Assurance of Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oumashta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you thought that through? First of all, the context of John 6:54 is clearly metaphorical. Read before and after the verse to develop the context. John 6:40, which also relates to eternal life, is a parallel to 6:54. The last supper and crucifixion are future to John 6.

Regards, OldProf
…OldProf (remember, I’m pedestrian at this), where did Jesus explained that his rhetoric was merely metaphorical?

…and you did a great exposition of St. Paul’s take… but where did he promote this idea that you have or was he too being metaphorical when he addresses the issue of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
mackbrislawn, I see that fbl9 is pleased with your answer. But is it really a good Scriptural answer?

Jesus has a follower, a sheep, that leaves the flock, and the “Good Shepherd” doesn’t go after it and return it to the flock. Why is He a good shepherd if that is the case?
i thought you were the guy who believed in predestination onto reprobation.
All that the Father gives to Him shall be raised up on the last day. Right? But not this one, since this follower in his freewill decided not to follow Jesus and to actually reject him. Is that even possible?
Consider 1: John 6:37-40 ESV
“37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Consider 2: 1 John 2:19 ESV
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Consider 3: Luke 15:4-6 ESV
4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’
Consider 4: Php 1:6 ESV
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
I think the Scriptural answer is that Jesus sheep, the chosen (or elect) ones, will never in their freewill choose to leave. They will continue in their faith and trust in their Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the penalty for their sins, so they can trust in His finished work on the cross and have peace with God.
Regards, OldProf
who are the elect?
Ubenedictus
 
mackbrislawn, just to make sure you understand. You are trying to defend the position that a sheep in Jesus’ flock can be lost and go to hell.

If so, then
  1. Jesus lied when He said His sheep will never perish (John 10:28).
Jesus said his sheep will not perish. A sheep is economic profit an animal that was bought, now chrish sheep was bought by his blood. Hebrew show that this bought sheep can reject if he is a human and it say ‘there remains no sacrifice for sin’ in this case how can anyone say that sheep belongs to christ? The sheep will not perish as long as it belongs to christ. What happens when the sheep chose not to belong to christ?
  1. Jesus cannot do the will of the Father to raise up all the sheep on the last day (John 6:39).
he can raise up his sheep.
  1. John is wrong that Christians will continue in the faith (1 John 2:19).
no john didnt say all that bear the name christain will pesevere. Those who left the fold were once called christain
  1. Jesus loses sheep proving He is not a good shepherd (Luke 15:4-6, John 10:11).
  2. Paul is wrong in that a good work begun by God will actually fail (Php 1:6).
  3. Hebrews 12:2 is wrong - it is man who is the “finisher” of his faith.
you are reading into the text.
Do you really want to defend that? I think you really need to reconsider the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). The youngest son was one of the elect who went astray. The older son, like the self righteous Pharisee, was not. Dr. John MacArthur, in his book “The Tale of Two Sons,” provides a full analysis and contextual argument. In a book review, Tim Challies says,
“In the book’s opening chapter MacArthur makes clear the central and culminating lesson of the parable: “Jesus is pointing out the stark contrast between God’s own delight in the redemption of sinners and the Pharisees’ inflexible hostility toward those same sinners.” Though the younger son is important to the story, his redemption is not the main point. Rather, this parable is to serve as “a mirror for every human heart and conscience” that will reflect either God’s love for fallen sinners or a human hardness and arrogance that would deny that such hardened sinners could ever know His love.”
Regarding the exhortations to falling away, remember CONTEXT IS KEY! See my response to jchrichton below.
Regarding warnings about false teachers, that still applies today.
If you have specific questions on John 15 (pretty common with those who think the sheep can be lost), what are they?
The sheep, the elect, can have joy and peace (John 15:11, Rom 15:13, Gal 5:22) and assurance (1 John 5:13).
Sincerely, OldProf
so the older son wasnt really a son right? And you havent told me or gave a comprehensive list of the elect. The guy who cant be lost, who cant perish, will be raised up are the elect, very true according to trent. The question is who are the elect?
Ubenedictus
 
If it was as you say clearly just metaphorcial than “Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” would not have happened. Jesus clearly stated that He was giving His Flesh and Blood for us to eat. Those who heard Him understood it this way. Jesus did not correct their understanding because they understood Him, there was nothing for Jesus to correct. In deed, Jesus is refering to the future event of the Last Supper. But it was too hard a saying, just as it is today that what Jesus said and meant is rejected.
adrift, it is a metaphor and a hard saying. John 6 ends with:

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. ESV

The metaphor is that Jesus is the “bread of life.” John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

Since everybody gets hungry and thirsty, and, in fact on a daily basis, we have to understand what he means here.

Jesus, we know, even as a child, could hold His own in a theological debate. We also believe He grew up with a knowledge of carpentry. But in the Gospels, He is a Rabbi, a Jewish teacher, and He used metaphors to communicate truths. He would say, “I am the good shepherd,” or, “I am the light of the world,” or, “I am the true vine.” (John chapters 8, 10, 15) He would then relate how truths about the metaphor applied.

This is one of those metaphors, but the context of John 6 will help us determine His teaching points for this one.

This teaching went over the heads of many in the crowd. They likely thought, “Eat his flesh! Drink his blood! Who is this fruitcake?!” They “knew” drinking blood was strictly prohibited (for example, see Lev 17:10-14). Those “disciples” who couldn’t trust Jesus after hearing this teaching walked away. But ACTUALLY drinking His blood or ACTUALLY eating His flesh was not the meaning.

There is a lot to say about this in John 6, and jcrichton in post #340 has asked for a fuller explanation or exegesis of this. So please consider my response here and to him (I’ll get to that response tomorrow, hopefully).

Sincerely, OldProf
 
I hope this is the right place to put this thread 😃

I have a question about the Catholic teachings about assurance of salvation and how to defend it. My mother, who is a Protestant minister, just recently finished a course in Protestant evangelization and decided that I would be a good person to start with 😛 My mother has no problem now with me becoming a Baptized Catholic soon, but she wanted to make sure that I knew the ‘full gospel’. Although I know that she had good intentions, many of the things that she tried to convince me of were extremely contrary to Catholic teaching, such as sola fide and assurance of salvation. She repeatedly asked me the question ‘If you were to die today, would you know for sure you would go to Heaven?’ I told her that I hope to go to Heaven, but that this decision was up to God and not me. She then told me that ‘We need to rely on God’s promises because He told us that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life.’ I tried to explain to her in a kind way that we are not saved by faith alone and explained to her my position on assurance of salvation, but she continued to ask me over again. Finally, she asked me again. It was 11:30 PM, I was tired, somewhat frustrated, and I wanted to go to bed, and so I just smiled and said ‘Most certainly :D!’ and then she let me off.

So my questions are:
  1. Did I do anything wrong by saying that I had assurance of salvation just to get out of my mother’s questioning, even though I didn’t mean it?
  2. How do I calm my mother fears about me ‘being saved’ and ‘being sure you’re going to Heaven’ while staying true and explaining to her the Catholic Church’s teachings?
Thanks and God bless! 😃
To correct your mother would be a just act. An act of an apostle.
 
adrift, it is a metaphor and a hard saying. John 6 ends with:

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. ESV

The metaphor is that Jesus is the “bread of life.” John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

Since everybody gets hungry and thirsty, and, in fact on a daily basis, we have to understand what he means here.

Jesus, we know, even as a child, could hold His own in a theological debate. We also believe He grew up with a knowledge of carpentry. But in the Gospels, He is a Rabbi, a Jewish teacher, and He used metaphors to communicate truths. He would say, “I am the good shepherd,” or, “I am the light of the world,” or, “I am the true vine.” (John chapters 8, 10, 15) He would then relate how truths about the metaphor applied.

This is one of those metaphors, but the context of John 6 will help us determine His teaching points for this one.

This teaching went over the heads of many in the crowd. They likely thought, “Eat his flesh! Drink his blood! Who is this fruitcake?!” They “knew” drinking blood was strictly prohibited (for example, see Lev 17:10-14). Those “disciples” who couldn’t trust Jesus after hearing this teaching walked away. But ACTUALLY drinking His blood or ACTUALLY eating His flesh was not the meaning.

There is a lot to say about this in John 6, and jcrichton in post #340 has asked for a fuller explanation or exegesis of this. So please consider my response here and to him (I’ll get to that response tomorrow, hopefully).

Sincerely, OldProf
Yes wine does wonders for blood vessels. Be careful not to indulge.
 
i thought you were the guy who believed in predestination onto reprobation.

who are the elect?
Ubenedictus
Does the Bible teach predestination? Yes.
Who are the elect? Christians. When I say that, I mean the ones that Jesus knows.

Jesus said, 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt 7:21-23 ESV)

The elect are born of God (John 1:13) and have eternal life (John 5:24).

Eternal life actually means eternal life, not “the possibility of eternal life,” as, apparently most of the contributors of this forum believe.

The elect will “never perish” (John 10:28).

Regards, OldProf
 
OldProf: The branches that do not abide and are cut off and burned–are they saved or not?

If once saved always saved is true then How could they be alive with the sap of life which is Christ and be cut off and burned for not continuing to abide?
 
adrift, it is a metaphor and a hard saying. John 6 ends with:

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. ESV

The metaphor is that Jesus is the “bread of life.” John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

Since everybody gets hungry and thirsty, and, in fact on a daily basis, we have to understand what he means here.

Jesus, we know, even as a child, could hold His own in a theological debate. We also believe He grew up with a knowledge of carpentry. But in the Gospels, He is a Rabbi, a Jewish teacher, and He used metaphors to communicate truths. He would say, “I am the good shepherd,” or, “I am the light of the world,” or, “I am the true vine.” (John chapters 8, 10, 15) He would then relate how truths about the metaphor applied.

This is one of those metaphors, but the context of John 6 will help us determine His teaching points for this one.

This teaching went over the heads of many in the crowd. They likely thought, “Eat his flesh! Drink his blood! Who is this fruitcake?!” They “knew” drinking blood was strictly prohibited (for example, see Lev 17:10-14). Those “disciples” who couldn’t trust Jesus after hearing this teaching walked away. But ACTUALLY drinking His blood or ACTUALLY eating His flesh was not the meaning.

There is a lot to say about this in John 6, and jcrichton in post #340 has asked for a fuller explanation or exegesis of this. So please consider my response here and to him (I’ll get to that response tomorrow, hopefully).

Sincerely, OldProf
A metaphor has to make sense to be a metaphor.

When Jesus says I am the bread of life, it is possible for that to be a metaphor. But when he says you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, where is the metaphor? What does his meat and blood have to do with anything? Nothing. Therefore it is not metaphor and if not metaphor, then it is literal.

Saying that Jesus’ words were the bread of life would make sense, but to say that his flesh and blood? Why would Jesus use eating his flesh and blood as a metaphor when his hearers never ate human flesh nor blood? He wouldn’t, and hence not metaphor.
 
Do you really want to defend that? I think you really need to reconsider the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). The youngest son was one of the elect who went astray. The older son, like the self righteous Pharisee, was not. Dr. John MacArthur, in his book “The Tale of Two Sons,” provides a full analysis and contextual argument. In a book review, Tim Challies says,

“In the book’s opening chapter MacArthur makes clear the central and culminating lesson of the parable: “Jesus is pointing out the stark contrast between God’s own delight in the redemption of sinners and the Pharisees’ inflexible hostility toward those same sinners.” Though the younger son is important to the story, his redemption is not the main point. Rather, this parable is to serve as “a mirror for every human heart and conscience” that will reflect either God’s love for fallen sinners or a human hardness and arrogance that would deny that such hardened sinners could ever know His love.”
A brilliant way of interpreting that parable. Brilliant because it’s purpose is to divert attention away from the point that God loves us even when we are sleeping with pigs, but that until we turn to God, it does us no good. As for the older son, he still was his father’s son, and continued to remain with his father and retained his inheritance.

Now I know how the Jehovah’s Witnesses learned to interpret the bible! From MacArthur!
 
A brilliant way of interpreting that parable. Brilliant because it’s purpose is to divert attention away from the point that God loves us even when we are sleeping with pigs, but that until we turn to God, it does us no good. As for the older son, he still was his father’s son, and continued to remain with his father and retained his inheritance.

Now I know how the Jehovah’s Witnesses learned to interpret the bible! From MacArthur!
No, JW’s do NOT like MacArthur.

Here’s your interpretive problem. An unbeliever is dead, that is, spiritually dead.

Jesus said they are dead. Paul says they are dead. I’ve spelled it out in previous posts on this thread. (Eph 2:1 and much more.)

What power does the dead man have? Do we correct Jesus and Paul to tell them, “No, guys, you are using the wrong term. The unbeliever is not spiritually dead, but just crippled or maimed. They still have to power within themselves to make the righteous decision to believe in God.”

Does the Bible teach that the unbeliever can make righteous decisions?

It does not (Rom 3:10-12). It teaches that those born of God, or born again, are regenerated and then do have that ability. That is, they are regenerated and drawn by the Father to Christ, they will have eternal life, and Christ will raise them up on the last day (another way of saying they have eternal life). The work God starts is the work He will complete (Php 1:6).

The Bible also teaches that a “professing Christian” who ends up leaving the faith was never a Christian to begin with (1 John 2:19).

Regards, OldProf
 
No, JW’s do NOT like MacArthur.

Here’s your interpretive problem. An unbeliever is dead, that is, spiritually dead.

Jesus said they are dead. Paul says they are dead. I’ve spelled it out in previous posts on this thread. (Eph 2:1 and much more.)

What power does the dead man have? Do we correct Jesus and Paul to tell them, “No, guys, you are using the wrong term. The unbeliever is not spiritually dead, but just crippled or maimed. They still have to power within themselves to make the righteous decision to believe in God.”

Does the Bible teach that the unbeliever can make righteous decisions?

It does not (Rom 3:10-12).
Rom 3:10-12
Does not support yours statment that unbeleivers can make righteous decisisons
From the footnotes of the NAB
1 [1-4] In keeping with the popular style of diatribe, Paul responds to the objection that his teaching on the sinfulness of all humanity detracts from the religious prerogatives of Israel. He stresses that Jews have remained the vehicle of God’s revelation despite their sins, though this depends on the fidelity of God.
Paul is responding to an objection that all have sinned not about unbelievers making righteous decisions.
It teaches that those born of God, or born again, are regenerated and then do have that ability. That is, they are regenerated and drawn by the Father to Christ, they will have eternal life, and Christ will raise them up on the last day (another way of saying they have eternal life). The work God starts is the work He will complete (Php 1:6).
Not quite what it says. It says that Paul has confidence that the one who started the good work will complete it but only to those who stay loyal. Why else would Paul pray for them if they are already saves? Philippians 1:10; 2:16; 3:20-21; 1 Thes 4:17; 5:10; 2 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 1:8. Beign Born again Jesus clearly stated how and that is why Jesus instructs the Apostles to Baptize.
The Bible also teaches that a “professing Christian” who ends up leaving the faith was never a Christian to begin with (1 John 2:19).
This refers to false prophets.
 
Rom 3:10-12
Does not support yours statment that unbeleivers can make righteous decisisons
From the footnotes of the NAB

Paul is responding to an objection that all have sinned not about unbelievers making righteous decisions.

Not quite what it says. It says that Paul has confidence that the one who started the good work will complete it but only to those who stay loyal. Why else would Paul pray for them if they are already saves? Philippians 1:10; 2:16; 3:20-21; 1 Thes 4:17; 5:10; 2 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 1:8. Beign Born again Jesus clearly stated how and that is why Jesus instructs the Apostles to Baptize.

This refers to false prophets.
adrift, thank-you for your response and verse references. Maybe you had some typos in the response, but I was supporting the contention that unbelievers do not have the ability to do anything righteous. In Romans 1:18 thru 2:29, a pretty devestating picture is painted of man and of God’s righteous judgment. In Romans 3:1-8, we can see a part of the blessing of being a Jew, but is that enough? No. Man’s state before God is unrighteousness and nothing but unrighteousness. Man is un-holy and separated from God, and in desparate need of a savior.

I’ll now lay out a biblical argument. Verses below are from biblegateway on the web.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Rom 3:9-12 ESV)

Note Paul’s further testimony about man:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:1-10 NKJV)

Here is one from Isaiah.

For we have all become like one who is unclean [ceremonially, like a leper], and all our righteousness (our best deeds of rightness and justice) is like filthy rags or a polluted garment; we all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away [far from God’s favor, hurrying us toward destruction]. (Isaiah 64:6 Amplified)

The term filthy rags or polluted garment is equivalent to “menstrual rags.” The CEB translation uses that term.

Here is one from Jeremiah.

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jer 17:9 NKJV)

The implication is that God only can know it. And God is not impressed.

Note how Jesus spoke.

Then another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matt 8:21-22 NKJV, see also Luke 9:60)

Man needs God and His grace. A most beautiful picture is given in John 11, where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Why, after 4 days, and now in the tomb, can Lazarus respond to ANY command? Only one reason. Jesus has the power. God has the power. What power? Resurrection power, and it works both physically and spiritually. Without the enabling of God, no one who is spiritually dead, that is, one who is dead in trespasses and sins can do any righteous thing. Unregenerate man does not have that ability.

The verses you gave near the end are from Pauline epistles written to believers. And note Paul’s very words, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” (1 Cor 1:17 NKJV)

Finally, 1 John 2:19 applies to antichrists, and all that applies to them. They are, first and foremost, unbelievers, who mingle with believers. They also are false prophets, false teachers, and sew dischord into the Church with their false theology. And God allows it. These things will sharpen the theology of true believers and strengthen their witness to God’s true glory. Note how John says it, “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:18-19 ESV)

I hope this better explains why I believe the Bible teaches that man is totally incapable of any righteousness, which includes the ability to believe in Jesus without God’s enabling grace.

Sincerely, OldProf
 
OldProf;9395944]
No, JW’s do NOT like MacArthur.
I don’t suppose they do. They do not like anyone who is not them. Actually, MacArthur probably learned how to interpret the bible from the JW’s! That is, in an imaginative, fanciful style to sidestep accepting what the bible says.
Here’s your interpretive problem. An unbeliever is dead, that is, spiritually dead.
Jesus said they are dead. Paul says they are dead. I’ve spelled it out in previous posts on this thread. (Eph 2:1 and much more.)
What power does the dead man have? Do we correct Jesus and Paul to tell them, “No, guys, you are using the wrong term. The unbeliever is not spiritually dead, but just crippled or maimed. They still have to power within themselves to make the righteous decision to believe in God.”
Does the Bible teach that the unbeliever can make righteous decisions?
It does not (Rom 3:10-12). It teaches that those born of God, or born again, are regenerated and then do have that ability. That is, they are regenerated and drawn by the Father to Christ, they will have eternal life, and Christ will raise them up on the last day (another way of saying they have eternal life). The work God starts is the work He will complete (Php 1:6).
Going back to the prodigal son, he was his father’s son, hence he was one of the generate to begin with, so most of what you say here is not to the point. Even the generate can leave, but if they do not come back, they are lost.
The Bible also teaches that a “professing Christian” who ends up leaving the faith was never a Christian to begin with (1 John 2:19).
Well, OldProf, I guess when you end up leaving that means you were never a Christian to begin with.

That is the anxiety that such type of Christians have that Catholics do not. They have to worry all the time if they are a Christian to begin with! They desperately run around doing good works, because that is a sign of being a Christian. They wonder, have I done enough good works to prove to myself I am one of the generate after all? They won’t know until they are raised up on the last day! (I agree that is what eternal life means, that Christ will raise them up on the last day.)
 
adrift, thank-you for your response and verse references. Maybe you had some typos in the response, but I was supporting the contention that unbelievers do not have the ability to do anything righteous. In Romans 1:18 thru 2:29, a pretty devestating picture is painted of man and of God’s righteous judgment. In Romans 3:1-8, we can see a part of the blessing of being a Jew, but is that enough? No. Man’s state before God is unrighteousness and nothing but unrighteousness. Man is un-holy and separated from God, and in desparate need of a savior.

I’ll now lay out a biblical argument. Verses below are from biblegateway on the web.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Rom 3:9-12 ESV)

Note Paul’s further testimony about man:

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:1-10 NKJV)

Here is one from Isaiah.

For we have all become like one who is unclean [ceremonially, like a leper], and all our righteousness (our best deeds of rightness and justice) is like filthy rags or a polluted garment; we all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away [far from God’s favor, hurrying us toward destruction]. (Isaiah 64:6 Amplified)

The term filthy rags or polluted garment is equivalent to “menstrual rags.” The CEB translation uses that term.

Here is one from Jeremiah.

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jer 17:9 NKJV)

The implication is that God only can know it. And God is not impressed.

Note how Jesus spoke.

Then another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matt 8:21-22 NKJV, see also Luke 9:60)

Man needs God and His grace. A most beautiful picture is given in John 11, where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Why, after 4 days, and now in the tomb, can Lazarus respond to ANY command? Only one reason. Jesus has the power. God has the power. What power? Resurrection power, and it works both physically and spiritually. Without the enabling of God, no one who is spiritually dead, that is, one who is dead in trespasses and sins can do any righteous thing. Unregenerate man does not have that ability.

The verses you gave near the end are from Pauline epistles written to believers. And note Paul’s very words, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” (1 Cor 1:17 NKJV)

Finally, 1 John 2:19 applies to antichrists, and all that applies to them. They are, first and foremost, unbelievers, who mingle with believers. They also are false prophets, false teachers, and sew dischord into the Church with their false theology. And God allows it. These things will sharpen the theology of true believers and strengthen their witness to God’s true glory. Note how John says it, “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:18-19 ESV)

I hope this better explains why I believe the Bible teaches that man is totally incapable of any righteousness, which includes the ability to believe in Jesus without God’s enabling grace.

Sincerely, OldProf
I don’t think St Augustine would disagree much with this. I don’t know that I do. However what I want to know is it true that God selects, pretty much on a random basis, to whom He will give his enabling grace? Also, I presume that those He does not give His grace will be damned.

Also why do the true believers need their theology sharpened and their witness to God’s true glory strengthened? After all, they are of the elect and will go to heaven regardless. By definition they will not fall away.

Another question. If the world is nothing but unrighteous and full of hateful sinners, why did God love it?
 
Does the Bible teach predestination? Yes.
Who are the elect? Christians. When I say that, I mean the ones that Jesus knows.

Jesus said, 21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt 7:21-23 ESV)

The elect are born of God (John 1:13) and have eternal life (John 5:24).

Eternal life actually means eternal life, not “the possibility of eternal life,” as, apparently most of the contributors of this forum believe.

The elect will “never perish” (John 10:28).

Regards, OldProf
very true. Im familiar with your definition of the elect. The RCC isnt against predestination or election but if you are using predestination to justify once saved always saved then we have a problem because we dont know the elect. I dont know if you are among the elect because divine election is not a human affair, we dont know the elect unless by some special revelation. So as far as you dont even know if you are among the elect how can you claim infalliable assurance of salvation.
Ubenedictus
 
I don’t think St Augustine would disagree much with this. I don’t know that I do. However what I want to know is it true that God selects, pretty much on a random basis, to whom He will give his enabling grace? Also, I presume that those He does not give His grace will be damned.

Also why do the true believers need their theology sharpened and their witness to God’s true glory strengthened? After all, they are of the elect and will go to heaven regardless. By definition they will not fall away.

Another question. If the world is nothing but unrighteous and full of hateful sinners, why did God love it?
IMO the problem is that the Calvinistic understanding of God is sort of juvenile, stunted, hyper-rationalistic; a caricature of the real thing. Their God is too far removed, too distant and aloof in His sovereignty. The truth is that, while we may be less than ants compared to Him, at the same time we’re much more than ants to Him. While Calvinists may pay lip service to the notion, I believe they fail to grasp just how much God truly values, loves, and even relates to man.

We’re part of Him, extensions of Him, expressions, at least potentially, of His nature. And He’s always had all of mankind’s best interest at heart-always wanted nothing less than boundless and unending happiness for man-regardless of what we might think of ourselves. He created each one of us after all-and He created each of us good; no evil exists in anything He creates; no evil comes from His hands. He’s the good Father who pines for His wayward children, calling all of us home- if we’re willing to come.
 
IMO the problem is that the Calvinistic understanding of God is sort of juvenile, stunted, hyper-rationalistic; a caricature of the real thing. Their God is too far removed, too distant and aloof in His sovereignty. The truth is that, while we may be less than ants compared to Him, at the same time we’re much more than ants to Him. While Calvinists may pay lip service to the notion, I believe they fail to grasp just how much God truly values, loves, and even relates to man.

We’re part of Him, extensions of Him, expressions, at least potentially, of His nature. And He’s always had all of mankind’s best interest at heart-always wanted nothing less than boundless and unending happiness for man-regardless of what we might think of ourselves. He created each one of us after all-and He created each of us good; no evil exists in anything He creates; no evil comes from His hands. He’s the good Father who pines for His wayward children, calling all of us home- if we’re willing to come.
👍
 
“As for the older son, he still was his father’s son, and continued to remain with his father and retained his inheritance.”

Huh? :confused:
 
“As for the older son, he still was his father’s son, and continued to remain with his father and retained his inheritance.”

Huh? :confused:
Didn’t the father say to the older son, “Everything I have is yours”? Just because he stayed home and worked doesn’t mean he was disinherited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top