Challenge - The Golden Chain of Salvation

[mikeledes]

Ludwig OTT and the Catholic view on predestination:

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith. The following material from Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 {orig. 1952}, pp.242-45) ought to be most helpful for Protestants seeking to understand what Catholics believe about this ever-mysterious, controversial, complex, highly abstract theological question:

1. GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

Only incomplete Predestination to grace is independent of every merit (ante praevisa merita), as the first grace cannot be merited. In the same way, complete Predestination to grace and glory conjointly is independent of every merit, as the first grace cannot be merited, and the consequent graces, as well as the merits acquired with these graces and their reward, depend like the links of a chain, on the first grace . .

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

This is from:

bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God’s foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God’s elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God’s commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).

And let me just post this again from a previous link I gave:

We shall return to this point. But in any case, from this minimum admitted by all we get three propositions to which all Catholic theologians subscribe. They are: (1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. These three propositions are admitted by all Catholic theologians. But Thomists and Augustinians on the one hand, and Molinists and congruists on the other, differ in their interpretation of them.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Linkowski]

Linkowski:

You wanted to follow the “golden chain”, right?
Why did we blow right past who the foreknown are? That would be the first “limiting factor” in the chain. Have we definitively determined, from the context of Romans and specifically what is said in Romans 11 to determine whom “those he foreknew” are? I dont think so. IMHO Paul specifically reveals (chapter 11) that “those he foreknew” are the Israelites. They are the “people whom he foreknew”. When you think about it, who doesnt God “foreknow”?

Now, on to the elect. Catholic theology allows for the concept of “predestination to glory” - those who will persevere in faith through grace, but does not require such a belief. In either case, I dont believe that anyone, apart from private revelation, has knowledge of their status as the “elect of God”. So what is the point in pursuing such a truth???

With respect to your “vessels of wrath” reference, please note that Paul does NOT say that God ACTUALLY MADE vessels for wrath and vessels for glory - he says WHAT IF God did that - his point being who are YOU (mere man) to question it. And all of that discussion involves people prior to the crucifixion.

Lastly, whether you believe in the “elect” as predestined to persevere in faith or you don’t, the elect only represents a SUBSET of the larger group of all those who will actually persevere in grace to final glorification.

Phil

Who he forknew?

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

and…

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Read your “what if” again…it is not insinuating what you say it is.

 

[Nicene]

As mikeledes has shown us - the elect are infallibly saved and it cannot be denied by this scripture…

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The question of the hour is…can non-elect people be justified??

Perhaps you should read what he wrote again. It seems you are reading only the part you like and disregarding the rest.

Secondly you believe in a one time justification, which feeds into the falsity of OSAS. God acquits you of your old sins. I can post up Paul and Peter on this point. They make no assertion that all future sins are covered without repentance i.e. turning away once again from your sins and back towards God.

I think the problem lies in that fundamentalists equate works with sin. Works aren’t a sin, God made them for us to walk in

Eph 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Refusing to walk in them, now that is a sin. It is disobedience to God. Yet the fundamentalist says God justifies that disobedience even after being brought into the light.

Yet Paul says God justifies the doers of the law (the law of liberty).

Rom 2:13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

The doers of the law, which christ outlines for us in the sermon on the mount and in Mt 25 are those who are obedient. John also re-emphasizes this point in chaps 13-17. Only those who love God will follow his commands. Sin is a turning away from God. God does not justify those who turn away from him unless they confess and repent (turn back to God). Turning back to God requires free will.

The question of the hour is do fundamentalists believe that God is the one who justifies. By the very sentence: The question of the hour is…can non-elect people be justified?? It seems not, but rather that they rely on their own justification:

Lk 16:15: But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

As mikeledes has shown us - the elect are infallibly saved and it cannot be denied by this scripture…

just thought I would point out several things. infallibly saved means they can commit no error. So you are saying that the elect are in fact infallible (one must assume you are claiming infallibility for yourself).

However given the context of your comment I think you need to revisit 2 Peter:

2 Pet 2:5: For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,
6: and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,
7: and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
8: For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
10: Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
11: so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Even the elect can fall. Notice Peters exhortations that they follow the laws of liberty and love.** IF** they do this they will not fall v11. Peter also calls them the elect.

Or do you contest that Peter and therefore God, who inspired him, are wrong?

OSAS isn’t in scripture. it has led more people into danger than almost every other false doctrine. As a baptist preacher I know said, “Works have become such a stumbling block for evangelicals that they are sitting in their chairs refusing to do them because they are taught if they do them they don’t trust Christ and are evil.”

I have to say I agree with him. They are ripe for falling away. People are justified in baptism, it is God who justifies, not some man who is deciding who is justified and telling others he is elect and saved. And that election needs to be confirmed by following Gods commands.

Not following Gods commands has consequences. God is a God of justice, not injustice. OSAS at it’s core perpetuates and endorses God as unjust.

It also blocks, through the same error as outlined above with John the baptist, repentance from sin. When we don’t repent after sinning but rather are deceived into believing we are already elect and it doesn’t matter (all future sins God automatically exonerates us for - covered, don’t worry about it, second part of the error) then hearts are hardened to unrepentance and deceived by that sin

Heb 3:13: But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

OSAS is mans justification of himself. It certainly doesn’t come from God according to scripture.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Linkowski]

just thought I would point out several things. infallibly saved means they can commit no error. So you are saying that the elect are in fact infallible (one must assume you are claiming infallibility for yourself).

However given the context of your comment I think you need to revisit 2 Peter:

2 Pet 2:5: For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,
6: and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,
7: and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
8: For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
10: Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
11: so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Even the elect can fall. Notice Peters exhortations that they follow the laws of liberty and love.** IF** they do this they will not fall v11. Peter also calls them the elect.

Or do you contest that Peter and therefore God, who inspired him, are wrong?

OSAS isn’t in scripture. it has led more people into danger than almost every other false doctrine. As a baptist preacher I know said, “Works have become such a stumbling block for evangelicals that they are sitting in their chairs refusing to do them because they are taught if they do them they don’t trust Christ and are evil.”

I have to say I agree with him. They are ripe for falling away. People are justified in baptism, it is God who justifies, not some man who is deciding who is justified and telling others he is elect and saved. And that election needs to be confirmed by following Gods commands.

Not following Gods commands has consequences. God is a God of justice, not injustice. OSAS at it’s core perpetuates and endorses God as unjust.

It also blocks, through the same error as outlined above with John the baptist, repentance from sin. When we don’t repent after sinning but rather are deceived into believing we are already elect and it doesn’t matter (all future sins God automatically exonerates us for - covered, don’t worry about it, second part of the error) then hearts are hardened to unrepentance and deceived by that sin

Heb 3:13: But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

OSAS is mans justification of himself. It certainly doesn’t come from God according to scripture.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Your view is your own view and is a misunderstanding. I think we have been very clear and thorough on this thread. I have taken everything into account. You need to understand how our “conflicting” passages can be reconciled and understand how they complement eachother.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

How presumptuous of you, for you to be able to judge that someone else’s view is a misunderstanding and claim that yours is the only correct view, going so far as to say that we “need to understand”.

I can pretty much say the same thing about you. That “your view is your own view and is a misunderstanding”. Where does that leave us? Who’s to judge?

 

[Nicene]

Your view is your own view and is a misunderstanding. I think we have been very clear and thorough on this thread. I have taken everything into account. You need to understand how our “conflicting” passages can be reconciled and understand how they complement eachother.

That’s easy, give up Sola Scriptura and become catholic then you won’t have any more conflicts with scripture you can’t explain away or have need of altering (twisting) You need to understand that those passages aren’t in conflict in the first place. (only the false doctrine makes them conflict)

I have shown abundantly with scripture from each apostle and Christ that contradicts what fundamentalists project onto scripture to support a false doctrine not found in scripture, namely OSAS.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Philthy]

Who he forknew?

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I see** no mention of “foreknown” here** - only that both Jews and Gentiles are “called”. That is the primary message of Romans: All have sinned, All are called to repentance, Christ died for All. That does not, however, mean that all were among those he “foreknew”.

Linkowski:

and…

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Again, not a whisper regarding being “foreknown”. You, apparently are equating calling and election with being “foreknown”. You are then concluding that ALL who are called were also foreknown. That, Im afraid, is a simple error of logic.
Simply because ALL of the foreknown were called, elected…glorified does NOT mean that all of the called, elected…glorified were foreknown. Basically you are stuck at the first Link of the chain - those whom he “foreknew”.

Linkowski:

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Again, lets deal with “his people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11) first, since it is the first link of the chain.

 

[Linkowski]

I see** no mention of “foreknown” here** - only that both Jews and Gentiles are “called”. That is the primary message of Romans: All have sinned, All are called to repentance, Christ died for All. That does not, however, mean that all were among those he “foreknew”.

Again, not a whisper regarding being “foreknown”. You, apparently are equating calling and election with being “foreknown”. You are then concluding that ALL who are called were also foreknown. That, Im afraid, is a simple error of logic.
Simply because ALL of the foreknown were called, elected…glorified does NOT mean that all of the called, elected…glorified were foreknown. Basically you are stuck at the first Link of the chain - those whom he “foreknew”.

Again, lets deal with “his people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11) first, since it is the first link of the chain.

You are not making much sense to me, sorry. But those whom he foreknew, he predestined, them he called, them he justified, and he then glorfies them. Referring to Israel only??

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Notice - gentiles were appointed or ordained to eternal life. When?? Before the foundation of the world? On the basis of what?? God’s gracious choice? Why? Because God loved them? Why - who knows??? Not deserving at all!

All glory to God!

 

[Philthy]

You are not making much sense to me, sorry. But those whom he foreknew, he predestined, them he called, them he justified, and he then glorfies them. Referring to Israel only??

Ok Linkowski I’ll try and help you some more. Lets start with some true or false questions OK?

All he foreknew he predestined, called and justified. T or F?

All he predestined he foreknew. T or F?

All he called he foreknew. T or F?

All he justifies he foreknew. T or F?

This will be a start.

 

[Linkowski]

Ok Linkowski I’ll try and help you some more. Lets start with some true or false questions OK?

All he foreknew he predestined, called and justified. T or F?

All he predestined he foreknew. T or F?

All he called he foreknew. T or F?

All he justifies he foreknew. T or F?

This will be a start.

True on all of them…what is “foreknew”??

See postings 23 and 24 on this thread…we as the elect Christians are shown to be foreknown as I have already shown…

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
2 **according to the foreknowledge **of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

He foreknew (foreloved), predestined, called, justified, and glorifies!

I am not sure why you want to leave the Gentiles out of this foreknowing of God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think the relationship between free will and predestination or free will and grace is a very complex issue. The elect will infallibly be saved. But how does that accomplish that without destroying the freedom of the will? What about the repribate? Does God ever give them the opportunity (i.e. sufficient grace) to repent and turn to Him? These are questions theologians for hundreds of years have attempted to answer. Let’s look at the following verse:

Isaiah 5:1-7

1Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
7For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

The vineyard is the House of Israel. God asserts that he did everything possible for His vineyard in order for it to produce righteousness. He even asks, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” The question clearly implies that God did everything possible for His vineyard, and yet it did not bear the fruit He wanted. Now we all know that righteous living must be preceded by repentance and repentance must be preceded by grace. So if God did not provide sufficient grace in order for His people to bear fruit in righteousness, than there was something He could have done that he did not do. But the question in verse 4 and the metaphor in verses 2 clearly implies that God did everything needed in order for His people to bear righteous fruit and hence God must have provided sufficient grace. If God did His part, why asn’t this grace efficacious? Another factor must have come into play, the human will. This demonstrates 3 points:

1)That grace is not irresistable, particularly in the case of the reprobate.

2)God takes into account the human will in accomplishing His plan of salvation. Otherwise, His vineyard would have born fruit, partcularly since He wanted it to bear fruit and did the work to accomplish it (i.e. provided sufficient grace).

1. Sufficient grace is also offered to the reprobate and there is the possibility of genuine acceptance, since a genuine and sincere offer can only be such if it can be accepted. I can not sincerely offer a starving person tied to a chair food if I at least do not make an attempt to untie him. If I do not untie him and then say the rejected the food I offered, my offer was not genuine or sincere.

God Bless,
Michael

Dont forget Jeremiah 18:1-10

 

[Philthy]

True on all of them…what is “foreknew”??

See postings 23 and 24 on this thread…we as the elect Christians are shown to be foreknown as I have already shown…

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
2 **according to the foreknowledge **of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

He foreknew (foreloved), predestined, called, justified, and glorifies!

I am not sure why you want to leave the Gentiles out of this foreknowing of God.

I dont want to, I do simply because Paul does and he is the one who made the golden chain comment. That doesnt leave them out of God’s gratuitous offer of salvation though, like you seem to think it does. You simply wish to beleive that God has preordained you, personally, to everlasting Glory and there is nothing that you could personally do to jeopardize that. But if you truly believed that with all your heart you wouldnt be on this forum or any other. In fact you wouldnt even preach the Gospel because those who are “foreknown” can not NOT be saved. But you are here. I wonder what it is you feel you need to accomplish if God has preordained it all. I digress - back to the topic.

Romans 11:1-4

Has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I am an Israelite…(with the implication that Paul has not been rejected)

Conclusion 1 : God’s people = Israelites

Romans 11-2:

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew

Conclusion 2: God’s people are those whom he foreknew

Conclusion 3: God’s people**, the Israelites are those whom he foreknew.**

Why dont you offer some concrete arguments from Romans to refute my use of the term “his people whom he foreknew”. That would be better than what you offered on posts 23 and 24. Is there something wrong with my understanding of “his people whom he foreknew” referring to the Israelites in the context of Romans?

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

I see no mention of “foreknown” here - only that both Jews and Gentiles are “called”. That is the primary message of Romans: All have sinned, All are called to repentance, Christ died for All. That does not, however, mean that all were among those he “foreknew”.

The foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified of v29, are identified in the context of the passage, in v33, as the elect—that would be both Jew, and Gentile, and that would be to justification, and glorification, as the context states.

 

[Philthy]

The foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified of v29, are identified in the context of the passage, in v33, as the elect—that would be both Jew, and Gentile, and that would be to justification, and glorification, as the context states.

Hi Sandusky!

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think you meant to say “as the context implies” though, right? Which conclusion of my analysis from Romans 11 did you disagree with and where did I commit a logical error?

 

[Angainor]

So…election is God’s gracious choice…according to His own purpose and grace…not based on anything that we do or choose. Is that what you see from these scriptures?

Yes

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Hi Sandusky!

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think you meant to say “as the context implies” though, right? Which conclusion of my analysis from Romans 11 did you disagree with and where did I commit a logical error?

Hi Phil.

No, Phil; I think it obvious from the context that the FPCJG, and the elect, are one, and the same.

There are any number of sources I could footnote to support that, but will use one familiar to you

The Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org, under subhead II New Testament states:The New Testament transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts 13:17) the meaning of the term [the elect] from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ,…St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Romans 8:33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30).

I do not entirely agree with the first statement listed, in that, Israel is still the elect of God in a national sense, and has not been replaced by the Church, and there were/are Jews in the Church.

You are partly correct.

 

[Pax]

How about passing out about 10 of those for the rest of us?

Sure, just send me a PM with your email address and I’ll send the files.

 

[NotWorthy]

If Paul is the author who is establishing this Golden Chain of Salvation, why is God petitioning God for other’s Salvation in Romans, chapter 10. Isn’t the deal already sealed?

*“***1 Brothers, my dearest wish and my prayer to God is for them, that they may be saved. 2 **I readily testify to their fervor for God, but it is misguided.