Assurance of Salvation

[jcrichton]

Not actually “saved” in this life? Consider:

John 6:35-40

Context: Jewish audience in a synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:41; John 6:59)

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. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 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.”

It seems that all that the Father gives to the Son are saved in this life. These would be those chosen by God (Colossians 3:12-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), the elect (1 Peter 1:1-2), the sheep in John 10.

If in the beginning they are the chosen, the elect, the sheep - are they really not saved in this life?

Here’s a truth: We love Him because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

Regards, OldProf

…which would be grand if Jesus did not chose/“elect” Judas who was lost in spite of being chosen!

…which would be grand if the hundreds of disciples did not leave Jesus when He Commanded that they masticate/gnaw His Flesh in order that they Have Life in them!

…which would be grand if the thousands of “Christians” who continue to change the Gospel to conform to the world did not change with the world’s revolving social and moral codes…

…which would be grand if Israel or Jacob if you rather, who is Yahweh God’s first-born did not reject the Messiah so that the Gentiles could be let into the “elect” club only to be reinstated into the “elect” club at the fullness of times (Romans 9:1 through 11:32)

…which would be grand if those who died during God’s patience, when they refused to Believe, were not given the “elect” club speech by Jesus, in the Spirit (1 St. Peter 3:19-20)

…which would be grand if those who were inniciated into the early Church did not take the Gospel of Christ and attempt to corrupt Christ’s Church in her inception…

…it is great to sound off God’s Might, Power, Mercy and Salvific Plan… none here denies any of that… what no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) can spouse is a false sense of security based on a system that interpretes the Word of God as a free ticket to Salvation for the elite “elect” and a sure ride to damnation for the poor unfortunate souls whose bad luck would have them fall on the wrong slut of God’s “wheel of fortune!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

…which would be grand if Jesus did not chose/“elect” Judas who was lost in spite of being chosen!

Jesus chose Judas to be one of the 12, but He knew who it was who would betray Him. He said “one of you is a devil”. That does not sound like one of the sheep!

Peter said of Judas:

Acts 1:25
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."

Maybe it was always “his own place” and he was never on the road to take his place in the ministry and apostleship which Jesus offered him?

...which would be grand if the hundreds of disciples did not leave Jesus when He Commanded that they masticate/gnaw His Flesh in order that they Have Life in them!

In this case I am in agreement with you. They were following HIm, and they turned away. I know OldProf would say they were never sheep/elect. I think a case can be made for that, since His sheep know Him, and follow Him. I often wonder which, if any, of those came back after the resurrection. I wonder of Dismas might have been one of them? Was he baptized at one point, and did he stand among the crowds listening? How else would he know the kind of Man Jesus was?

…which would be grand if the thousands of “Christians” who continue to change the Gospel to conform to the world did not change with the world’s revolving social and moral codes…

I was just reading another thread started by a well meaning Catholic who was asking if the Church would now change her stance on gay “marriage” because it had been legalized.

…which would be grand if Israel or Jacob if you rather, who is Yahweh God’s first-born did not reject the Messiah so that the Gentiles could be let into the “elect” club only to be reinstated into the “elect” club at the fullness of times (Romans 9:1 through 11:32)

Not sure I am getting the point here.

...which would be grand if those who died during God's patience, when they refused to Believe, were not given the "elect" club speech by Jesus, in the Spirit (1 St. Peter 3:19-20)

This is a very good point that I never thought of before. It seems clear that Jesus “preached the Gospel” to those in Abraham’s bosom. Would Old Prof say they were all part of the Elect, just waiting for Jesus? If so, why the need for Him to preach to them? IF only some of them were Elect, why does it seem that everyone was given a choice/opportunity? And if some were not Elect (destined for damnation) what were they doing in the place of the righteous dead.

…which would be grand if those who were inniciated into the early Church did not take the Gospel of Christ and attempt to corrupt Christ’s Church in her inception…

This is a toughy, because St. John seems to say they were never sheep - always goats, or better, wolves among the sheep. Any Reformed theologian will agree that there are goats and wolves in the pews.

…it is great to sound off God’s Might, Power, Mercy and Salvific Plan… none here denies any of that… what no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) can spouse is a false sense of security based on a system that interpretes the Word of God as a free ticket to Salvation for the elite “elect” and a sure ride to damnation for the poor unfortunate souls whose bad luck would have them fall on the wrong slut of God’s “wheel of fortune!”

Maran atha!

Angel

Take a breath there Angel!

 

[jcrichton]

It is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

When 1 Corinthians 6:19 says the Holy Spirit is in you, it is describing a personal relationship rather than a physical location. Thus to say that the Holy Spirit is in you is not to point out where the Holy Spirit is physically located, but rather to point out that we have come into a special, intimate, personal relationship with Him through repentance. Similarly, when Jesus says, “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38), He is not speaking of physical location but intimacy of relationship.

Thy words have I hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)

I like Bible study and biblical ideas and verses pop into mind all the time. It’s a great help. Plus, Christian’s “have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16)

So, we know when we sin and we’re grieved about it, as is the Holy Spirit. We pray to the Lord and ask forgiveness, and we know this:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

Regards, OldProf

…so when Jesus says that the other Paraclete cannot be known to the world because the world does not Believe but that He is with the Eleven (the Church) because He is with them and in them… Jesus is just making sure that the Eleven understand that there’s symmetry?:

15 If you love me you will keep my commandments. 16 I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, 17 the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you. 18 I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you. 19 In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see that I live and you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. 21 Whoever holds to my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and reveal myself to him.’ 22 Judas – not Judas Iscariot – said to him, ‘Lord, what has happened, that you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?’ 23 Jesus replied: Anyone who loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make a home in him. (St. John 14:15-23)

…so would Jesus be talking about synergy… you know, He makes a big deal about the other Paraclete abiding in the Believers and He and the Father also doing the same… if there’s no reality to this “abiding” why make such a fuss?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…which would be grand if Jesus did not chose/“elect” Judas who was lost in spite of being chosen!

…which would be grand if the hundreds of disciples did not leave Jesus when He Commanded that they masticate/gnaw His Flesh in order that they Have Life in them!

…which would be grand if the thousands of “Christians” who continue to change the Gospel to conform to the world did not change with the world’s revolving social and moral codes…

…which would be grand if Israel or Jacob if you rather, who is Yahweh God’s first-born did not reject the Messiah so that the Gentiles could be let into the “elect” club only to be reinstated into the “elect” club at the fullness of times (Romans 9:1 through 11:32)

…which would be grand if those who died during God’s patience, when they refused to Believe, were not given the “elect” club speech by Jesus, in the Spirit (1 St. Peter 3:19-20)

…which would be grand if those who were inniciated into the early Church did not take the Gospel of Christ and attempt to corrupt Christ’s Church in her inception…

…it is great to sound off God’s Might, Power, Mercy and Salvific Plan… none here denies any of that… what no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) can spouse is a false sense of security based on a system that interpretes the Word of God as a free ticket to Salvation for the elite “elect” and a sure ride to damnation for the poor unfortunate souls whose bad luck would have them fall on the wrong slot of God’s “wheel of fortune!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

…so when Jesus says that the other Paraclete cannot be known to the world because the world does not Believe but that He is with the Eleven (the Church) because He is with them and in them… Jesus is just making sure that the Eleven understand that there’s symmetry?:

Symmetry?

When I used to frequent evangelical circles, it seemed to me that they did not take any of the context into account when Jesus was addressing the Apostles or disciples. Across the board they seem to assume that everything in scripture applies to them. That being the case, anyone who claims to be a believer assumes that John is guaranteeing that they have no need that anyone should teach them, because they have the HS to teach them.

…so would Jesus be talking about synergy… you know, He makes a big deal about the other Paraclete abiding in the Believers and He and the Father also doing the same… if there’s no reality to this “abiding” why make such a fuss?

It seems like the passages you posted about the vine and the branch speak very well to the synergy issue.

 

[fbl9]

It is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

When 1 Corinthians 6:19 says the Holy Spirit is in you, it is describing a personal relationship rather than a physical location. Thus to say that the Holy Spirit is in you is not to point out where the Holy Spirit is physically located, but rather to point out that we have come into a special, intimate, personal relationship with Him through repentance. Similarly, when Jesus says, “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38), He is not speaking of physical location but intimacy of relationship.

Thy words have I hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)

I like Bible study and biblical ideas and verses pop into mind all the time. It’s a great help. Plus, Christian’s “have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16)

So, we know when we sin and we’re grieved about it, as is the Holy Spirit. We pray to the Lord and ask forgiveness, and we know this:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

Regards, OldProf

Thank you OldProf.
To enable you to catch up it would not be offensive to me if you skipped responding to any of my other posts till you can catch up a bit.

If an osas beleiver where to commit adultry,would it be your contentionthat they were not saved in the first place?

Would say that if one would a true beleiver the Holy Spirit would not allow them them to sin this grievious in the first place?

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus chose Judas to be one of the 12, but He knew who it was who would betray Him. He said “one of you is a devil”. That does not sound like one of the sheep!

Peter said of Judas:

Acts 1:25
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."

Maybe it was always “his own place” and he was never on the road to take his place in the ministry and apostleship which Jesus offered him?

It is understood that there were Twelve Offices; it was revealed by Jesus that Judas was to betray Him; in order for prophecy to be fulfilled about His Death all of the particulars, including the betrayal of an intimate disciple, had to come to fruition… here lies the conundrum: Judas had to be one of the chosen Twelve while simultaneously by as incredulous as the High Priest who sought Jesus’ Life… but we cannot have it both ways, Judas cannot be an “elect” of Jesus and not be one of His Sheep!

In this case I am in agreement with you. They were following HIm, and they turned away. I know OldProf would say they were never sheep/elect. I think a case can be made for that, since His sheep know Him, and follow Him. I often wonder which, if any, of those came back after the resurrection. I wonder of Dismas might have been one of them? Was he baptized at one point, and did he stand among the crowds listening? How else would he know the kind of Man Jesus was?

(ran out of space check the response to:

This is a toughy

since it applies to both “toughy” and the above.

I was just reading another thread started by a well meaning Catholic who was asking if the Church would now change her stance on gay “marriage” because it had been legalized.

…yeah, talk about forward-thinking!

Originally Posted by jcrichton
…which would be grand if Israel or Jacob if you rather, who is Yahweh God’s first-born did not reject the Messiah so that the Gentiles could be let into the “elect” club only to be reinstated into the “elect” club at the fullness of times (Romans 9:1 through 11:32)

…Israel,the original “sheep,” is allowed to leave God’s Security in order to grant passage to the Gentiles… so the people who belonged to God are allowed to turn away from the Messiah in order that the Gentiles who were not God’s people be given the opportunity to become heirs of Abraham, in the Faith–if Israel did not reject the Son of Man (St. John 1:1-14) Jesus could not offer Hope to the Gentiles as foretold by the prophecies–another nasty snag on the “no sheep allowed to lose Salvation” run… :coffeeread:

This is a very good point that I never thought of before. It seems clear that Jesus “preached the Gospel” to those in Abraham’s bosom. Would Old Prof say they were all part of the Elect, just waiting for Jesus? If so, why the need for Him to preach to them? IF only some of them were Elect, why does it seem that everyone was given a choice/opportunity? And if some were not Elect (destined for damnation) what were they doing in the place of the righteous dead.

Exactly! …if they were part of the “elect” (never to lose Salvation) then why would Jesus seek them out since they were already “Saved?” …conversely, if they were part of the “must be damned,” then why would Jesus flaunt it: ‘…see what you’ve missed?’

This is a toughy, because St. John seems to say they were never sheep - always goats, or better, wolves among the sheep. Any Reformed theologian will agree that there are goats and wolves in the pews.

…actually, not all who began to corrupt the Gospel/Church left the Church… we have at least one example where St. Paul nipped it right on the bud: “…is Christ divided?..” It is almost certain that most, if not all, corrected the errors of their ways and humbly obeyed the guidance of the Apostles…

…further, I am not sure that the expression “not of our own” would automatically mean that anyone that begins the “good race” and turns from Christ or against Christ would have necessarily not have known/belonged to Christ… I rest my opinion on Christ’s Word:

21 'It is not anyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 When the day comes many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?” 23 Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers! (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

…it is not enough to know/claim Christ, use His Name to perform wondrous signs or fight demons in Christ’s Name… if it were why would Christ call them evil and shun them? …these people, I suspect, got to know Jesus and the Power of the Holy Spirit but, as the parable of the seeds, it became more important to befriend the world and its trappings than to stay the course and “Stand!”

Take a breath there Angel!

…I need one of those martial arts contraptions that would smack me on the back of my head when I start to push the issue… I really don’t mean to… but the crouching tiger gets lose sometimes… :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Thank you for the observation… please feel free to inject it when necessary!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Symmetry?

When I used to frequent evangelical circles, it seemed to me that they did not take any of the context into account when Jesus was addressing the Apostles or disciples. Across the board they seem to assume that everything in scripture applies to them. That being the case, anyone who claims to be a believer assumes that John is guaranteeing that they have no need that anyone should teach them, because they have the HS to teach them.

…you know like that old song: “…don’t worry, be happy…” or that oriental chi thing or the nirvana “x” level… you know… the “feel good” Gospel!

Sadly, many of those theologies just kick Jesus out of Christianity since they basically state that they know what God really meant and that everything that the Holy Spirit did in the history of the Church was a fluke–I know they do not see it that way… but if they were truthful with themselves they would admit that either Christ did the things He did and meant them or that they have deeper knowledge than Christ, who instituted such things as a Church, Sacraments, and a hierarchy ("…are they all Apostles…?"); we must accept or deny… but it cannot be both!

It seems like the passages you posted about the vine and the branch speak very well to the synergy issue.

I’m hoping for some response…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[OldProf]

Hi, OldProf,

At the risk of sounding tedious… please define your understanding of an individual person’s Free Will.

Based on my understanding of Free Will - it is totally incompatable with ‘AoS’ and ‘OSAS’ material. I think once the differences are lined up, it will be much easier to actually address this thread clearly.

Oh, and my understanding of Free Will is the Gift of God that he has given to men and to angels that they can choose to worship God or not. Angels had one chance at making the correct choice, while humans have many. I can only chose God if I freely choose to cooperate with His Grace. I can only chose self (and the Devil who is promoting this illusion) by totally relying on my own abilities and refusing to cooperate with God. This power of Free Will remains with humans until death. Once a soul faces God, their Free Will is ‘frozen’ in the direction that we chose: facing towards God or facing away.

This definition is totally and absolutely opposed to ‘AoS’ and ‘OSAS’.

So, please, let’s get started.

God bless

Tom, I’m currently at work, so don’t have a response right now. Is what you have written a personal definition? Would Augustine give this definition of “Free Will” his blessing?

I’m thinking not.

Regards, OldProf

 

[guanophore]

It is understood that there were Twelve Offices; it was revealed by Jesus that Judas was to betray Him; in order for prophecy to be fulfilled about His Death all of the particulars, including the betrayal of an intimate disciple, had to come to fruiti n... here lies the conundrum:  Judas had to be one of the chosen Twelve while simultaneously by as incredulous as the High Priest who sought Jesus' Life... but we cannot have it both ways, Judas cannot be an "elect" of Jesus and not be one of His Sheep!

Well, I agree completely of course. The issue is whether or not Judas’ appointment to the office necessarily makes him one of the “elect” or one of His sheep. I think a good case can be made that it does not. There have been many corrupt individuals in important offices of the Church, the Popes included, who lead lives of corruption and pursued the desires of the flesh. The fact that they held offices in the Church does not mean they were followers of Christ, sadly.

…Israel,the original “sheep,” is allowed to leave God’s Security in order to grant passage to the Gentiles… so the people who belonged to God are allowed to turn away from the Messiah in order that the Gentiles who were not God’s people be given the opportunity to become heirs of Abraham, in the Faith–if Israel did not reject the Son of Man (St. John 1:1-14) Jesus could not offer Hope to the Gentiles as foretold by the prophecies–another nasty snag on the “no sheep allowed to lose Salvation” run… :coffeeread:

I don’t think so. Yes, Israel is a nation chosen of God, but from the beginning, God created a people for HImself in order to reach the whole world. He intended for Israel to be a light to the nations, so that God’s glory might draw all men unto Himself. At the time of Jesus’ coming, the bulk of Israel had become separated from the faith. They were no longer following Him as sheep, but were lost in legalism and the traditions of men. Jesus chose His sheep from among them, and they followed Him. Remember He said “salvation is of the Jews”, so our salvation is based upon His work with Israel His chosen. The case can be made that many Jews were never sheep, or elected.

Luke 7:28-30

28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)

This passage indicates that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected John’s baptism, and later that of Jesus. They were never His sheep. This passage is also a powerful rebuttal to AoS, because it is clear that the purpose of God is for them all to be saved, and come the knowledge of the Truth, but that each person is free to reject His purpose for themselves.

Exactly!  ...if they were part of the "elect" (never to lose Salvation) then why would Jesus seek them out since they were already "Saved?"  ...conversely, if they were part of the "must be damned," then why would Jesus flaunt it:  '...see what you've missed?'

Yes. One way of looking at this is that not all the Elect are saved. That would mean that Israel was not (as a nation) Elect, since many rejected salvation. I think it makes more sense as Scripture states, that though God desires that all be saved:

**1 Tim 2:3-5
3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
**

People are free to reject HIs purpose. Then the question remains, are those who reject it not among the Elect? Does one who is elected always accept?

…actually, not all who began to corrupt the Gospel/Church left the Church… we have at least one example where St. Paul nipped it right on the bud: “…is Christ divided?..” It is almost certain that most, if not all, corrected the errors of their ways and humbly obeyed the guidance of the Apostles…

Good point.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t think so. Yes, Israel is a nation chosen of God, but from the beginning, God created a people for HImself in order to reach the whole world. He intended for Israel to be a light to the nations, so that God’s glory might draw all men unto Himself. At the time of Jesus’ coming, the bulk of Israel had become separated from the faith. They were no longer following Him as sheep, but were lost in legalism and the traditions of men. Jesus chose His sheep from among them, and they followed Him. Remember He said “salvation is of the Jews”, so our salvation is based upon His work with Israel His chosen. The case can be made that many Jews were never sheep, or elected.

people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they haLuke 7:28-30

28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the d been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)
Good point.

St.Mark8:24-30
Jesus refers to Jewish peoples population as children.
Also Jesus spoke to the cannite woman.
The great light that comes from Israel is Jesus. And how this great light comes from Israel is that Jesus is one of that nation by blood.

 

[Ian1968]

While it is true that mortal sin separates the soul from God, it is not quite accurate to say one can “lose” salvation. This is because we do not attain salvation in this life. We enter a state of grace at baptism, and we are working out our salvation throughout this life, but so long as we are in the body, we can turn away from God, and fail to be united with the inheritance that is kept in heaven for us. So it is not really accurate to say we have “lost” it when it has not yet been attained.

It is a good start!

Maybe my wording was wrong. But the short and long of it is if you commit a mortal sin, and then die, you end up in hell, according to RC theology. You lose the state of grace.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe my wording was wrong. But the short and long of it is if you commit a mortal sin, and then die, you end up in hell, according to RC theology. You lose the state of grace.

Of course, though I would insert there after the mortal sin “unrepentant”.

I think where Catholics get tied up arguing this point is that we accept the language used by the opponent, which is not Apostolic, or biblical. They always purport that we claim a person can “lose” their salvation. On the contrary, the opposite is true. Once a person had fought the good fight, and finished the race, and is perfected in Christ, they are “once saved always saved”. It is just that the Aposltes taught it does not happen in this lifetime.

 

[fbl9]

Maybe m my wording was wrong. But the short and long of it is if you commit a mortal sin, and then die, you end up in hell, according to RC theology.

The Gospel according to St.Mark 9: 42-47.
If thy hand is an occassion to sin, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than, having two hads, to go to hell, into the unquenchable fire…

This does seem to say somethign about osas as well.

 

[Ian1968]

Of course, though I would insert there after the mortal sin “unrepentant”.

I think where Catholics get tied up arguing this point is that we accept the language used by the opponent, which is not Apostolic, or biblical. They always purport that we claim a person can “lose” their salvation. On the contrary, the opposite is true. Once a person had fought the good fight, and finished the race, and is perfected in Christ, they are “once saved always saved”. It is just that the Aposltes taught it does not happen in this lifetime.

Okay, you say unrepentant. But what is if someone cannot make to confession before he/she dies?

 

[guanophore]

Okay, you say unrepentant. But what is if someone cannot make to confession before he/she dies?

Conditions of implicit repentance would still apply.

 

[jcrichton]

Well, I agree completely of course. The issue is whether or not Judas’ appointment to the office necessarily makes him one of the “elect” or one of His sheep. I think a good case can be made that it does not. There have been many corrupt individuals in important offices of the Church, the Popes included, who lead lives of corruption and pursued the desires of the flesh. The fact that they held offices in the Church does not mean they were followers of Christ, sadly.

I think that we are missing each other just slightly… the fact that there have been corruption does not indicate that the people were corrupt from the beginning… those men of whom you speak could very well have began their trek full of Faith or at least thirsty for the Truth, as Martin Luther… and through time became corrupt; the “elect” are made so in Jesus (St. John 1:10-13)… the corrupted are those who though at one time were seeking Fellowship with Jesus, the demands of Christian life, power, greed, and envy (ego) tarnished their mind and spirit causing them to betray Jesus as they embraced the world–this happens daily.

I don’t think so. Yes, Israel is a nation chosen of God, but from the beginning, God created a people for HImself in order to reach the whole world. He intended for Israel to be a light to the nations, so that God’s glory might draw all men unto Himself. At the time of Jesus’ coming, the bulk of Israel had become separated from the faith. They were no longer following Him as sheep, but were lost in legalism and the traditions of men. Jesus chose His sheep from among them, and they followed Him. Remember He said “salvation is of the Jews”, so our salvation is based upon His work with Israel His chosen. The case can be made that many Jews were never sheep, or elected.

Luke 7:28-30

28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)

This passage indicates that the Pharisees and lawyers rejected John’s baptism, and later that of Jesus. They were never His sheep. This passage is also a powerful rebuttal to AoS, because it is clear that the purpose of God is for them all to be saved, and come the knowledge of the Truth, but that each person is free to reject His purpose for themselves.

…I see the problem… in spite of Israel’s disobedience, Israel did not cease being God’s people (Romans 9 thru 11); “elect” does not mean that a person/people loses the ability of having free will; those who God Calls are the elect, and God calls all of humanity (Ezekiel 18); but not all who are called accept God’s Terms and, as they exercise their free will, they end up choosing themselves over God–the best I can offer is the healing of the ten men (St. Luke 17:11-19) where only one is granted Salvation because he made the conscious choice to turn to God.

…as you’ve cited, even being of the religious elite does not guarantee Salvation… these men were masters of the Law, Scriptures were second nature to them… but they consciously chose themselves over God’s Salvific Plan–which includes the Sacrament of Baptism! They never ceased being God’s elect people… but, by their own determination, they rejected the Only Name Given on Heave and Earth by which all shall be Saved!

Yes. One way of looking at this is that not all the Elect are saved. That would mean that Israel was not (as a nation) Elect, since many rejected salvation. I think it makes more sense as Scripture states, that though God desires that all be saved:

**1 Tim 2:3-5
3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
**

People are free to reject HIs purpose. Then the question remains, are those who reject it not among the Elect? Does one who is elected always accept?

Good point.

…I think that the problem lies in how “elect” is defined; I do not believe that God from before Creation elected some to be Saved and others to be damned; rather the “elect” are all who God Calls to be Saved… but because we have been granted free will, it is up to us to accept God’s Salvation and, for lack of a better term, “validate” God’s election!:

11 He came to his own and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believed in his name 13 who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself. (St. John 1:11-13)

…it is those who Believe in His Name that become heirs and are sealed with the Holy Spirit; but we cannot receive our inheritance until we become as He is (1 Jn 3:2)… yet, as children of God, we maintain our freedom to submit our will to God’s or to reject Him (1 Jn 3:3-4)–truly a child of God would seek God (Jn 3:19-21; 1 Jn 1:5-7)–it is the reason why Christ told the Masters of the Law that their father was Satan and not Abraham since Abraham approved of Jesus and they sought to kill Him!

So “election”/Salvation is Eternal since God never recants His Salvific Plan; but as “elect”/“sheep”/“children” of God it is up to us to not only know that Salvation exists and that it is a free Gift and that it is Eternal but we must actively engage it as St. Paul states:

so work out your salvation in fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12d)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

I think that we are missing each other just slightly... the fact that there have been corruption does not indicate that the people were corrupt from the beginning... those men of whom you speak could very well have began their trek full of Faith or at least thirsty for the Truth, as Martin Luther... and through time became corrupt; the "elect" are made so in Jesus (St. John 1:10-13)... the corrupted are those who though at one time were seeking Fellowship with Jesus, the demands of Christian life, power, greed, and envy (ego) tarnished their mind and spirit causing them to betray Jesus as they embraced the world--this happens daily.

I agree, but what evidence is there that Judas ever had faith? Ever was free from corruption?

those who God Calls are the elect, and God calls all of humanity (Ezekiel 18); but not all who are called accept God’s Terms and, as they exercise their free will, they end up choosing themselves over God–the best I can offer is the healing of the ten men (St. Luke 17:11-19) where only one is granted Salvation because he made the conscious choice to turn to God.

Then would it not be more accurate to say that the Elect are those who respond to the call?

…I think that the problem lies in how “elect” is defined; I do not believe that God from before Creation elected some to be Saved and others to be damned; rather the “elect” are all who God Calls to be Saved… but because we have been granted free will, it is up to us to accept God’s Salvation and, for lack of a better term, “validate” God’s election!:

Rom 11:7-10

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a sluggish spirit,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”

9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and keep their backs forever bent.”

It seems like the elect were those who responded to the call.

So “election”/Salvation is Eternal since God never recants His Salvific Plan; but as “elect”/“sheep”/“children” of God it is up to us to not only know that Salvation exists and that it is a free Gift and that it is Eternal but we must actively engage it as St. Paul states:

so work out your salvation in fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12d)

Maran atha!

Angel

This passage:

Rom 8:30
30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

has been described to me by OSAS as the “golden chain of salvation”, such that the parts cannot be separated from one another. It seems that the OSAS folks believe that once a person is predestined he is automatically called, justified and glorified (saved no matter what they do).

I guess they consider the predestined the “elect” and the rest are just lost?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

It sounds like you are working too hard at one thing … and, maybe not hard enough at another. Seriously, if you are going to post, stick around and do some justice to what is before you. If you don’t want to do this, maybe it would be better just to wait until you have the time to do a credible job.

Yes, what I gave you is a personal definition. And, yes, I think St. Augustine would approve of the little that I wrote.

Are you hinting that St. Augustine was firmly in the “OSAS” camp…? I guess you will need some documentation to back up your statement. The Doctor of Grace was a true light and Father to the early Catholic Church - but, he was not infallible. Now, if you are interested in the Catholic teaching on free will, here are a couple of links:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

ourcatholicfaith.org/whycatholic/freewill.html

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

These links will not only give you the Catholic position on free will and predestination, but clarify your misunderstanding of St. Augustine’s writings on these topics. If you are really interested in knowing the Catholic position - and not just what someone told you was the Catholic position - then, I suggest you read these three items in the order provided. This will take time.

God bless

Tom, I’m currently at work, so don’t have a response right now. Is what you have written a personal definition? Would Augustine give this definition of “Free Will” his blessing?

I’m thinking not.

Regards, OldProf

 

[OldProf]

Hi, OldProf,

It sounds like you are working too hard at one thing … and, maybe not hard enough at another. Seriously, if you are going to post, stick around and do some justice to what is before you. If you don’t want to do this, maybe it would be better just to wait until you have the time to do a credible job.

Yes, what I gave you is a personal definition. And, yes, I think St. Augustine would approve of the little that I wrote.

Are you hinting that St. Augustine was firmly in the “OSAS” camp…? I guess you will need some documentation to back up your statement. The Doctor of Grace was a true light and Father to the early Catholic Church - but, he was not infallible. Now, if you are interested in the Catholic teaching on free will, here are a couple of links:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

ourcatholicfaith.org/whycatholic/freewill.html

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

These links will not only give you the Catholic position on free will and predestination, but clarify your misunderstanding of St. Augustine’s writings on these topics. If you are really interested in knowing the Catholic position - and not just what someone told you was the Catholic position - then, I suggest you read these three items in the order provided. This will take time.

God bless

Thank-you for the links, Tom. I will read them. You asked what I believe about “Free Will.”

From the Baptist perspective, see:

founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-9.html

From the Presbyterian perspective, see:

epc.org/mediafiles/wcf-modern-2011.pdf

Here in this pdf, p. 19 gives a very good description, perhaps the best, of what I believe the Bible teaches about free will.

I think Augustine would agree with all of these points based on some of his later writings on the Pelagian controversy and on Free Will. And I may be mistaken.

Does the unbeliever, dead in sin (spiritually dead), have any ability to make righteous decisions or do righteous acts that would please God? I don’t see any biblical argument to support that.

Do you?

Regards, OldProf