Challenge - The Golden Chain of Salvation

[Linkowski]

Okay - contrary to what anyone might say, the elect are the only ones that will be saved. They were elected by the grace of God from before the foundation of the world and had nothing to do with his will or his works but rests ultimately on Him who calls. It is put in many places this way…

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Ro 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Ro 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

So, OSAS is true for these elect…once they come to faith, they are saved…

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.

I realize that we all do not agree on this and I do not believe that we will on this forum. So, rather than get hung up here, I would like to move onto the notion as to whether or not the non-elect can be justified/saved/declared righteous and then lose their salvation. We, as Protestants, would say that they were never saved. But, the idea of the non-elect coming to Christ (and being justified/saved) does not mesh well with certain passages. I present the first problem…See these excerpts from John…

Joh 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

This word draw means to drag (i.e. drawing water from a well). And he He will raise him up.

Joh 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
Joh 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

When you put all of these scriptures together…only the elect can come to the Father. So, the idea of the non-elect (ones not given to Christ by the Father) coming to Christ in the same way that the elect do does not make sense in light of this. They were bad fish that got drawn into the net. Any thoughts?

 

[Philthy]

Inappropriate, or not, God knows your every thought; therefore, you can never keep your thoughts from Him, nor should you (Ps 139); neither could Paul, nor should he have.

While it is true that God knows our thoughts I would disagree that we should be praying for things we know to be contrary to His will. That is the position Paul is in - he has special knowledge. You and I dont quite experience life that way, so it’s different. Paul could have been praying for consolation, peace of mind, any sort of thing rather than praying for something which was directly opposed to God’s will. That’s one point: having inappropriate thoughts and offering them as prayers are separate things. We cannot control our thoughts, we can control our prayer.
The other point I will make is that I don’t quite why, if what you propose is true, these petitions Paul makes would be included in Scripture. They are, potentially confusing in understanding salvation and, at best, irrelevent.

 

[mikeledes]

Okay - contrary to what anyone might say, the elect are the only ones that will be saved. They were elected by the grace of God from before the foundation of the world and had nothing to do with his will or his works but rests ultimately on Him who calls. It is put in many places this way…

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Ro 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Ro 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

So, OSAS is true for these elect…once they come to faith, they are saved…

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.

I realize that we all do not agree on this and I do not believe that we will on this forum. So, rather than get hung up here, I would like to move onto the notion as to whether or not the non-elect can be justified/saved/declared righteous and then lose their salvation. We, as Protestants, would say that they were never saved. But, the idea of the non-elect coming to Christ (and being justified/saved) does not mesh well with certain passages. I present the first problem…See these excerpts from John…

Joh 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

This word draw means to drag (i.e. drawing water from a well). And he He will raise him up.

Joh 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
Joh 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

When you put all of these scriptures together…only the elect can come to the Father. So, the idea of the non-elect (ones not given to Christ by the Father) coming to Christ in the same way that the elect do does not make sense in light of this. They were bad fish that got drawn into the net. Any thoughts?

I’ll be answering this hopefully within the next two hours. And not all Protestants will agree. Many Arminians do not.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

Before going any further, I just want to reaffirm certain facts:

1. The Catholic Church teaches predestination/election, though it has a different flavor from Calvinism without being Arminian.
2. God does not chose a person because that person chose him first. Rather, God freely choses a person and that person, enabled by His prevenient grace, freely choses Him.
3. Both Thomist and Molinist Catholics believe that complete predestination to glory is ultimately based on God’s gracious choice. It is not based on foreseen merits or foreseen perseverance in merits. Where they differ is in the relationship between grace and free will. How does God save without destroying the freedom of the will (i.e. Determinism)?
4. The number of the elect is immutably fixed, and hence they cannot be lost.
   God Bless,
   Michael

• Salvation is by Grace - OK, got it - unmerited favor. No problem.
• And the elect will not be lost, got it. I believe that “will not” more accurately communicates the reality rather than “can not” because the latter excludes free will - I could be wrong. But it seems to me that God has free will, no? It’s not that He “can’t” excersise free will, its simply that He “will not.” In every situation His perfect Holiness ensures that He will always exercise that His free will to the “good, pleasing and perfect,” which is in direct opposition to sin. Anyhow, I digress…
• Answer me this: Are the elect a subset of the Church (ie smaller in number) or are they identical to it? I think this is where most of the disagreement is…
  Phil

 

[mikeledes]

• Salvation is by Grace - OK, got it - unmerited favor. No problem.
• And the elect will not be lost, got it. I believe that “will not” more accurately communicates the reality rather than “can not” because the latter excludes free will - I could be wrong. But it seems to me that God has free will, no? It’s not that He “can’t” excersise free will, its simply that He “will not.” In every situation His perfect Holiness ensures that He will always exercise that His free will to the “good, pleasing and perfect,” which is in direct opposition to sin. Anyhow, I digress…
• Answer me this: Are the elect a subset of the Church (ie smaller in number) or are they identical to it? I think this is where most of the disagreement is…
  Phil

The Church Militant includes the elect and the justified reprobate. The Church Triumphant exclusively consists of the elect. The elect will not fall away - they will persevere - but the justified reprobate will.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[utunumsint]

The number of the elect is immutably fixed, and hence they cannot be lost.

I think from a Catholic perspective and from a human perspective, we have no way of knowing if we are elect or not. All we can have is a reasonable assurance of salvation.

Augustine said as much when he mentioned that there were some outside the church who would be saved, and some inside the church who would be damned.

Ut

 

[mikeledes]

I think from a Catholic perspective and from a human perspective, we have no way of knowing if we are elect or not. All we can have is a reasonable assurance of salvation.

Augustine said as much when he mentioned that there were some outside the church who would be saved, and some inside the church who would be damned.

Ut

This is one of the things that distinguishes us from Calvinists. Since the justified can include both the elect and the reprobate, we have no absolute/infallible certitude that we are of the elect. But I’ll touch discuss this in greater detail later.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Linkowski:

Okay - contrary to what anyone might say, the elect are the only ones that will be saved. They were elected by the grace of God from before the foundation of the world and had nothing to do with his will or his works but rests ultimately on Him who calls. It is put in many places this way…

Yes, only the elect will be saved. I would add that the elect includes all those justified by God. The elect, and the justified are one, and the same.

 

[sandusky]

Hi Mike,

With respect to Is 5:1-7, you said:

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 wasn’t this grace efficacious? Another factor must have come into play, the human will.

I again disagree with your reading of, your interpretation of, and your use of scripture. This passage is written about Israel, who was under the Law, and not about the Church, who is under graceJohn 1:17

For the Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.Two different entites (Israel, the Church) two different covenants, a different way of dealing with each.

In the passage, the prophet clearly states that God graced Israel, and Israel took that grace for granted, abused it, and trampled it underfoot.

This passage lists the sins of Israel, and prophesies the forthcoming judgment of God against them—the destruction of the north by Assyria which occurred in 722 bc, and the Babylonian captivity in 586 bc.

mikeledes:

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

Since you miss the point of the passage, you have wrongly stated your point.

The passage is not about irresistible grace, but about grace taken for granted, and abused by a disobedient nation.

mikeledes:

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).

Contrary to your first assertion, this passage is not about salvation, but about a disobedient nation. Contrary to your second assertion, that disobedient nation did, in fact bear fruit; it bore wild grapes.

mikeledes:

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.

There are several things wrong with that statement. First, it assumes that the gift of the gospel is desired by everyone to whom it is offered; I would submit that it is not; for many it is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. Second, a genuine and sincere offer may not be able to be accepted; that does not diminish the genuineness, or sincerity of the offer, both with material things in this life, and with eternal things in the next life. With respect to eternal things, no one is able, except God enable him (Jn 6:44); that does not diminish the truth, and sincerity of the gospel, and what it offers.

mikeledes:

I cannot 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 he rejected the food I offered, my offer was not genuine or sincere.

IMO, this point states your commitment to your tradition; it is a philosophical statement.

The theological statement is this:Romans 9:15

For [God] says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”No one is able to accept God’s offer from his natural will—even the elect, which is why they must be elect.

To insist that one must be able to accept the offer, is to insist that God is obligated to offer.

 

[sandusky]

While it is true that God knows our thoughts I would disagree that we should be praying for things we know to be contrary to His will. That is the position Paul is in - he has special knowledge. You and I dont quite experience life that way, so it’s different. Paul could have been praying for consolation, peace of mind, any sort of thing rather than praying for something which was directly opposed to God’s will. That’s one point: having inappropriate thoughts and offering them as prayers are separate things. We cannot control our thoughts, we can control our prayer.
The other point I will make is that I don’t quite why, if what you propose is true, these petitions Paul makes would be included in Scripture. They are, potentially confusing in understanding salvation and, at best, irrelevent.

I understand; thanks Phil.

 

[mikeledes]

A genuine desire to help must manifest itself in a genuine offer and a genuine offer is one that can be accepted. This reminds me of a verse in the Bible:

James 2:15-16

15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

How can you desire that a person be “warm and filled” and not provide what he/she needs, or at least the means of attaining it? Such a “desire” lacks sincerity.

God, on the other hand, cannot lie or deceive. Thank God for that! Otherwise, we’d really be in trouble. Therefore, He always says what He means and He always means what He says. Now what has God said regarding repentance and salvation?

John 3:16-17

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

**3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. **

Ezekiel 18:23

23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

Now if the grace of repentance is granted by God and He desires the salvation of all, then how can God say that He does not desire the death of the wicked, “rather than that he turn from his ways and live” if He does not provide the means to accomplish that? As I stated earlier, a genuine desire produces a genuine offer and a genuine offer is only genuine when it can be accepted. Otherwise, it isn’t an offer at all. But how great and merciful is our God! He not only has the desire, but also provides the means to all mankind:

Titus 2:11

11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

John 1:9

**9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. **

John 12:32

**32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." **

The offer of grace is for all and he has provided the means for acceptance, as He did in Isaiah 5:1-6. There will be those who refuse it from the start. There will be others who accept it and then eventually fall away (the “justified” reprobate). Finally, there will be those who accept it an persevere (i.e. the elect).

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Hi Mike,

With respect to Is 5:1-7, you said:I again disagree with your reading of, your interpretation of, and your use of scripture. This passage is written about Israel, who was under the Law, and not about the Church, who is under graceJohn 1:17

For the Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.Two different entites (Israel, the Church) two different covenants, a different way of dealing with each.

In the passage, the prophet clearly states that God graced Israel, and Israel took that grace for granted, abused it, and trampled it underfoot.

This passage lists the sins of Israel, and prophesies the forthcoming judgment of God against them—the destruction of the north by Assyria which occurred in 722 bc, and the Babylonian captivity in 586 bc.Since you miss the point of the passage, you have wrongly stated your point.

The passage is not about irresistible grace, but about grace taken for granted, and abused by a disobedient nation.Contrary to your first assertion, this passage is not about salvation, but about a disobedient nation. Contrary to your second assertion, that disobedient nation did, in fact bear fruit; it bore wild grapes.

What God wanted, Sandunsky, was not wild grapes. Wild grapes symbolize sins. What he wanted was righteoussness. Secondly, the means of slavation were the same in both Old (National Israel) and New (Church) Covenants. The righteous of the Old and New Covenants were all saved in the same way. It was under the New Covenant that the means of this salvation was finally and explicitly revealed (i.e. Jesus Christ). The sacrificial system of the Old Covenant pointed to and was a type of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Third, God clearly indicates that the point of all His work was so that His vineyard would produce grapes, not wild grapes. He asks, 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? Now a man cannot produce fruit pleasing to God because no one in the flesh can please God. Nor can he will himself out of being in the flesh. The only one that can give him that opportunity is God through prevenient grace. So the question is, what more could God have done in order for His vineyard to produce the grapes he wanted? If He did not provide the means to produce the grapes, then there was something lacking. But based on the question, the clear implication is that there was nothing lacking. Without His grace, there can be no righteous fruit. So why did they fail to produce? Because they were unwilling.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

There are several things wrong with that statement. First, it assumes that the gift of the gospel is desired by everyone to whom it is offered; I would submit that it is not; for many it is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. Second, a genuine and sincere offer may not be able to be accepted; that does not diminish the genuineness, or sincerity of the offer, both with material things in this life, and with eternal things in the next life. With respect to eternal things, no one is able, except God enable him (Jn 6:44); that does not diminish the truth, and sincerity of the gospel, and what it offers.IMO, this point states your commitment to your tradition; it is a philosophical statement.

1. No one can chose God without prevenient grace. Therefore, there is no desire for the gospel in the proper sense without the aid of God.

2)You’re right. A sincere offer may not be able to be accepted. But if I am able - and the only one - to enable it be accepted and I chose not to, how can that offer be sincere? How can I say to a drowning person, “I desire that you be delivered from your predicament”, but then refuse to offer help to that person? That desire was not genuine. Now if I can’t swim or unable for some
reason to execute my desire, than that is a different story. That is not the case with God, who explicitly states He desires the salvation of all men and that the wicked repent and live.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[NotWorthy]

What God wanted, Sandunsky, was not wild grapes. Wild grapes symbolize sins. What he wanted was righteoussness. Secondly, the means of slavation were the same in both Old (National Israel) and New (Church) Covenants. The righteous of the Old and New Covenants were all saved in the same way. It was under the New Covenant that the means of this salvation was finally and explicitly revealed (i.e. Jesus Christ). The sacrificial system of the Old Covenant pointed to and was a type of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Third, God clearly indicates that the point of all His work was so that His vineyard would produce grapes, not wild grapes. He asks, 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? Now a man cannot produce fruit pleasing to God because no one in the flesh can please God. Nor can he will himself out of being in the flesh. The only one that can give him that opportunity is God through prevenient grace. So the question is, what more could God have done in order for His vineyard to produce the grapes he wanted? If He did not provide the means to produce the grapes, then there was something lacking. But based on the question, the clear implication is that there was nothing lacking. Without His grace, there can be no righteous fruit. So why did they fail to produce? Because they were unwilling.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

The phrase “wild grapes” is a poor translation. It is better translated “stinking grapes” which would not be able to produce wine… Hence, the grapes were useless. So maybe the grapes were works, but the works produced nothing good.

 

[mikeledes]

The theological statement is this:

Romans 9:15

For [God] says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”No one is able to accept God’s offer from his natural will—even the elect, which is why they must be elect.

To insist that one must be able to accept the offer, is to insist that God is obligated to offer.

A person is unable to accept the offer using their own natural powers. That would be the heresy of Pelagianism, a heresy condemned by the Catholic Church. Choice must be preceded by prevenient grace. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches that the ultimate basis of God’s election is His gracious choice. The “gift of final perseverance” He offers to whomever He choses and it cannot be merited. I suggest you read the links I provided on the Catholic Church and predestination.

Here are a couple of quotes from one of these links:

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination6.php

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.

From the same Thomist link:

**This is the difficulty that St. Paul expresses when he writes: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.” St. Paul thus answers the difficulty by affirming the principle of predilection, or of the gratuity of grace to which we can have no claim. Further on he states: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!” St. Augustine expresses the mystery in these words: “Why He draweth one and not another, seek not to judge if thou dost not wish to err.”

St. Thomas called special attention to these two great difficulties in the mystery of predestination; one difficulty is general in scope, the other of particular interest. He says: “The reason for the predestination of some, and the reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. . . . God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom He reprobates, by means of His justice in punishing them. . . . Yet why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason except the divine will. . . . Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. . . . In things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice.”**

Why does God ensure the salvation of the elect and allow others to freely chose to fall away or not accept the Gospel from the start? You answered it with your quote from Romans.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The phrase “wild grapes” is a poor translation. It is better translated “stinking grapes” which would not be able to produce wine… Hence, the grapes were useless. So maybe the grapes were works, but the works produced nothing good.

Thank you so much for your contribution!

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Okay guys and gals, I have to go. Unfortunately, I probably won’t be online for the next couple of days , but , God willing, I will be back. I hope all of you read the links I provided, that also inludes you Sandunsky. There are a lot of misconceptions on what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue. This is a comlex subject and requires a lot of study. Everyday I learn something new. May you all have a blessed weekend and may God richly bless you all. Yeah … that includes our Calvinists brothers and sisters.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Linkowski]

Just a thought here…what would be the point of offering this temporal salvation to people knowing that they will end up in eternal condemnation? That’s a bad deal.

Another thought…Doesn’t the gospel call to the reprobate actually produce a hardening? I know it does to some…the more they hear it the more numb they get to it - the harder they get. Especially those that come to know it very clearly and then fall away - those are the ones that tend to fall into deep and heinous sin. I am wondering if this is the hardening that God is referring to in Romans 9. Is this the purpose of God’s calling even to the reprobate - that they might become responsible?

I do not have the time to mention anything with reference, Mike, to the verses on prevenient grace…John 1:9, John 12:32, and Titus 2:11 - but when I get the opportunity, I will.

God Bless

 

[sandusky]

A person is unable to accept the offer using their own natural powers. That would be the heresy of Pelagianism, a heresy condemned by the Catholic Church. Choice must be preceded by prevenient grace.

You don’t know what you are talking about Mike. You really should attempt to understand what Pelagianism is before you accuse one of it.

Pelagianism has to do with our ability limiting our responsibility. IOW Pelagian stated that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do, and since God wants us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands.

A Pelagian statement would be: man by his own natural powers is able to accept the gospel.

As you can see from the quote above, that is not what I said.

I have yet to call a Catholic a heretic, but Catholics freely throw that word at me, and they are always wrong.

 

[Linkowski]

Mike…to reiterate…you are saying that one can be reprobate but saved…this will not lead to final salvation but they at least get to be saved for a while and WILL fall away. Doesn’t this scripture also pose a problem?

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

“In the faith” and “reprobate” are mutually exclusive.