Assurance of Salvation

[asd72]

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 !’ 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!

I have actually just been involved in a discussion with some Fundamentalist Protestants on this topic, after an article was posted entitled ‘Can Catholics have assurance of salvation’. My opinion is that they look at verses in isolation, their theology doesn’t incorporate all of the scripture.

They see passages that say we have ETERNAL LIFE by FAITH, but they miss:

*Baptism follows faith for the forgiveness of sins and giving of the Holy Spirit.
*You must have the obedience of faith.
*Faith must be working through love.
*You must perserve to the end to be saved.

I also got asked repeatedly in this discussion 'Do you know where you would go if you died in 30 seconds? What I said is that I examine my conscience regularly and ask for forgiveness of my sins. And that I live in joyful hope.

Try and be gentle with your mum. At least she is not totally against you becoming Catholic. This is the type of Protestantism that I embraced for 9 months or so before discovering Catholism. And I guess you grew up with it too?

I’m sure your mum knows you just said ‘yes I have assurance’ to make her stop going on and on, and didn’t mean it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Asd72,

Now listen … I do not want to be responsible for OldProf getting a heart attack … but … I really do believe that we Catholics do have an assurance of salvation… Honest. The bid difference is that it is not the Calvinistic version based on ‘OSAS’!!

Our assurance is based on Christ. He founded His Church on Peter and promised that the Holy Spirit would provide His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) with all truth. Christ told us all that IF we love Him (this requires action [works!] we will follow His commands. Well, as I see it, either we believe Him or we don’t. If we believe Him this means we have Faith) then we will act accordingly (this means we have love). If we don’t believe Him we simply say, "I believe (no real Faith) and, I know I’m a ‘Sheep’ (vain Hope and Presumption) - taking no action (exerting no love) we bleat on and on … until we get to Matthew 25 and see what happens to those guys!

My basis for this assurance is that, “God can neither deceive or be deceived”. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

Contrast this with Calvin, a very fallible human being who presumes the guys in Matthew 25 who bleat out, “Lord! Lord!” are saved and that them being thrown out into everlasting darkness was obviously a misprint! As I understand it, Calvin’s view (along with those who have tinkered with “OSAS” have it totally wrong.

As St. Augustine is credited with:

“But God made you without you. You didn’t, after all, give any consent to God making you. How were you to consent, if you didn’t yet exist? So while he made you without you, he doesn’t justify you without you. So he made you without your knowing it, he justifies you with your willing consent to it.”

So, while we have been given a deluge on how the heresy of “OSAS” is correct - what we see is that these ‘double predestination folks’ have taken the word ‘assurance’ and crafted it (poorly) into their own image.

God bless

I have actually just been involved in a discussion with some Fundamentalist Protestants on this topic, after an article was posted entitled ‘Can Catholics have assurance of salvation’. My opinion is that they look at verses in isolation, their theology doesn’t incorporate all of the scripture.

They see passages that say we have ETERNAL LIFE by FAITH, but they miss:

*Baptism follows faith for the forgiveness of sins and giving of the Holy Spirit.
*You must have the obedience of faith.
*Faith must be working through love.
*You must perserve to the end to be saved.

I also got asked repeatedly in this discussion 'Do you know where you would go if you died in 30 seconds? What I said is that I examine my conscience regularly and ask for forgiveness of my sins. And that I live in joyful hope.

Try and be gentle with your mum. At least she is not totally against you becoming Catholic. This is the type of Protestantism that I embraced for 9 months or so before discovering Catholism. And I guess you grew up with it too?

I’m sure your mum knows you just said ‘yes I have assurance’ to make her stop going on and on, and didn’t mean it.

 

[asd72]

I would agree tqualey that God is always faithful if that is what you mean.

It is us that can fall from grace. And the catechism says we hope, not infallibly know, except by divine revelation.

 

[Philthy]

Hi, Philthy,
Considering how many of us have clearly identified that the type of ‘AoS’ that advocates of ‘OSAS’ proclaim is based on a denial of Free Will, enbrace of Double Predestination and adherence of personal interpretation of Scripture to mean whatever it is that fits the situation, we are simply looking at another tradition of men.
Previous efforts to support this heresy have fallen into the monotony of ignoring what has been said, dismissing criticism as unimportant, talking about other issues - and providing an abundance of Scripture that either totally misses the point or rely on skewed interpretations to appear relevant…

I don’t know about you, Philthy, but I have grown weary of this apparent topic avoidance …

God bless

God changes hearts however and whenever He wishes…there is no need for despair, angst or resignation based on the observation that things are not proceeding as we would expect. Have no anxiety at all but in all things - through prayer and petition, with thanksgiving - make your requests known to God and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:6-7) As Mother Teresa said, “We are not called to be successful but to be faithful.” Be faithful and plant the seeds of Truth as you know them with love and the rest is up to God.
I like your saying. One of my favorites in the context of these discussions is,
“God helps those who help themselves” It is actually quite deep when you really think about it…

Prepare ye the way of the Lord!

 

[jcrichton]

I would agree tqualey that God is always faithful if that is what you mean.

It is us that can fall from grace. And the catechism says we hope, not infallibly know, except by divine revelation.

…which is what Scriptures Teach: in Christ we are Eternally Saved; but Christ Calls us to persevere till the end… untill them Believers, as St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles state, must live their Faith in Hope (Belief in the Word of God) and perseverance (act upon God’s Word).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[paul_c]

I have a little different perspective of this. Catholics are called to love unconditionally. And love is defined as doing something for the good of others without expecting anything in return.

This whole concept of assurance of salvation seems to mean tantamount to earning your way to heaven. As an example, I proclaim Jesus my Lord and savior, hence I have earned the assurance that I will be saved. God is not required to save us.

The simple fact is, if you want true happiness, you need to do the will of God. Stop worrying about whether you are saved, worry about helping others to be saved. That is love. Love is the fulfillment of faith and the driver of hope. The paradox is that you can’t get to heaven by trying to earn it and you shouldn’t desire a guarantee. You can only get their by abandoning yourself and putting others first. Do the will of the Father and Trust HIM. If you did that, no guarantee would be necessary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PaulC,

Yes, Catholics are called to love all unconditionally. This is the daily goal that we are all to focus on as we carry our cross.

But, when it comes to your view of ‘assuance of salvation’ all I can say is: Not quite.

‘AoS’ is that God has already determined that you are saved (now, somehow you have been informed of this and are bleeting out in the field that you are one of the’Sheep’… just to keep with the analogy! ) Everything is attributed to God’s Good Grace. So, if you are saved … and you sin … well - it will not be held against you! And, while you may ask, “Why is that?” the answer lies fully in Calvin’s ‘double predestination’ - not only does God know who is to be with Him in Heaven - He simply arranged it that way! Amazing. Now, the bad news is that if you are not one of the ‘already saved’ - that means that you are ‘already damned’ - and that is bad news in anyone’s book.

Doing God’s Will is really the only way to true happiness.

For those who continue to ‘worry if they are saved’ - well, according to Calvin - they obviously aren’t!! The saved know they are saved (unless of course they wind up in Hell and that would mean that they did not know about the state of their salvation as well as they thought they did!) But, I really think it is time to put Calvin where he belongs - and that would be as one of the 16th Century rebels who created their own heresy and have caused many to leave the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

We can not ‘earn’ heaven (the Calvinists like to set that straw man up and then viciously attack it, claiming it is Catholic doctrine). We are expected to pray for the Grace of God and then pray for the strength to work with that Grace to effect God’s Will. That means that somewhere along the linewe have had to WORK to bring about the Kingdom of God - now just say ‘Lord! Lord!’ and ignoring what Matthew 25 said about such delusional souls!

God bless

I have a little different perspective of this. Catholics are called to love unconditionally. And love is defined as doing something for the good of others without expecting anything in return.

This whole concept of assurance of salvation seems to mean tantamount to earning your way to heaven. As an example, I proclaim Jesus my Lord and savior, hence I have earned the assurance that I will be saved. God is not required to save us.

The simple fact is, if you want true happiness, you need to do the will of God. Stop worrying about whether you are saved, worry about helping others to be saved. That is love. Love is the fulfillment of faith and the driver of hope. The paradox is that you can’t get to heaven by trying to earn it and you shouldn’t desire a guarantee. You can only get their by abandoning yourself and putting others first. Do the will of the Father and Trust HIM. If you did that, no guarantee would be necessary

 

[paul_c]

Hi, PaulC,

Yes, Catholics are called to love all unconditionally. This is the daily goal that we are all to focus on as we carry our cross.

But, when it comes to your view of ‘assuance of salvation’ all I can say is: Not quite.

‘AoS’ is that God has already determined that you are saved (now, somehow you have been informed of this and are bleeting out in the field that you are one of the’Sheep’… just to keep with the analogy! ) Everything is attributed to God’s Good Grace. So, if you are saved … and you sin … well - it will not be held against you! And, while you may ask, “Why is that?” the answer lies fully in Calvin’s ‘double predestination’ - not only does God know who is to be with Him in Heaven - He simply arranged it that way! Amazing. Now, the bad news is that if you are not one of the ‘already saved’ - that means that you are ‘already damned’ - and that is bad news in anyone’s book.

Doing God’s Will is really the only way to true happiness.

For those who continue to ‘worry if they are saved’ - well, according to Calvin - they obviously aren’t!! The saved know they are saved (unless of course they wind up in Hell and that would mean that they did not know about the state of their salvation as well as they thought they did!) But, I really think it is time to put Calvin where he belongs - and that would be as one of the 16th Century rebels who created their own heresy and have caused many to leave the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

We can not ‘earn’ heaven (the Calvinists like to set that straw man up and then viciously attack it, claiming it is Catholic doctrine). We are expected to pray for the Grace of God and then pray for the strength to work with that Grace to effect God’s Will. That means that somewhere along the linewe have had to WORK to bring about the Kingdom of God - now just say ‘Lord! Lord!’ and ignoring what Matthew 25 said about such delusional souls!

God bless

Tom,
I’m fully aware of the double predestination argument of the Calvinists and like you, I recognize the heresies that this entails. They turn men into puppets and God into a tyrant, thus missing the entire gospel of love and free will. But my comments weren’t directed to them. I was more focused on the Baptists and evangelicals, who believe that they have to do something (altar call, sinners prayer, etc) to gain assurance of salvation. To many of them, the simple one time acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord and savior is sufficient to gain guaranteed entrance into heaven, even if they eventually apostasize. My point was this too misses the gospel of love, where we are called to do God’s will without thought to what it possibly could gain us . To me, the entire concept of Assurance of salvation is antithetical to Catholicism because it replaces love and hope with either a legalistic debt owed by God to the “saved” or worse in the calvinistic view, a seemingly arbitrary decision by God as to who is saved without any recourse by the individual.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C.,

Glad to hear we are on the same page!

I’m guessing that OldProf and anoyone else who was waving Calvin’s depressing banner of a tyranical God and stepped out for tea or something…

This absence is no surprise, nor is their inability to seriously engage those who are pointing out the errors of the ‘AoS’ heresy.

So, before the Mod decides to close this thread … let me wish all a very blessed Christmas.

Tom,
I’m fully aware of the double predestination argument of the Calvinists and like you, I recognize the heresies that this entails. They turn men into puppets and God into a tyrant, thus missing the entire gospel of love and free will. But my comments weren’t directed to them. I was more focused on the Baptists and evangelicals, who believe that they have to do something (altar call, sinners prayer, etc) to gain assurance of salvation. To many of them, the simple one time acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord and savior is sufficient to gain guaranteed entrance into heaven, even if they eventually apostasize. My point was this too misses the gospel of love, where we are called to do God’s will without thought to what it possibly could gain us . To me, the entire concept of Assurance of salvation is antithetical to Catholicism because it replaces love and hope with either a legalistic debt owed by God to the “saved” or worse in the calvinistic view, a seemingly arbitrary decision by God as to who is saved without any recourse by the individual.

 

[paul_c]

Hi, Paul C.,

Glad to hear we are on the same page!

I’m guessing that OldProf and anoyone else who was waving Calvin’s depressing banner of a tyranical God and stepped out for tea or something…

This absence is no surprise, nor is their inability to seriously engage those who are pointing out the errors of the ‘AoS’ heresy.

So, before the Mod decides to close this thread … let me wish all a very blessed Christmas.

Assurance of Salvation is just a very hard principle to defend against those that have actually read scripture through the Catholic lens for which it was written. After all, if St. Paul didn’t feel his salvation was assured, how can the rest of us justify such a claim?

 

[OldProf]

You have provided what I was seeking, which was to find out if you espouse the canned Reformed response, which I see that you do.

Considering the discussion on these verses (Heb 6:4-8) that I have read, your “canned” statement is inaccurate. I can find reformed theologians who do not think this passage is a “warning to unbelievers” as I do. In fact, there is much discussion on this and Heb 10:26-29 within the Reformed and Arminian (those who disagree with Perseverence of the Saints) camps and within their systematic theology textbooks. For comparison purposes, I have collected many of these textbooks clear back into the 1800’s (more than 20 in my library).

As I understand it, the Greek here (Heb 6:4-8) is notoriously ambiguous. Terminology is provided without properly defining it, so we don’t have a clear understanding of what the author meant. This opens it to theological interpretation. Which, in turn, opens it to theological “baggage” or “glasses” that can bias our interpretation, and we all agree we need to be very careful about that. From hermeneutics, we know that “Scripture interprets Scripture” (the Scriptures harmonize with one another) - that is how I will be tested by my reformed friends.

I hope my response is received in the spirit of thoughtful theological discussion.

Can you provide some biblical evidence to support this position?

Sure, we have ample evidence of “false brethren” giving the outward/visible appearance that they were following Christ. I have family and I meet people who profess to be Christians, but in our conversations, I have to wonder “are they really Christians, or, with their minimalist theology, just professing Christians?” And we know this Hebrew audience is surprisingly immature:

11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:11-14)

This occurs just before our 6:4-8 text. And what about teaching by Jesus? Are there wolves in sheeps clothing among us as Matt 7:15-20 indicates? The parables in Matthew 13 (and the other synoptic gospels Mark, Luke) indicates some follow for a time and leave, so we would expect the teaching of the early Church to reflect the “they were not of us” per 1 John 2:19. Also, Jesus said “I never knew you” to some who called Him “Lord” and did “good works” in His name who apparently didn’t leave the church (more below). But they were false brethren.

Certainly the Sermon on the Mount was a part of early Christian doctrine. Along with Jesus’ parables. And warnings of apostasy.

Isn’t this what examining ourselves (1 Cor 10:12, 2 Cor 13:5, Heb 3:12) is all about? And more: 2 Cor 11:12-15, false brethren of Gal 2:4, 1 Tim 1:10-14, 6:3-5. We simply cannot know for certain if the guy or gal next to us in the pew is a Christian (one of the elect). We can see their fruits and we can examine their doctrine to a Scriptural standard.

Therefore, I don’t see how this interpretation of warnings to “false brethren” is unreasonable.

I think this notion is imposed upon the text to set aside the point of the passage, which is that those who have entered into Life can also exit that Life. Your rendering is also inconsistent with your own “systematic theology”, because you have already espoused the position that the unregenerate are “dead in their sins”. It would be impossible, from the systematic perspective, for such a person to be describeds as “enlightened” in any way. Systematic theology teaches that the soul CANNOT respond to the light of Christ unless and until that soul is regenerated by the HS, which happens when the person hears the Gospel (if they are among the elect they will then believe).

Is that the point of the passage? The author could have easily just said “You will lose your salvation.” But he didn’t. He does say “enlightened” - but what does the author mean by that? See comments below.

Reformed theology says the Bible teaches that regeneration proceeds faith - that is, you are born of God (needed because Paul says, “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins” Eph 2:1, and John 1:12-13, John 6:44) and faith is free gift of God by His Grace (Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 4:19 - I hope that everyone following this does check out these verses).

(Continued)

 

[OldProf]

Heb 6:4-7
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come

This passage is describing “those who have once been enlightened”, which means that their souls have received the grace of God. Catholics believe that “tasting” of the heavenly gift is a reference to the Eucharist, to which no one but believers are admitted. And again to become a “partaker” of the HS, we would be in agreement that the unregenerate cannot partake of the HS. Systematic theologians would say that the unregenerate are unable to do so. This means your interpretation of the passage as “unbelievers sitting in the congregation” does not adequately explain the passage, since unbelievers are unable to partake. How can the unregenerate “taste” of the powers of the age to come? Would we not agree that the age to come is the reign of Christ?

The term “to taste” here (geuomai) is more a sense of ingesting.

The translations say, “tasted.” This is vague terminology in the Greek, and not defined. What does the Author mean by “tasted the heavenly gift”? Again, this is vague.

Does “those who have once been enlightened” mean what you say? Does it mean they have been born again, and if it does, why doesn’t it just say that? Why doesn’t it mean that they have taken in Church teachings such as the knowledge of the gospel, that Jesus was born of virgin, His teachings to the disciples, that He was crucified and He paid the punishment for mankind’s sin problem? This “enlightened” knowledge with understanding, but without true faith would be consistent with 1 John 2:19 for those who leave the faith, and with Matt 7:23 for those who “persevere” in the “faith” but find out that Jesus “never knew” them.

Yes, I would agree on the age to come is the reign of Christ.

Then there is the term “apostasy”. One cannot “fall away” unless one has first clung to the Truth. If they were never truly enlightened and partakers, their departure could not be considered a falling away, as you have affirmed in your post by referencing

1 John 2:19 which says, 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.

So, you can’t have it both ways. Either they were “of us” and commtted apostasy, or they were never “of us” and went out.

Not at all. I think your understanding of apostasy is wrong, so let’s define it and agree. Per Theopedia, “Apostasy is what one commits when they denounce, reject, or fall away from their faith (i.e. religion). A person who commits apostasy is called an apostate.”

Apostasy, from a Christian perspective, has two major characteristics: knowledge of the truth of the gospel and willful rejection of it. They certainly can be a part of a “Church” visibly, but they can reject it per 1 John 2:19 (with us but “not of us”) as you state above, OR, they can remain a part of a “Church”, trusting NOT in Jesus, but trusting in their own good works and motives that signify “glory be to me” (their pride, the true motives of their evil heart), and Jesus will say to them:

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.’ (Matthew 7:21-23, a personal favorite of jcrichton on this thread)

Notice, Jesus did say “I never knew you” - that word never again! This is a strong statement of “false brethren” who appeared to persevere that no one can ignore. Can we interpret this in any way other than they were false brethren? And this teaching by Jesus, being a part of the Sermon on the Mount, was certainly widely taught.

Consider another “never” statement by Jesus - John 10:28 where Jesus says His sheep “never perish”! I understand the Greek is clear and emphatic. Jesus’ sheep will never perish, not now or at any future time. (Consistent with the idea of “eternal life” and “no condemnation” and no “separation from the love of God” - John 5:24; Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:38-39.)

<Quote:
Originally Posted by OldProf
The audience is a group of Jewish Christians since Gentiles are not mentioned. When addressing a “congregation” of professing Christians, we realize that some in the group may not be true believers. It is useful to engage them and warn them of God’s righteous wrath.>

“We realize” is an example of inserting a modern church experience into the historic text. In the early church, unbelievers were not admitted.That is because, especially in the early centuries of the Church, being identified as a Christian was likely to be lethal. Persons had to be sponsored (as we see that Barnabas did with Paul of Tarsus) to be admitted, and had to complete sacraments of initiation and catechesis. We can see the remnant of this practice in the Eastern Liturgies, where the Deacon calls out “the doors! The doors!”. The doors were closed against unbelievers, because the mysteries were only open to partakers.

I can’t argue that, and you shouldn’t either, unless you want to ignore Matthew 7:21-23 just discussed. No doubt that I agree this was a much more serious commitment in the early Church, and not like today. But “false brethren” was a known quantity then too.

(Continued on next post)

 

[OldProf]

So, how can it be said they cannot “restore then again to repentance” if they have not been previously repentant? Your “system” does not seem to have an explanation for that. According to your system, one CANNOT repent without first being regeneratedy by the HS!

Only those who have been enlightened and partaken of grace can understand that we have all “crucified the Sond of God”. The unregenerate cannot apprehend such a truth. So if a person crucifies Him again and holds Him up to contempt, then by necessity such a one previously did not have contempt for Jesus ’ sacrifice.

If there are “false brethren” there is “false repentance” and “false confession” etc. That is easy enough to explain. And it is “impossible … to restore them again” is it not? That is not what is taught about mortal sin - one can be restored from a mortal sin. I’ve heard it said “if there is life, there is hope.” I think this relates to the sin of unbelief (“unbelieving heart” Heb 3:12), and that they were “not of us” (1 John 2:19). “Impossible” is clearly the best translation of the Greek here from what I read, and that points to the unregenerate man with a false repentance.

Isaac Asimov wrote a two-volume work on the Bible - he, by all accounts, was unregenerate and he understood the gospel. You can tell by the way he writes about it from his own research for the books, and he rejected it. I have a good friend, a phychiatrist, who is Jewish, and we have discussed the gospel - he seems to understand it completely, but doesn’t believe Jesus is the Messiah. I pray for the Holy Spirit to draw him to Christ. I don’t pray for his free will to surrender, I pray for God’s drawing (John 6:44) which I believe is the proper way to pray for him. I cannot know if he is one of the elect, but right now he has an unbelieving heart.

Here the context indicates some of these Hebrew “Christians” had come to the brink of salvation. When they first heard the gospel they were excited, it was beautiful and reflected from other believers, they saw and felt a need to repent of sins and turn from old ways. This was their original condition. But they were not truly regenerated. They were not successful overcoming their sins and their spirits got dampened when they saw people follow for a while then leave. Some of those who left they knew quite well and they could identify with their reasons for leaving. They questioned the truthfulness of the gospel and if the old sacrificial system might be better. They considered leaving and now they hear this warning in this letter - IF THEY LEAVE, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE RESTORED!

I do not know of any Roman Catholics or any Arminian Protestants who teach this impossibility. Do you? They do teach that if you die in a state of unbelief, then you will go to hell. But a common statement is also, “If there is breath there is hope!” This comes back to the understanding of free will and some ability to make righteous decisions. Do the spiritually dead have that ability?

Indeed, I believe what you are offering here is quite imagined. And further, that your imagination of what occurred in the first century has been colored by modern experience. In the first centuries, no one was admitted to communion who had not been baptized and confirmed.

The clear witness of the Sciptures is to beware of false teachers and false brethren as indicated above.

(Continued)

 

[OldProf]

To partake (Gk. metochos) means to share in. I think we would agree that the only way to share in the divine nature is to be united with Christ. In the systematic view, we are either children of Adam, or children of Christ - there is no grey area. Children of Adam cannot partake of the divine nature because they are “dead in their sins”, isn’t that right?

And the Apostle clarifies what it means to partake of the divine nature:

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

It is clear that becoming a partaker of the divine nature means that we inherit the precious promises, and that we escape the corruption of the world. Systematic theology says that there is no escape from the corruption of this world apart from being united to Christ. Therefore, to be united to Christ is equivalent to partaking of the divine nature. Your interpretation fails to be consistent with your own system again.

The early Christians did not “fellowship” with unbelievers as we do today. 2 Cor 6:14-16

14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Agree: Children of Adam or Children of Christ. Agree: Children of Adam are dead in sins - spiritually dead. Clarify what spiritually dead means. Dead people have no abilities - they need resurection power, that is, to be born of God (John 1:13).

Isn’t it true that Partakers (Gk. metochos) has to do with association, not possession? These Jews (my view that the writer is concerned enough to warn any unbelieving Jews of the group) had never possessed the Holy Spirit, they simply were around when He was around. This word is used of fellow fishermen in Luke 5:7, and of Christ in relation to angels in Hebrews 1:9. It has to do with sharing in common associations and events. In the context of Hebrews 6:4, it refers to anyone who has been where the Holy Spirit has been ministering. It is possible to have an association with the Holy Spirit, to share in what He does, and not be saved.

My interpretation is consistent, so I respectfully disagree with you.

The early Christian fellowshipped with those who professed Christ. The early Christians were warned often to examine themselves. (“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” 2 Cor 13:5)

I’m not sure why you are trying to make that argument. I agree we don’t have true fellowship between believers and unbelievers. The reformed view is that the Holy Spirit has regenerated and is doing a sanctifying work only in believers.

This is a very weak arguement OP. Head knowledge of Jesus is not sufficient to quallify for apostasy… One cannot fall from that to which they were never clinging.

For them to have “head knowledge” and then leave the “faith” - yes, it is possible. Maybe the definition of apostasy (see above) comes into play here. It will be difficult for me to agree with you that this “is a very weak argument” unless you can clarify why.

I think these are also poor examples. There is no evidence that either of these characters ever tasted of the heavenly gift, or was enlightened. Again, you cant apostasize from something you never believed. You can’t have it both ways, OP. Either they believed, and fell away, or never believed.

Perhaps I’ve clarified this enough already?

This passage has nothing to do with the modern concept of “congregation”. This is simply inserted into the text. On the contrary, the writer describes his audience this way:

Heb 3:1
3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.

Heb 3:12
Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Heb 6:9-10

9 Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation.

He is addressing those who are believers!

Why is it not acceptable to understand that he is addressing a group of Hebrew “Christians,” some who are saved and new to the faith, some who are saved and apparently not new but immature in the faith, and some who are in fellowship with the two previous groups who aren’t saved, at least not yet?

Is he addressing believers? Yes, but he recognizes that some might not be yet. He is encouraging them, but he doesn’t forget also to warn them.

(Continued on next post)

 

[OldProf]

This is a description of a modern day Reformed congregation, not the Church described in Hebrews.

Aren’t you speculating here? Note Jude 1:4 “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Or Gal 2:4, 1 Tim 4:1, or Titus 1:16, or 3 John 1:9-11. The idea of “false brethren” in the Church is common. It is not a stretch to think that the author of Hebrews, inspired by the Holy Spirit, could could write this letter to this audience of immature believers and some suspected unbelievers as I have stated.

Heb 4:1-2
4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

Again believers are addressed as “us”, and unbelievers are called “them”. Those receiving the letter are those in whom faith has mixed with Grace in hearing the Gospel. According to the systematic model, when faith meets with grace in the hearing of the Gospel, the hearer is regenerated. And yet, you claim the unregenerate cannot fail to reach God’s rest?

For this passage, us = believers, them = unbelievers - I agree. However, the group receives the letter. I see no problem for reformed theology with the audience I have described. Am I missing something here?

We are in agreement about the fate of those who reject Christ, but if you look at the following verses, you can see that the writer is not referring to unbelievers:

Heb 6:10-12
10 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Do you believe that the unregenerate serve the saints for the sake of Jesus?

No, I believe that in their pride the unregenerate professing Christians serve for their own glory within the group.

Do you believe that those who begin with Christ will realize the full assurance of hope in the end? Your systematic theology claims that one who is united to Christ cannot fail to attain this hope. So you can’t have it both ways. Either they are unbelievers, or they are believers, for whom it is possible to fail to inherit the promises.

You are setting up a false dilemma. The Bible describes three groups in the world.

1. Unbelievers.
2. False Christians.
3. True Christians (the elect, the sheep).

The author of Hebrews writes to a group of Hebrew “Christians” and recognizes that he addresses some true, but immature Christians, and, as is not uncommon, some false professing Christians.

Regards, OldProf

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

Impressive. And congratulations on having an impressive library.

After reading this response, I am still bothered by the thought that there is no real understanding of Hebrrews 6 - at least none demonstrated in this your most recent writing. Such thoughts are not helped when you add items like:

As I understand it, the Greek here (Heb 6:4-8) is notoriously ambiguous. Terminology is provided without properly defining it, so we don’t have a clear understanding of what the author meant. This opens it to theological interpretation. Which, in turn, opens it to theological “baggage” or “glasses” that can bias our interpretation, and we all agree we need to be very careful about that. From hermeneutics, we know that “Scripture interprets Scripture” (the Scriptures harmonize with one another) - that is how I will be tested by my reformed friends.
I hope my response is received in the spirit of thoughtful theological discussion.

Several posts ago I invited you to provide a brief summary of Hebrews 6. Such an exeercise has a way of cutting through a lot of ambiguity because it clearly identifies just what it is YOU understand is being said. Aftera all - it is that understanding that is the launching pad for your discourse. Allow me to re-invite you to provide a summary, not to exceed 100 words on just is being said by the author of Hebrews 6. Here is my attempt to simply summarize and not embelish or interpret the material:

The reader is encouraged to progress from basic knowledge and love of Christ to one demonstrating maturity in six crucial beliefs: repentance from dead works, faith in God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. It isn’t possible for apostates to repent of their evil for they continue to show contempt for Christ’s sacrifice. God swore by Himself that He will reward the faithfulness who those who persevere like He honored Abraham. God is faithful to His Promise and cannot lie. And it is God’s Faithfulness that gives us hope.

Possibly looking at you do this will give all of us some insights on where to progress.

God bless

 

[OldProf]

Hi, OldProf,

Impressive. And congratulations on having an impressive library.

After reading this response, I am still bothered by the thought that there is no real understanding of Hebrrews 6 - at least none demonstrated in this your most recent writing. Such thoughts are not helped when you add items like:

Several posts ago I invited you to provide a brief summary of Hebrews 6. Such an exeercise has a way of cutting through a lot of ambiguity because it clearly identifies just what it is YOU understand is being said. Aftera all - it is that understanding that is the launching pad for your discourse. Allow me to re-invite you to provide a summary, not to exceed 100 words on just is being said by the author of Hebrews 6. Here is my attempt to simply summarize and not embelish or interpret the material:

The reader is encouraged to progress from basic knowledge and love of Christ to one demonstrating maturity in six crucial beliefs: repentance from dead works, faith in God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. It isn’t possible for apostates to repent of their evil for they continue to show contempt for Christ’s sacrifice. God swore by Himself that He will reward the faithfulness who those who persevere like He honored Abraham. God is faithful to His Promise and cannot lie. And it is God’s Faithfulness that gives us hope.

Possibly looking at you do this will give all of us some insights on where to progress.

God bless

When I became a Christian in 1993, I had a Bible and two books on Chrisian marriage, none of which I had much interest in reading or studying. Since that time, my library of books, CD’s, and DVD’s has grown to almost 4000 volumes, with specific emphasis on apologetics, theology, Christian history, and commentaries. And I have thousands more mp3’s and pdf’s from the WWW. Cult apologetics has been a specific interest and one in which I’ve actively engaged.

I’m no biblical scholar by education - no Greek or Hebrew, but I have a scholary mindset and like to garner the resources that discuss the various theological positions. I want them at my disposal so I can consult them when questions arise. This includes the writings recommended by cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

From the Christian side, that is, those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, those who accept the Trinity, but disagree with reformed theology, I also try to give due diligence to their theological arguments. I do not judge them to not be Christians, I just think they are incorrect in certain aspects of their theology, and I’m hoping they do not have a false assurance (per my evidence lists).

To answer this question on Hebrews 6:4-8, I had the opportunity to consult some of those references. Being a chess player, I used to like to get up from the board, go around to my opponents side, and view the position from his vantage point. So I’m trying to do just that here. I’m trying to fully understand the Roman Catholic argument that this CLEARLY TEACHES THAT BELIEVERS CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION.

One interesting point I discovered when consulting so many of these resouces is how often John 10:27-29 is compared and contrasted to Hebrew 6:4-6 with regards to the clarity of the Greek. And that is an important consideration for me.

You keep wanting that 100-word summary. Generalized arguments have a tendency to point down to specific’s anyway, which is what we are doing here. In this discussion we are trying to establish the Hebrew audience, apostasy, warnings, etc. Isn’t this even more valuable?

From your ‘summary’ I could write a 1000 words trying to establish what you mean by certain things (basic knowledge? etc.). And how does all that relate to the topic of AoS, where we all must agree we need to stay on topic?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be interesting. It would.

Lunch is almost over, so I’ll close with this.

Assurance. When we read through the short letter of 1 John, we come to the end where the Apostle tells us:

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13 Amplified Bible)

If I am not doing what the previous verses of 1 John tell me, I had better examine myself! But if I am, then I can have this blessed assurance of my salvation. My joy (and yours too) can be full!

Regards, OldProf

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OldProf,

The call is more less art and more substance - not the other way around. You keep going around in circles and winding up where you began. In my opinion, I am not sure just what it is you understand from Hebrews 6. So, if you write down a summary of just what your Bible says - I could get a pretty good idea.

I have no doubt you could easly do a 1,000+ word presentation on anything - but, it is not length that is the issue, just is there basic comprehension about what was written - and to do so with limited words so that we can see if we are in agreement on what the author has written. It would be no major challenge to compare and contrast one summary with another - because the actual text is radily available for all to see. This way there is no confusion about if Greek or Hebrew and Aramaic or any other language used and who used what language with which group. It is just text as it appears in the Bible you choose. Again, all I am looking at is basic agreement on what has actually been written.

This also eleminates all of those commentaries which have lead to so much confusion amongst various groups.

There is not much remaining space on this thread. Personally, I think that once this is accomplished the heresy of ‘AoS’ can honestly be dispatched.

God bless

When I became a Christian in 1993, I had a Bible and two books on Chrisian marriage, none of which I had much interest in reading or studying. Since that time, my library of books, CD’s, and DVD’s has grown to almost 4000 volumes, with specific emphasis on apologetics, theology, Christian history, and commentaries. And I have thousands more mp3’s and pdf’s from the WWW. Cult apologetics has been a specific interest and one in which I’ve actively engaged.

I’m no biblical scholar by education - no Greek or Hebrew, but I have a scholary mindset and like to garner the resources that discuss the various theological positions. I want them at my disposal so I can consult them when questions arise. This includes the writings recommended by cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

From the Christian side, that is, those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, those who accept the Trinity, but disagree with reformed theology, I also try to give due diligence to their theological arguments. I do not judge them to not be Christians, I just think they are incorrect in certain aspects of their theology, and I’m hoping they do not have a false assurance (per my evidence lists).

To answer this question on Hebrews 6:4-8, I had the opportunity to consult some of those references. Being a chess player, I used to like to get up from the board, go around to my opponents side, and view the position from his vantage point. So I’m trying to do just that here. I’m trying to fully understand the Roman Catholic argument that this CLEARLY TEACHES THAT BELIEVERS CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION.

One interesting point I discovered when consulting so many of these resouces is how often John 10:27-29 is compared and contrasted to Hebrew 6:4-6 with regards to the clarity of the Greek. And that is an important consideration for me.

You keep wanting that 100-word summary. Generalized arguments have a tendency to point down to specific’s anyway, which is what we are doing here. In this discussion we are trying to establish the Hebrew audience, apostasy, warnings, etc. Isn’t this even more valuable?

From your ‘summary’ I could write a 1000 words trying to establish what you mean by certain things (basic knowledge? etc.). And how does all that relate to the topic of AoS, where we all must agree we need to stay on topic?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be interesting. It would.

Lunch is almost over, so I’ll close with this.

Assurance. When we read through the short letter of 1 John, we come to the end where the Apostle tells us:

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13 Amplified Bible)

If I am not doing what the previous verses of 1 John tell me, I had better examine myself! But if I am, then I can have this blessed assurance of my salvation. My joy (and yours too) can be full!

Regards, OldProf

 

[paul_c]

When I became a Christian in 1993, I had a Bible and two books on Chrisian marriage, none of which I had much interest in reading or studying. Since that time, my library of books, CD’s, and DVD’s has grown to almost 4000 volumes, with specific emphasis on apologetics, theology, Christian history, and commentaries. And I have thousands more mp3’s and pdf’s from the WWW. Cult apologetics has been a specific interest and one in which I’ve actively engaged.

I’m no biblical scholar by education - no Greek or Hebrew, but I have a scholary mindset and like to garner the resources that discuss the various theological positions. I want them at my disposal so I can consult them when questions arise. This includes the writings recommended by cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

From the Christian side, that is, those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, those who accept the Trinity, but disagree with reformed theology, I also try to give due diligence to their theological arguments. I do not judge them to not be Christians, I just think they are incorrect in certain aspects of their theology, and I’m hoping they do not have a false assurance (per my evidence lists).

To answer this question on Hebrews 6:4-8, I had the opportunity to consult some of those references. Being a chess player, I used to like to get up from the board, go around to my opponents side, and view the position from his vantage point. So I’m trying to do just that here. I’m trying to fully understand the Roman Catholic argument that this CLEARLY TEACHES THAT BELIEVERS CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION.

One interesting point I discovered when consulting so many of these resouces is how often John 10:27-29 is compared and contrasted to Hebrew 6:4-6 with regards to the clarity of the Greek. And that is an important consideration for me.

You keep wanting that 100-word summary. Generalized arguments have a tendency to point down to specific’s anyway, which is what we are doing here. In this discussion we are trying to establish the Hebrew audience, apostasy, warnings, etc. Isn’t this even more valuable?

From your ‘summary’ I could write a 1000 words trying to establish what you mean by certain things (basic knowledge? etc.). And how does all that relate to the topic of AoS, where we all must agree we need to stay on topic?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be interesting. It would.

Lunch is almost over, so I’ll close with this.

Assurance. When we read through the short letter of 1 John, we come to the end where the Apostle tells us:

“I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.” (1 John 5:13 Amplified Bible)

If I am not doing what the previous verses of 1 John tell me, I had better examine myself! But if I am, then I can have this blessed assurance of my salvation. My joy (and yours too) can be full!

Regards, OldProf

Let me give this a shot. Here is a summarized version of the Catholic teaching on salvation.

We must be in the state of Grace to get to heaven. You get into the state of Grace by having the Faith in our Lord’s redemptive actions on the cross to be Baptized into the Church. You will recognize this requirement of baptism as being the same one St. Peter gave the first disciples at Pentecost in Acts 2. But remember, Baptism is a sign of our covenant with God. He freely gives the grace of Baptism and the forgiveness of sins to us if we ask, no matter what our actions had been prior to the sacrament. But during baptism, we make the promise to do God’s will and he holds us to that. If we do His will, loving God and Neighbor and avoiding Mortal sin, we will indeed go to heaven. However, we do have free will and if we choose to sin mortally, we will fall from grace and be condemned. This is what St. Paul talks about in Romans 2 when he says we will all be judged based on our actions.

But God in his mercy has also provided the sacrament of reconciliation to allow us to return to the state of grace if we contritely confess our sins to a priest and do the required penance. This authority to forgive sins was given to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus himself.

So the fundamentals are that God gives grace freely to those that ask for it through the sacraments but he does not force it upon us. If we chose to reject grace through sin, we are free to do so, but we will suffer the consequences.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PaulC,

You can moonlight for the Cliff’s Notes folks!

You know, the very concept of God freely giving us His Grace is truly beyond my comprehension and experience. But, just look around at the saints who live today - and read about those who served Christ through their lives and heroic deaths - and we see Grace at work.

But, while I can only imagine about Grace - I have a very good idea of Free Will - and this is something truly within the comprehension and experience of every cognative person. The choice I made to respond to your post - was freely made - just as your post (I’m confident in my guessing here … ) was also freely made. Those who deny Free Will must have a difficult time - denying something that they freely chose to post a responce to on CAF! It makes me wonder just who is directing their actions since they have no Free Will they should be unable to even move! But, obviously, this can not be the case. Can you imagine a man standing before a Criminal Court Judge who has just asked the accused to enter a plea - and the accused say, “Your Honor, I lack Free Will and am therefore unable to chose and hence not resonsible for this crime!” I just wonder what the Judge will say.

Any thoughts on the ‘AoS’ position that they lack a Free Will?

God bless

Let me give this a shot. Here is a summarized version of the Catholic teaching on salvation.

We must be in the state of Grace to get to heaven. You get into the state of Grace by having the Faith in our Lord’s redemptive actions on the cross to be Baptized into the Church. You will recognize this requirement of baptism as being the same one St. Peter gave the first disciples at Pentecost in Acts 2. But remember, Baptism is a sign of our covenant with God. He freely gives the grace of Baptism and the forgiveness of sins to us if we ask, no matter what our actions had been prior to the sacrament. But during baptism, we make the promise to do God’s will and he holds us to that. If we do His will, loving God and Neighbor and avoiding Mortal sin, we will indeed go to heaven. However, we do have free will and if we choose to sin mortally, we will fall from grace and be condemned. This is what St. Paul talks about in Romans 2 when he says we will all be judged based on our actions.

But God in his mercy has also provided the sacrament of reconciliation to allow us to return to the state of grace if we contritely confess our sins to a priest and do the required penance. This authority to forgive sins was given to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus himself.

So the fundamentals are that God gives grace freely to those that ask for it through the sacraments but he does not force it upon us. If we chose to reject grace through sin, we are free to do so, but we will suffer the consequences.