athlete would do.

1. Why he does it (9:27b): He does not want sin to creep in and disqualify him from the battle.
   The battle being for the souls of others, not for his soul, nor for his salvation, which is assuredly his.

Do you understand?

Dear Sandusky:

If what you say is true, that St. Paul is not concerned about losing the battle for his own soul but instead is afraid of losing the battle for other souls, then St. Paul apparently did not believe in predestination. If he did, wouldn’t he have known that the battle is not his to begin with? That it is not his efforts that determine the wins or losses?

How do you reconcile your assertion here with your notion of predestination?

Fiat

 

[Lazerlike42]

St. Paul:

19for being free from all men, to all men I made myself servant, that the more I might gain;

20and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;

21to those without law, as without law – (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) – that I might gain those without law;

22I became to the infirm as infirm, that the infirm I might gain; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I may save some.

23And this I do because of the good news, that a fellow-partaker of it I may become;

24have ye not known that those running in a race – all indeed run, but one doth receive the prize? so run ye, that ye may obtain;

25and every one who is striving, is in all things temperate; these, indeed, then, that a corruptible crown they may receive, but we an incorruptible;

26I, therefore, thus run, not as uncertainly, thus I fight, as not beating air;

27but I chastise my body, and bring [it] into servitude, lest by any means, having preached to others – I myself may become disapproved.

This is from Young’s Literal Translation. It’s not the easiest to understand, but it is as direct as you can get from the Greek.

In verse 19-22, Paul speaks about his battle. He speaks about how he becomes everything to every man. This is in line with all the things he has been talking about throughout chapter 9. But in verse 23, his focus shifts. He starts talking about his own salvation.

He first says that he does all of these things so that he too may partake of the Gospel, speaking of himself. He then speaks of how ye, that is those he is speaking to, must run the race that they may obtain, speaking of those he preaches to. Then he speaks of how the crown achieved in most races is corruptible, which is a loaded word signifying death and the corruption of the body throughout the New Testament. However, he says, the crown we, that is, they and he, are running for is incorruptible, another loaded word that the NT uses to refer to the nature of the saved. Then he says that he, this time again referring to himself, must take care that after he’s told the others to run so they don’t miss out on the prize that he doesn’t fall short either. What’s more, it just doesn’t make sense that Paul would be speaking about salvation in verses 19-25 and then suddenly, and without indicating it, switch to something entirely different for the last two verses. It would be, among other things, terrible writing, especially for a fellow as educated as Paul.

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

Dear Sandusky:

If what you say is true, that St. Paul is not concerned about losing the battle for his own soul but instead is afraid of losing the battle for other souls, then St. Paul apparently did not believe in predestination. If he did, wouldn’t he have known that the battle is not his to begin with? That it is not his efforts that determine the wins or losses?

How do you reconcile your assertion here with your notion of predestination?

Fiat

I have answered that elsewhere in this thread, but as it large, I will do so again.

Let’s take your questions point by point.

Fiat:

If what you say is true, that St. Paul is not concerned about losing the battle for his own soul but instead is afraid of losing the battle for other souls, then St. Paul apparently did not believe in predestination.

If Paul does not believe in predestination, then what is he talking about here:

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

and here:

Ephesians 1:4-5
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Fiat:

If he did, wouldn’t he have known that the battle is not his to begin with? That it is not his efforts that determine the wins or losses?

Paul understood it to be his battle:

1 Corinthians 9:16
16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.

…and he understood that it was not his efforts that determined the wins or the losses:

Romans 15:18-19
18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed,
19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:5
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

Fiat:

How do you reconcile your assertion here with your notion of predestination?

Number 1, Christ commanded that the disciples be made (Mt 28:19), and that is accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel, and the hearing of the Gospel (2 Thess 2:13-14; Rom 10:14-17).

Though predestination assures the believer’s salvation, and Christ’s work on the cross has secured that salvation, the believer must appropriate salvation by believing.

The elect must believe, and they will.

It is for the elect/chosen that Paul labors (2 Tim 2:10).

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

This is from Young’s Literal Translation. It’s not the easiest to understand, but it is as direct as you can get from the Greek.

In verse 19-22, Paul speaks about his battle. He speaks about how he becomes everything to every man. This is in line with all the things he has been talking about throughout chapter 9. But in verse 23, his focus shifts. He starts talking about his own salvation.

He first says that he does all of these things so that he too may partake of the Gospel, speaking of himself. He then speaks of how ye, that is those he is speaking to, must run the race that they may obtain, speaking of those he preaches to. Then he speaks of how the crown achieved in most races is corruptible, which is a loaded word signifying death and the corruption of the body throughout the New Testament. However, he says, the crown we, that is, they and he, are running for is incorruptible, another loaded word that the NT uses to refer to the nature of the saved. Then he says that he, this time again referring to himself, must take care that after he’s told the others to run so they don’t miss out on the prize that he doesn’t fall short either. What’s more, it just doesn’t make sense that Paul would be speaking about salvation in verses 19-25 and then suddenly, and without indicating it, switch to something entirely different for the last two verses. It would be, among other things, terrible writing, especially for a fellow as educated as Paul.

He wanted to win as many as possible (vv. 19b–23).

Though Paul enjoyed liberty as a worker, he willingly made himself the servant of all men that he might win them to Christ. This does not mean that Paul followed the worldly slogan, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” That would be compromise rooted in fear. Paul’s attitude was based on love, not fear. He was not lowering his standards; rather, he was laying aside his personal privileges. It was not hypocrisy, but sympathy: he tried to understand those who needed Christ and enter into their experiences. He was a Jew, so he used this as a key to open the Jewish heart. He was a Roman citizen, so he used this as a key to open the door to the Gentiles. He sympathized with the weak and encouraged them. “All things to all men” (v. 22) simply means the wonderful ability of accommodating ourselves to others, understanding them, and seeking to lead them into the knowledge of Christ. Paul was no tactless “bull in a china shop” who used the same approach on all he met. Rather, he used tact to get contact; he willingly sacrificed his own privileges to win the lost.

He wanted to gain a lasting reward (vv. 24–27).

What good are daily privileges if we lose our eternal reward? That reward is not our salvation, but the reward for running a good race. Every Christian needs to govern his or her life “with eternity’s values in view.” For Paul to set aside his personal privileges meant discipline and hard work, and he describes this discipline in vv. 24–27. His illustration from the Greek games was familiar to his readers, for the famous Isthmian Games (similar to the Olympics) were held near Corinth. The contestants had to discipline themselves and lay aside even good things in order to win a prize. If athletes can give up their rights in order to win a fading olive-leaf crown, certainly Christians can lay aside privileges to win an eternal crown! Only one athlete could win each event at the Isthmian Games, but all Christians are given the opportunity to win Christ’s approval.

Paul’s fear of becoming a castaway had nothing to do with his salvation. He is not talking about salvation but Christian service. We are not saved by running the race and winning; we run the race because we are saved (Phil. 3:12–16; Heb. 12:1–3; Rom 9:16). Paul compares himself to the herald who called the athletes into the arena, yet who himself did not pass the tests to be a contestant! Paul was not afraid of losing his salvation but of losing his reward for faithful, sacrificial service.

It is service that Paul is talking about.

You disagree; I understand; I’ll leave it at that.

 

[dennisknapp]

It is of no further use to debate sandusky. He is not open to changing his position, and from what I can gather, wouldn’t want to be shown if his position were wrong in the first place.

I have asked him through personal messaging if his is open to change, he said he is not. I then asked him two questions. I asked him if he could be wrong, and if he were wrong would he want to know it. To these two questions I received no reply, although I did recieve a confirmation of him receiving the message.

What I can gather from this is that he is incapable of being wrong, and would not want to be shown he were wrong, even if in fact he were wrong.

Peace

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky:

Though predestination assures the believer’s salvation, and Christ’s work on the cross has secured that salvation, the believer must appropriate salvation by believing.

The elect must believe, and they will.

It is for the elect/chosen that Paul labors (2 Tim 2:10).

Lets look at 2Tim2:10 in some context:
10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory. 11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; 12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; 13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful–for he cannot deny himself. 14 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus, 18 who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some. 19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” 20 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. 21 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. 22 So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
There is so much to say here.
-in v12 it says 'if WE deny…He will deny US", now is this some kind of twisted poetry of hypotheticals or is this possible for “us” to deny Him?

-v15 says “do YOUR best to present YOURSELF”, not something someone says who is on autopilot cocerning free will.

-v16 we know that Paul is telling Timothy to “avoid Godless chatter…because it will lead people to ungodliness”, is it possible for an elect to at the same time be the cause of causing people to stumble and be sent to hell? Or is ungodliness no big deal if one is elect?

-in v18 it says those guys turned away from the Gospel (also see 1:15), and they are “upsetting the faith of some”. Can the elect have their faith “upset”?..or is that a bump in the road?

-v21-23 it talks about “noble and ignoble” tools, but it explains that description is based on if that person chooses to avoid was is bad and do what is good.

-in v25 it says “God may perhaps grant…”, well is the person predestined to hell or not? from this verse it would seem that either God doesnt know who the elect are, or that nobody is predestined to hell.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Sandusky:

SAVED–there are two elements inside this word. Redemtion and Salvation. Redemption is Christ redeeming mankind. All are welcome to this if we pick choose to pick up our cross and follow the Master. Salvation is our free cooperation to the redemption that Christ gave all of us.

Free will is the tool that each man has to follow or not. In Calvin’s thoughts there’s no room for this free will for the moment we’re conceived we are going one way with no hope for the other. This is tanatamount to the Final Solution of the Third Reich. If you’re not Arian (if there was truly such a thing in the first place) you should be exterminated.

God does know who will end up where. But that doesn’t supercede the fact that God’s mercy and justice give man the chance, the free will to choose him. This is where Calvin took the idea of God’s knowing and charged it to God’s will. If Predestination is a true idea per Calvin, then there’s no need for anyone to do anything but live out their time here in however fashion they wish and end up where God pre-destined them in the first place-it wouldn’t matter.

Calvin is not the only theologian that ever existed. I think you have seen his logic and clamped on to it with unwavering committment. Be fair to yourself and explore the thoughts of St. Thomas, Augustine, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Read GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man. St. John of the Cross’ writings. The Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila. The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis.

You have been graced with intellectual tenacity, use it and widen your base of reference, don’t just take Calvin’s word for it.

God bless you.

in XT.

 

[Veritas41]

If I may jump into the fray here over eternal security: the underlying difference between Catholic and Calvinist teaching on the elect is *who *is the elect-- is it those who are born again by the Holy Spirit or those who, having been born again, persevere in God’s grace until death? Calvinism teaches anyone born again *must *persevere, whereas Catholicism teaches that only the elect will persevere. In other words, some are predestined to grace, while the elect are predestined to glory. This view perfectly reconciles the passages that speak of the perseverance of the elect and also the possiblity of Christians losing their salvation --falling away from God’s sanctifying grace.

Matthew 24:13 says “but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” 2 Timothy 2:12 says, “*if *we endure we will also reign with him.” Romans 11:22, “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sterness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” Jesus Himself says in John 15:6, “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” Jesus here says it is possible for believers to not remain in Him and therefore be condemned. He isn’t talking about people who were never saved to begin with, as I usually here this verse explained by those who believe in eternal security. This was one passage I always puzzled over as a Calvinist because it is so clear regarding the possibility of being removed from Christ. And finally, Philippians 2:12, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” What is to “work out” if everything has already been accomplished pertaining to salvation (especially if faith is all that is necessary to be saved) and why the “fear and trembling” if every born-again believer has a guarantee of eternal life? That was another verse that puzzled me as a Calvinist.

 

[Matt16_18]

Veritas41:

Jesus Himself says in John 15:6, “If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”

Jesus here says it is possible for believers to not remain in Him and therefore be condemned. He isn’t talking about people who were never saved to begin with, as I usually here this verse explained by those who believe in eternal security. This was one passage I always puzzled over as a Calvinist because it is so clear regarding the possibility of being removed from Christ.

I have never heard an OSAS believing Protestant able to give an explanation of the parable of the vine and the branches that made any sense whatsoever.

Obviously, if Jesus taught OSAS, he would have to teach that it is impossible for a branch to be cut off from the vine by the vinedresser. But it is absolutely clear that Jesus is saying that the vinedresser (God the Father) will cut off from the vine (Jesus) the branches (the Christians) that bear no fruit, and that these fruitless branches will be gather together “as branches” to be burned in the fire.

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

If I may jump into the fray here over eternal security: the underlying difference between Catholic and Calvinist teaching on the elect is who is the elect-- is it those who are born again by the Holy Spirit or those who, having been born again, persevere in God’s grace until death? Calvinism teaches anyone born again must persevere, whereas Catholicism teaches that only the elect will persevere. In other words, some are predestined to grace, while the elect are predestined to glory. This view perfectly reconciles the passages that speak of the perseverance of the elect and also the possiblity of Christians losing their salvation --falling away from God’s sanctifying grace.

A couple of observations about what you have said above.

Let’s put aside what you say Calvinists say about the elect, and let’s put aside what you say the RCC says about the elect, and let’s read what the Word says about the elect.

The idea of election is stated in two key areas of Scripture:

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-6
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

I will leave it to you to read Eph 1.

In the Rom 8:30 passage the key words are, who He foreknew…He also predestined…He also called…He also justified…He also glorified. That little word “also” is crucial to the passage; it successively links all of the actions of the Father. All of the Father’s actions are in the aorist, or past tense: they are completed actions, and they are in the active voice, they are actions done by the Father, and they are in the indicative mood, they describe the relationship of the verb, and thereby the direct object, to reality, in other words, the elect can be defined as those who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. The language is strong, clear, and decisive.

Note also, there are no exceptions mentioned, and there are no caveats spoken of. IOW, Paul does not say, at any point, “unless they fail to persevere,” or “unless they fall away,” or anything else. The elect belong to the Father, until He gives them to the Son.

Jn 6:44 says that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Christ. It is clear then, that with drawing, the elect will come, as Christ states in v37. He further states that the one who comes He [Christ] will not cast out; He further states that it is the Father’s will, or charge to the Son, that of those that He has given the Son, He is to lose none, but raise the coming ones up on the last day.

Do you think Jesus able to do that?

In Jn 5:24, Jesus states that the one who has heard His word, and believes, has (as his possession) eternal life, and does not come into judgment (the final throne judgment), but has passed out of death, and into life. Again, notice that there are no exceptions, or caveats to His statements.

In Jn 10:28, Jesus restates that the believer has eternal life, and that he will not perish, and cannot be taken from the Son. Again, no exceptions, or caveats are made by Jesus with respect to the status of the believer.

Do you think Jesus has the authority to make those statements?

Yes, Matthew 24:13 says “but he who stands firm to the end will be saved,” and 2 Timothy 2:12 says, “if we endure we will also reign with him.”

In light of Jesus’ previous statements, it is save to conclude that the believer will stand firm to the end, and he will endure.

(cont)