Can someone who believes in OSAS help me?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Matt16_18:

Neither the Calvinist version of OSAS nor the antinomian version of OSAS is reasonable. The Calvinist version of OSAS is outrageous blasphemy that accuses God of being the source and cause of all evil. The antinomian version of OSAS teaches that Christians can commit any sin they feel like committing with the assurace that they can never be damned. Could anything be more unreasonable than either of these two variations of OSAS?

Calvin also wrote that Christians could be damned by losing their faith, so one could make a case that Calvin never believed in OSAS. But Calvin was a poor theologian, and he wrote many contradictory things, and one can take the babblings of Calvin and make a case for OSAS if one desires. Who really knows what Calvin believed? It is a moot point, and the topic of the thread is not what Calvin believed, it is a thread about the heresy of OSAS, and there definitely is a version of this heresy that one can rightly label “Calvinist”.

If one takes the writings of John Calvin and combines that with the Protestant belief in the private interpretation of scripture, what results is a potent combination for the creation of heresy. All Calvinists are heretics, of course, but Calvinists embrace a very broad spectrum of heresy. On the one end of the spectrum are the more reasonable Calvinists that have preserved much of their Catholic heritage in matters of doctrine. On the other end of the spectrum are “Calvinists” that are far more closely related to the Gnostic Docetists in their doctrine than they are to Christians in their doctrine.

But sonseeker is asserting that angels and men do not have free will, and that there is no possibility for either angels or men to be disobedient to God’s will. Sonseeker is saying that God is indeed the Author of evil. And sonseeker is hardly the only Calvinist that I have ever debated that maintains the position that created beings are incapable of being disobedient to the will of God. So again, it is really a moot point about what Calvin may or may not have believed - what we are discussing is what a particular group of self identified “Calvinists” believe about their version of OSAS.

I had no idea we were arguing with a particular Calvinist group - I went by the name of the thread (which I *have *read, BTW) This certainly puts things in a new light: thanks ​

I had better argue with sonseeker - I’ll get back to you. One is in the odd position of being very sympathetic to Calvin, and wanting to put the best construction on his ideas that they can decently bear: and then finding that real Calvinists say things that conform to the stereotype of a Calvinism which cannot be intelligently argued for. I believe that a theological position should be defended by the best possible arguments that can be found for it - not by clever but superficial retorts. It is not refutation of the feeble arguments for a belief that show a belief is ill-founded - it is refutation of the strongest arguments for it belief that does that. Which is why IMO it is so very important for Christians to have a synpathetic understanding of doctrines they do not themselves profess.

After all, we get more than enough distortion of our Faith ourselves - so, given that Calvinist doctrine has had many eminent and weighty defenders, and has been durable enough to spread widely, I want to treat it with the respect I hope the more peaceable Calvinists would extend to our beliefs: which, indeed, many of them do ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sonseeker:

Sorry, but, going by your questions concerning sola scriptura in your post #7, you sound as though you know nothing about it.

White is Alpha Omega; I believe Boettner was Presbyterian.

Presbyterian Orthodox, to be exact - he says so in one of his books: either “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, or, “The Millennium”. Not everything he wrote was like the book by which alone, perhaps, he is known to Catholics.​

 

[Matt16_18]

Gottle of Geer:

One is in the odd position of being very sympathetic to Calvin, and wanting to put the best construction on his ideas that they can decently bear …

I said that John Calvin was a poor theologian, but by that I did not mean to imply that he had nothing of value to say. Calvin is typical of Protestant theologians, he has a partial understanding of the truths taught by the Catholic Church, and he also has a raft of opinions that are nothing but rank heresy. If one takes the best that Calvin has to offer, then one is examining those beliefs of Calvin that are in conformity with what the Catholic Church teaches, and ignoring his heresy. But when one is looking at the best of Calvin, one is really only looking at what the Catholic Church has always taught.

John Calvin had no knowledge of any truth that was not already taught by the Catholic Church. For if it were possible that Calvin had discovered some truth not known and taught by the Catholic Church, then the fullness of truth would not be found in the Catholic Church alone, the fullness of truth would be found in the Catholic Church plus sources outside of Christ’s Church. Thus it is quite impossible to study Calvinism and find truth that is unknown to the Catholic Church. At best, one will find Catholic truth presented in a somewhat different manner.

I believe that a theological position should be defended by the best possible arguments that can be found for it - not by clever but superficial retorts.

Well, sure. But the OSAS of sonseeker is really quite diabolical in its assertion that God is the source and cause of all evil. One must listen carefully to what any particular Calvinst believes, and make judgement based on that, and not on the “best construction” that one could fabricate from the writings of John Calvin.

Sonseeker is extreme, but I have debated Calvinists that were even more extreme. Sonseeker at least admits that he is capable of committing a sin (although what he means by “sin” is open to question, since he believes that he has no free will). The most extreme Calvinists deny that they are even capable of committing sin.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Elzee:

Thank you for the resources. I’ve done quite a bit of research and studying on this already, but it has all been Scriptural research, which I prefer to stick with. To me, the bible should be sufficient for me to understand this since my friends who believe in OSAS base their belief strictly on what they have read in the bible, and they say it is a very simple concept. However, when I posed a friend of mine the situation above because I really wanted to understand the belief but couldn’t through my own studying, I was told it was complicated and I’ve never gotten an answer. So, my problem isn’t that I haven’t first tried to understand it on my own, it’s that, based on what I HAVE learned on my own I don’t know how the OSAS belief would play out in the scenario I gave - in other words, the application of it to real life situations.

Is there anyone out there who can answer my questions??

1. It is simple, but it involves so many very obscure questions about God and man that it is very hard to unravel. It’s like a ball of wool - one of those, is basically nothing more than a line of thread. But, it can get very tangled - and that is where the difficulties arise. Our trouble is that we are looking at God’s works not through His eyes - we are not God, after all - but through ours. Essentially, nothing could be more simple than predestination, or than the relation between God’s free will and ours. We think of these things as unspeakably obscure, because we are not God, and yet we are thinking about Divine things - things which originate in the Mind of God, and not in our very limited and frail minds - so, there are difficulties for us. Our eyes are darkened by sin, and are faint because we are mortal and created - none of this is true of God, so all things without exception lie open to His gaze. It is, perhaps, too simple for us to see properly. ​

Even though a truth is in some sense true, it need not follow, that it is something we have to apply, in any obvious fashion. An example - God is One. Now, though this is true, it is not clear how we can apply it. That does not mean it is not practical. As God our Father is infinitely Wise & infinitely Good, it seems reasonable to suppose that what He reveals as true, is revealed for a good purpose: that Divine Revelation is for a practical purpose. And part of that purpose would seem to be, to teach us how to think worthily of Him. And that, is where the very abstract and seemingly irrelevant stuff comes in - such as the knowledge that God is One, Unique, Transcendent, Eternal, Triune, and so on: for that all helps to show how great a God & excellent a God we are allowed to worship. One way of worshipping Him, and & making our minds and hearts wholly over to Him, is, to make what we hear of Him, into food for our minds and our hearts. And that is why meditation on God’s truth is so important. For meditation makes what we learn sink into our hearts, so that it ceases to be mere head-knowledge, and becomes heart-knowledge. The wise man in Psalm 1, is meditative. Mere brain-work is not enough, important as it is.

Hope that helps ##

 

[Matt16_18]

## 1. It is simple, but it involves so many very obscure questions about God and man that it is very hard to unravel.

Come now Gottle, there is no need to obfuscate. Elzee has asked a question that isn’t that hard to answer.

OSAS is heresy, pure and simple, because OSAS teaches that Christians cannot fall away through the sin of apostasy.

There are only two ways to believe in OSAS. One way is to accept that men have free will and that antinomianism is the truth. In this scheme, justification is a legal contract given to Christians, and buried in the fine print of the contract is a clause that states that Christians are free to commit any sin conceivable with the guarantee that they are assured a place in heaven. Repentance for sin after one becomes a Christian is completely irrelevant for one’s salvation in this version of OSAS. God will not condemn unrepentant apostate Christians to hell.

The only other way to believe in OSAS is sonseeker’s version of Calvinism that asserts that the elect have no free will. The two foundational beliefs of sonseekers religion are:1. Only God has free will. Neither angels nor men can ever do anything other than what God wills. Just as the elect and the good angels do exactly what God wills, so do both the fallen angels and the damned do exactly what God wills.

1. A corollary to the first belief follows: God is not only the author of all that is good, he is also the author of all that is evil.

Sonseeker’s version of OSAS rests on belief that God is the author of all that is sick, depraved and evil in the world. (IOW, utter blasphemy.)

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

OSAS is completely illogical, to paraphrase a priest I know. It requires a complete perversion of scripture to even try to make sense of it. And, as someone else has already mentioned, just look at Adam and Eve: they were in a perfect, complete friendship/state of grace with God-- but they threw it away through their own actions-- GHASP! Actions matter? You bet.

 

[Elzee]

Sonseeker, thanks for taking the time to answer me again with so much detail. You’ve given me a lot to read over. A couple observations. Hopefully I’m not taking your answers out of context.

  1 John 5:13 – I love 1 John and this verse in particular caught my attention quite awhile ago so I studied it some.   I realize you may not agree, but what I’ve learned is that the word ‘know’ in this verse is *eidete*.  This word does not always imply 100% full knowledge.  Reading it in context, you’ll see John goes on to talk about ‘..this is our *confidence*…’.   In this instance, it is similar to me saying ‘I know I’m going to get an A on my test’ (Tim Staples’ example).  But, I really don’t *know *100% for sure until after my test is graded. The word ‘know’ in this case refers to a strong confidence.  What I’ve learned from studying this verse and a few others like it is English is a poor theological language.  Our words don’t quite hit the mark sometimes.  To get to the heart of Scripture it’s critical to understand the Greek and Hebrew roots of key words.   That’s my take, at least,  on one way to better understand what is trying to be conveyed through Scripture.  

  Also, yes – I agree adultery, etc. are sins that can be forgiven.  I meant to imply in my scenario that the person had not repented or asked for forgiveness - not that these were unforgivable sins.     

  I don’t know how to paste in multiple quotes, so I’m sorry the rest of this isn’t laid out nicely.  Your comments are in italics.

John gives three practical tests by which one can know if he is a believer, and if he has eternal life. They are: 1) The moral test (the test of righteousness or obedience). 2) The social test (the test of love). 3) The doctrinal test (the test of belief in Jesus Christ)……. This is very clear to me with the exception that it makes me wonder what happens when people disagree on what constitutes failing one of the tests? Who settles the dispute if they disagree on Scripture? If we’re dealing with salvation here, I better know what constitutes disobedience that signifies I’m not really a believer even though I thought I was. But, getting back to my scenario, I would say the person I described passed all of these tests for many years before failing it…which leads to my next observation…

Judas did not “truly believe,” as evidenced by his betrayal of the Lord. It would seem that this falling away can take some time. There is no formula given; it may be a week, a month, a year, or many years. If it can take some time to fall away, then to me it logically follows that it will take time to know if you are really saved (theoretically until you die since there doesn’t seem to be a time limit…). To me, this implies that there should be doubt not only about a person being saved for the rest of his life, but he should wonder if he is saved even at the very moment he accepts Jesus because there hasn’t been any time for him to see if he has passed the '3 tests ‘by which one can know if he is a believer’. (I’m not expecting you to try and answer this again by the way. I know you’ve given me a lot already.)

      Finally, you mention *that it’s difficult to understand eternal security without an understanding of the biblical teaching of predestination and election. They are all interwoven, and that study will take years to fully grasp.  * This is contrary to what I’ve heard others who believe in OSAS say.  I often hear non-Catholics say how complicated the Catholic view of salvation is and how simple OSAS is (believe on the name of Jesus (some also say repent) and you are saved).*  *  The more I learn about OSAS the more unsure and complicated it appears to be once you begin digging below the surface.

Thanks again for all of your help and time, Sonseeker. Even though I don’t agree with your understanding of salvation, you have helped me understand it better and I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

 

[Matt16_18]

Elzee:

If it can take some time to fall away, then to me it logically follows that it will take time to know if you are really saved (theoretically until you die since there doesn’t seem to be a time limit…)

Excellent point.

This is why Calvinists often suffer from what they call “salvation anxiety”. If the elect are automatically supposed to be holy and saintly because of irresitable grace, and a person is not manifesting extraordinary saintliness, how can that person be really sure that he is one of the elect? Maybe that person only thinks that he is one of the elect, but in truth, he is one of the crowd that is “damned but don’t know it”.

 

[sonseeker]

UKcatholicGuy:

OSAS is completely illogical, to paraphrase a priest I know. It requires a complete perversion of scripture to even try to make sense of it. And, as someone else has already mentioned, just look at Adam and Eve: they were in a perfect, complete friendship/state of grace with God-- but they threw it away through their own actions-- GHASP! Actions matter? You bet.

I am continually amazed that so many on this forum deny what the scripture clearly teaches on the basis that it is “illogical.” What matters is, is it bibilical? Without question, it is. What is illogical is for God to go to the trouble to reveal Himself, His predetermined plan, and, after doing so, keep the most important truth from His adopted child: know that you are saved, and kept by me. Part of God’s revelation, is that the individual creature may take comfort in knowing, with certainty, who he is, and what he has in Christ. Why bother revealing all of the certainties, if the individual cannot hold to them, and be comforted by them?

 

[sonseeker]

Matt16_18:

The only other way to believe in OSAS is sonseeker’s version of Calvinism that asserts that the elect have no free will. The two foundational beliefs of sonseekers religion are:1. Only God has free will. Neither angels nor men can ever do anything other than what God wills. Just as the elect and the good angels do exactly what God wills, so do both the fallen angels and the damned do exactly what God wills.

1. A corollary to the first belief follows: God is not only the author of all that is good, he is also the author of all that is evil.

Sonseeker’s version of OSAS rests on belief that God is the author of all that is sick, depraved and evil in the world. (IOW, utter blasphemy.)

Matt 16_18

You continue to insist that God has nothing to do with evil. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you are wrong. You continue to insist that you have a free will. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you wrong.

How do you understand these statements:

Proverbs 16:4: *The Lord has made everything for His own purpose, **Even the wicked for the day of evil. ***

And from the KJV an accurate rendering of the Hebrew “ra.”

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Deuteronomy 29:27: *Therefore, the anger of the Lord burned against that land, **to bring upon it every curse **which is written in this book; *

2 Kings 22:16: *thus says the Lord, “Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. *

Isaiah 10:5-6: Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, *
6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. *

Jeremiah 18:5-6: Then the word of the Lord came to me saying,
6 *“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, **like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. ***

Romans 9:22: *What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? *

FREE WILL

Psalm 33:10: The Lord nullifies* the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. *

Proverbs 16:1: *The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. *

Proverbs 16:9: *The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps. *

Proverbs 19:21: *Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the Lord will stand. *

Proverbs 21:1: The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Philippians 2:12-13: *So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; *
13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Where does God proclaim the independent Free Will of man?

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

Where does God proclaim the independent Free Will of man?

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it” (Jer. 18:7, 8).

“For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Matt. 16:27).

Paul also says that God “will render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2:6).

To the Corinthian church Paul wrote: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.” (II Cor. 5:10)

And John in picturing the last judgment says: “And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.” (Rev. 20:15)

 

[BigJack1]

Sonseeker,

You present (however inadequate the position) your side of things pretty well. I would even go so far as to say that your explanation of OSAS is as clear as any I’ve ever heard. So what? Every Catholic poster that has responded to you also make equally convincing (actually WAY more convencing to the objective bystander) arguements. So I guess we are where most of these type things end up: how do we know which position is true? Isn’t that what this (and every) debate boils down to? Who has the authority to teach what is the true position? You will say, “scripture is the authority”. But that can’t be true, because both you and your opponents in this thread both use scripture to back your positions. If God would have left us without a solution to this problem (who is right?), I would likely be atheist. But he didn’t leave us without a solution to this problem. He left us with His Church, that He established for the very reason of solving these types of issues for the faithful. He gave the Church his authority (through the protection of the Holy Spirit) to decide these matters. So when disputes arise (like in Acts when they were trying to decide whehter or not Gentiles had to become Jews first, then Christians, or could they become Christian without becoming Jewish. Notice they went to the leaders, Peter & Paul. They came to a conclusion that was binding on the whole Church. Antioch wasn’t free to believe one thing, Phillipi another, and Ephesus yet another. No, they all were bound by the decision of the authority of the leadership of the Church.), we are able to go to God’s established authority, the Church for the resolution. That’s how we know what is true. Paul tells us in his letter to Timothy that the Church is “the pillar and bullwork of truth”. Therefore, what it teaches concerning what must be believed by the faithful must be true. It is the only way to come to any sort of conclusion to this or any other matter.

BigJack

 

[allhers]

## Because salvation is through Christ. ##

Michael, yes I know , I think you missed my point back there.

 

[sonseeker]

BigJack:

You present (however inadequate the position) your side of things pretty well. I would even go so far as to say that your explanation of OSAS is as clear as any I’ve ever heard.

Thank you for the encouragement.
BigJack:

Every Catholic poster that has responded to you also make equally convincing (actually WAY more convencing to the objective bystander) arguements.

Have you asked every bystander? Besides, the bias is on the side of the Catholic on this forum.
BigJack:

Who has the authority to teach what is the true position?

That is the question. John says it well, “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.” I have yet to hear a convincing argument by anyone that upholds the claims of your Church with respects to its authority of Christ on earth. I know that you and your fellows believe it, but me and mine do not. There is simply no support for a papal lineage, except that of history; no statement pertaining to its establishment is found in the scripture without much torture done to the language. There is no support that God is about the business of any further revelation at this time. The canon is closed, and until He comes again, Christ is His final word. There are many religious systems around since the time of the Lord, to this day that claim to be the sole holder of His truth. The only truth He speaks of is His word. That is what Jesus asked the Father to sanctify the believer in and with (Jn 17:17). The H.S. can do that alone.

In 1 Cor 11:19, Paul says: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” That principle will always be so.
BigJack:

So when disputes arise (like in Acts when they were trying to decide whehter or not Gentiles had to become Jews first, then Christians, or could they become Christian without becoming Jewish. Notice they went to the leaders, Peter & Paul. They came to a conclusion that was binding on the whole Church.

Antioch wasn’t free to believe one thing, Phillipi another, and Ephesus yet another. No, they all were bound by the decision of the authority of the leadership of the Church.), we are able to go to God’s established authority, the Church for the resolution.BigJack, the decision makers of the Jerusalem Council were apostles of the Lord. " There are no such apostles around today. And, notice the doctrinal issue that was resolved: No circumcision, abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. No mention of OSAS, because it was not an issue. The believer’s of that time rejoiced in its truth.

 

[Philthy]

Hello again, sonseeker !

sonseeker:

I have yet to hear a convincing argument by anyone that upholds the claims of your Church with respects to its authority of Christ on earth.

How you can uphold the Scripture apart from the Church that God willed to reveal it through is beyond me - that’s why all of these discussions need to start with the authority of the Church. We can pick and choose Scripture to quote all day long and each have our own opinion, never truly knowing who is right and who is wrong. The degree of sophistication with which we can read and understand Scripture is so far beyond what was available for all but the last 2 centuries that it increasingly relies on an interpreter. Scripture does record the church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” but I’m sure that doesn’t carry much weight for you.

sonseeker:

I know that you and your fellows believe it, but me and mine do not. There is simply no support for a papal lineage, except that of history; no statement pertaining to its establishment is found in the scripture without much torture done to the language.

There is no support except that of history? I know you and your fellows believe that but me and mine do not.

sonseeker:

There is no support that God is about the business of any further revelation at this time. The canon is closed, and until He comes again, Christ is His final word.

Just for the record, where does Scripture state “The canon is closed”? I always thought it was from Revelation, but that says nothing of the canon per se, it only speaks of that prophecy. So what do you base that statement on?

sonseeker:

There are many religious systems around since the time of the Lord, to this day that claim to be the sole holder of His truth. The only truth He speaks of is His word. That is what Jesus asked the Father to sanctify the believer in and with (Jn 17:17). The H.S. can do that alone.

Even if what you are saying is true, that would not be the written word, that would be the spoken word . Jesus never once hints that an additional written word would be produced - it’s not in the old or new testament. How do you justify the existence of the NT as this “word” that he spoke of? I’m looking for Scriptural references of course. You easily dismiss the Church’s authority from a lack of “scriptural support” yet by that standard how can you uphold the NT as being part of revelation? Scripture doesn’t predict or necessitate the NT. In the manner similar to how you have accused others of starting with their beliefs and reading into Scripture those beliefs I think you are guilty of the same. You have predetermined the role of Scripture apart from Scripture yet deny those who God chose to give you those Scriptures. That is not a solid foundation.

OSAS is an attractive doctrine - it’s just that there is too much Scripture devoted to telling people what to do and warning them against falling away for most to accept the OSAS version of salvation being immediate, complete and permanent at the point of conversion. Add to that your concept of lack of free will and it’s just a tough sell. Each time I face a moral choice I must strive to be Christlike in my actions. Now you may feel that God has predetermined my action, but I still must face each moral dilemma as if it bears a relationship to my salvation. For example, forgiving others. I gave you the example in an earlier post that we must continue to forgive otherwise our sins will not be forgiven. It seems fairly straightforward - if you are going to take Scripture literally - that until the last person is done sinning against me and I forgive them, that my sins aren’t entirely forgiven. Unless you are prepared to jetison forgiveness of sins (by our Father) as a requirement for salvation then yuor position is contradicting this simple, plain portion of Scripture and I have to reject your theology in this regard.

I know you didn’t respond to my last post because God didn’t will it so no hard feeling here…

Phil

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

allhers:

Michael, yes I know , I think you missed my point back there.

I am always open to enlightenment - well, I hope so ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Matt 16_18

You continue to insist that God has nothing to do with evil. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you are wrong. You continue to insist that you have a free will. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you wrong.

How do you understand these statements:

Proverbs 16:4: The Lord has made everything for His own purpose, **Even the wicked for the day of evil. **

And from the KJV an accurate rendering of the Hebrew “ra.”

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Deuteronomy 29:27: *Therefore, the anger of the Lord burned against that land, **to bring upon it every curse ***which is written in this book;

2 Kings 22:16: thus says the Lord, “Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah* has read. *

Isaiah 10:5-6: Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, *
6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. *

Jeremiah 18:5-6: Then the word of the Lord came to me saying,
6 *“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, **like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. ***

Romans 9:22: What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

FREE WILL

Psalm 33:10: The Lord nullifies* the counsel of the nations; He frustrates* the plans of the peoples.

Proverbs 16:1: *The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. *

Proverbs 16:9: *The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps. *

Proverbs 19:21: *Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the Lord will stand. *

Proverbs 21:1: The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Philippians 2:12-13: *So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; *
13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Where does God proclaim the independent Free Will of man?

Sonseeker,​

What do you understand by “independent free will of man” ? It would be immensely helpful to know what your understanding of the matter is.

For instance, do you believe that human free will in the redeemed, is in any respect different from the free will of those outside the friendship of Christ ?

By “free will” do you mean:

• a faculty of free will

or

• the actual exercise of the faculty of free will

or

• both

or

• something else?

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

Do we have free will ? We do - it is maintained in existence, like the rest of our nature and our persons, by the Omnipotent God. It is because God created it, and maintains it, that it exists, both as a faculty, and as something we exercise. God’s Sovereign Freedom and Omnipotence, far from excluding human activity, act as their guarantee and make them truly alive and active: the more that human free will is conformed to the Will of Christ the God-man, the more free, spontaneous, and obedient it becomes.

I can’t see any contradiction to belief in free will in the passages you quote - I can see quite a lot of verses which speak about God’s Providence.

Moral and physical freedom.

A human being is physically free to jump off a cliff - in the sense that jumping off a cliff is within the power of human physis: human nature. Without something - such as a parachute - to stop him smashing himself to bits at the bottom, he is not physically free to escape the effects of the law of gravity.

He is not morally free to jump off a cliff - because human beings are not meant to be careless with the lives that God has given them. As God is the Creator of all men, and is “good to all”, and as God, not man, is the Author of life, that sort of behaviour is physically possible - this is, it is within our power to engage in it; but it is not *morally *possible - it is not something one is morally entitled to do.

We are physically free to use our wills so as to sin - we are not morally free to do so. Our wills are supposed to be used for glorifying God - not for refusing to glorify Him, as when we sin. Especially as the human will is designed with a bias towards God - free will is free, not because we are at liberty to use it for any purpose that comes into our heads; but because we are meant to use for a very specific purpose. IOW, the will of man, like the rest of him, has no meaning or purpose or happiness apart from God. God is the true & first and last meaning & purpose of life & of existence. That is why our wills are not, and cannot be, laws unto themselves - only God is that. But freedom of the will is no less real for not being the infinite freedom of God. Our wills are not independent of God’s - they are distinct from it; it is the canon & plumb-line by which they are measured, and to which they owe their whole being and activity.

That’s my understanding of the CC’s teaching on these matters, anyway ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Matt16_18:

Excellent point.

This is why Calvinists often suffer from what they call “salvation anxiety”. If the elect are automatically supposed to be holy and saintly because of irresitable grace, and a person is not manifesting extraordinary saintliness, how can that person be really sure that he is one of the elect?

He should consider, not the holiness of others, nor his own, but the perfect Holiness of Christ. To make his own own holiness - or that of any other man - the measure of his election or of the certainty of it, is to forget that election is a wholly gracious thing, resting not at all on anything in man, and having its source wholly in God. God elects, because He Loves the elect - not because they love Him. Election is not a reward for anything - the elect are elected not when they are justified, but before justification, so that they might be justified: not because they are justified already. Otherwise salvation would no longer be by grace, which is what St.Paul says it is in Ephesians 2.​

There is no more reason for a Calvinist to be cast down, than for a Catholic to be - if either is saved at all, it is by the same gracious Sovereign God. ##

Maybe that person only thinks that he is one of the elect, but in truth, he is one of the crowd that is “damned but don’t know it”.

See this for more about that:​

peacemakers.net/unity/tbpreciousremediesagainstsatansdevices.htm

St. Jude on the abuse of grace:

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. ##

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

You continue to insist that God has nothing to do with evil.

I never said that God has had nothing to do with evil! I said God is not the source and cause of all that is evil, sick and depraved in this world. God certainly has involved himself with evil – he became sin so that I could be freed from the bondage of sin.For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2Cor 5:21

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 5:1

Jesus Christ the righteous … is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:1-2

I have shown you repeatedly that you are wrong. You continue to insist that you have a free will. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you wrong.

No, you have never shown that God is the source and cause of all that is evil, nor have you shown me that I am not free to be disobedient to God. All you have shown me is that you do not understand the scriptures that you quote.

Where does God proclaim the independent Free Will of man?

Every single time God tells us to quit sinning!Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”
John 8:10-11

Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.”
John 5:14

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Come to your right mind, and sin no more.
1Cor. 15:33-34

And, notice the doctrinal issue that was resolved: No circumcision, abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. No mention of OSAS, because it was not an issue. The believer’s of that time rejoiced in its truth.

The first epistle of John was written to refute the antichrists and their version of OSAS. If only you could understand this epistle! There is sin which is mortal … there is sin which is not mortal.
1John 5:16-17