Eternal Security

[Cruxis117]

I’ve recently had another discussion with a Calvinist. When using two primary ‘proof texts’ to show that we had a choice to accept or reject the unmerited gift of Grace and Salvation by God (2 Peter 2:20-22 and Philippians 3:1-6), it was refuted as follows:

2 Peter 2:20-22

“He is speaking of the false prophets in this chapter”

Philippians 3:1-6

“He is wanting this goal because Christ made Paul his own, and Paul is naturally drawn to doing what Christ wants”

I was wondering, what arguments/evidence can be provided to refute Eternal Security?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Easy. 1 Timothy 2:4.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills everyone to be saved—but not everyone is actually saved. Hence, there are only three possibilities:

1. Humans can refuse salvation, ergo free will, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey
2. God is not omnipotent, but this is clearly wrong and even the Calvinist will say so, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey
3. The Calvinist posits a distinction between God’s “will” and “desire” that has no basis in Scripture, ergo no sola scriptura, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey.

Obviously the correct possibility is (1), but in any event, Calvinism goes kablooey.

 

[JM3]

Matthew 12:43-45*

*Douay-Rheims cross reference for 2 Peter 2:20.

 

[Cruxis117]

Easy. 1 Timothy 2:4.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills everyone to be saved—but not everyone is actually saved. Hence, there are only three possibilities:

1. Humans can refuse salvation, ergo free will, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey
2. God is not omnipotent, but this is clearly wrong and even the Calvinist will say so, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey
3. The Calvinist posits a distinction between God’s “will” and “desire” that has no basis in Scripture, ergo no sola scriptura, ergo Calvinism goes kablooey.

Obviously the correct possibility is (1), but in any event, Calvinism goes kablooey.

The Calvinist I debated said that “all men” referred to “all” as in of any kind. Not “all” as in every individual. But all as in “black, white,” etc. What is a good response?

 

[Cruxis117]

Another statement made, which I would like to hear a response, is Romans 8:28-33, in relation to those being predestined and saved. While I was in this discussion to hear and understand, rather than debate and “win an argument,”, this has shaken me a little bit. Although I still trust the full Deposit of Faith, and the Magisterium, I wonder, is there a good response to this passage? I believe that looking in the context of this, would be as fair as the poster has done in relation to the verses I suggested to him. Thank you.

 

[kmaaj]

My impression of absolute predestination/elect doctrines is that they rely soley on carefully selected and reassembled exclusively Pauline verses, kind of creating a sub gospel within a gospel, and then all of the rest of the gospel is held in the light of that sub gospel. It is literally reading the gospel with a predisposed outcome, instead of letting the gospel speak to you. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kmaaj]

Another statement made, which I would like to hear a response, is Romans 8:28-33, in relation to those being predestined and saved. While I was in this discussion to hear and understand, rather than debate and “win an argument,”, this has shaken me a little bit. Although I still trust the full Deposit of Faith, and the Magisterium, I wonder, is there a good response to this passage? I believe that looking in the context of this, would be as fair as the poster has done in relation to the verses I suggested to him. Thank you.

I heartily recomend the Sungenis/White debate on the subject. What I find amazing about the debate, is that Sungenis cleaned White’s clock and never once denied predestination. He quoted an evangelical I think named Sinclair, who said something about Catholics can hold seemingly opposites as truth.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Calvinist I debated said that “all men” referred to “all” as in of any kind. Not “all” as in every individual. But all as in “black, white,” etc. What is a good response?

If he takes that position as to the definition of the word “all” then “all have sinned” doesn’t really mean every single person either.

Thus, your response is: “Behold your Mother.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Concerning Predestination (and Free Will) you stated . . . .

Another statement made, which I would like to hear a response, is Romans 8:28-33, in relation to those being predestined and saved. While I was in this discussion to hear and understand, rather than debate and “win an argument,”, this has shaken me a little bit.

ROMANS 8:28-33 28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. **29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. **30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies . . .

I assume you are alluding to Romans 3:29 here concerning the word “predestined”.

Don’t be intimidated by a verse on Predestination. Why? Because the concept of Predestination is very mysterious and we as Catholics affirm Predestination in its proper sense (but deny the heresy of determinism or “double predestination”). But we ALSO affirm free will. This makes the Calvinist mind go tilt I think because they see predestination as necessarily being determinism but it isn’t. Calvinist - Predestination = Determinism. Catholics - No to determinism. Yes we affirm verses concerning predestination AND verses concerning free will. You must define predestination in harmony with free will. They don’t believe that. They are the deniers of Sacred Scripture here. They are the ones denying the verses concerning and the concept of free will.

(See CCC 381 and 2012 and others which footnote the above Romans passage too for more detail)

Free Will AND Predestination in the Catholic sense:

CCC 600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

Notice again in CCC 1037 the concept of predestination and free-will (a “willful turning away”).

CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

For a nice review on this issue see this Catholics United For The Faith review:

Predestination and Free Will

Issue: What is meant by “predestination” within a Calvinist understanding of salvation? Does this exclude free will?

Response: In general, predestination refers to God’s sovereign will over all things, for He accomplishes everything according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). According to Catholic teaching, predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive. Rather, God . . . (Read the whole article here)

Incidentally just so you don’t get caught offguard. Defining how predestination is to be understood (we’ve talked about how it should NOT be understood) has led to some intense debates within the Catholic Church but that would be for another thread. Just keep in mind predestination is NOT determinism (or predeterminism or a kind of “puppet show”).

Also many non-Calvinist Protestants I’ve talked to affirm the Catholic position on this.

 

[Philthy]

I was wondering, what arguments/evidence can be provided to refute Eternal Security?

Matt 6:14 “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”

Being forgiven of our sins by God is a prerequisite of salvation. Being forgiven requires our forgiving others. Forgiving others is a life long process and needing to do so is largely out of our control: we cannot control who will sin against us. But when they do, we are called to forgive. And should we become vengeful and callous to the point of not forgiving others, our sins are held against us as well.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If he takes that position as to the definition of the word “all” then “all have sinned” doesn’t really mean every single person either.

Non-sequitur. You’re claim here assumes a univocal meaning of “all,” when in fact there can be a range of meanings for the word. Thus we should adopt a case-by-case approach for each “all,” to see which meaning the author most likely intended.

With respect to 1 Timothy 2:4, it most certainly is a valid question to ask if Paul meant “all” (without exception) or "all (without distinction.) If you say the latter, then this commits you to believing that Paul simultaneously teaches that God wills everyone’s salvation while, at the same time, creating out of that everyone “vessels of wrath made for destruction” (Romans 9:22). Why would God “harden” some (Romans 9:18) if he desires every single person to come to salvation?

Some answer this by distinguishing between God’s antecedent and consequent will (Thomas Aquinas, for example), so that God only wills the salvation of all relative to their free response to grace rather than simply and absolutely (which would then lead to universal salvation.) That’s one possible solution. The one Calvinists favor is to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative “all.” Both distinctions can handle the dilemma. The question is, which view is more likely what Paul had in mind?

To answer that, I’d suggest returning to the context of 1 Timothy, chapter 2:

2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all…

When Paul urges prayer for “all people” (literally, “all men”), is he seriously suggesting that Timothy should pray for every single person on earth? That would be a tall order to pray for every individual. So more likely, Paul is urging Timothy to pray for all kinds of people. Support for that is found in verse 2: “for kings and all who are in high positions.” Thus Paul probably doesn’t have individuals in mind so much as categories of people. But if “all” in verses 1 and 2 do not mean “all without exception,” then why does it have to have that meaning in verse 4? So contextually speaking, there is no good reason to suppose that Paul is teaching that God wills the salvation of every single individual.

Likewise, Jesus is the mediator between God and men. But for whom does Christ intercede? Is it not the same people for whom he gave himself as a ransom? Even a cursory study of the term “ransom” in both its Old Testament usage and in contemporary Greek culture shows that the word connotes the payment of a price in order to secure the freedom or release of someone. But surely Christ’s intercessory work on the cross, his blood that pays the ransom price, is not for all people without exception, or else we would have to posit that all people will be saved. Rather, Christ game himself for a ransom for all men without distinction, thereby securing “eternal redemption” by his blood, (Hebrews 9:12). The redemption he secures is not only “eternal” meaning that it cannot be lost, but it is also an accomplished redemption that applies to those “for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11).

No one in the Old Covenant slaughtered lambs in an open ended way such that anyone who wanted to partake in that sacrifice by freely appropriating it to themselves could then benefit from it; rather blood sacrifices were offered to take away sins with specific application to those covered by the sacrifice. In the same way, Christ died specifically for his sheep (cf, John 10:11).

 

[ignatius777]

Non-sequitur. You’re claim here assumes a univocal meaning of “all,” when in fact there can be a range of meanings for the word. Thus we should adopt a case-by-case approach for each “all,” to see which meaning the author most likely intended.

With respect to 1 Timothy 2:4, it most certainly is a valid question to ask if Paul meant “all” (without exception) or "all (without distinction.) If you say the latter, then this commits you to believing that Paul simultaneously teaches that God wills everyone’s salvation while, at the same time, creating out of that everyone “vessels of wrath made for destruction” (Romans 9:22). Why would God “harden” some (Romans 9:18) if he desires every single person to come to salvation?

Some answer this by distinguishing between God’s antecedent and consequent will (Thomas Aquinas, for example), so that God only wills the salvation of all relative to their free response to grace rather than simply and absolutely (which would then lead to universal salvation.) That’s one possible solution. The one Calvinists favor is to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative “all.” Both distinctions can handle the dilemma. The question is, which view is more likely what Paul had in mind?

To answer that, I’d suggest returning to the context of 1 Timothy, chapter 2:

When Paul urges prayer for “all people” (literally, “all men”), is he seriously suggesting that Timothy should pray for every single person on earth? That would be a tall order to pray for every individual. So more likely, Paul is urging Timothy to pray for all kinds of people. Support for that is found in verse 2: “for kings and all who are in high positions.” Thus Paul probably doesn’t have individuals in mind so much as categories of people. But if “all” in verses 1 and 2 do not mean “all without exception,” then why does it have to have that meaning in verse 4? So contextually speaking, there is no good reason to suppose that Paul is teaching that God wills the salvation of every single individual.

Likewise, Jesus is the mediator between God and men. But for whom does Christ intercede? Is it not the same people for whom he gave himself as a ransom? Even a cursory study of the term “ransom” in both its Old Testament usage and in contemporary Greek culture shows that the word connotes the payment of a price in order to secure the freedom or release of someone. But surely Christ’s intercessory work on the cross, his blood that pays the ransom price, is not for all people without exception, or else we would have to posit that all people will be saved. Rather, Christ game himself for a ransom for all men without distinction, thereby securing “eternal redemption” by his blood, (Hebrews 9:12). The redemption he secures is not only “eternal” meaning that it cannot be lost, but it is also an accomplished redemption that applies to those “for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11).

No one in the Old Covenant slaughtered lambs in an open ended way such that anyone who wanted to partake in that sacrifice by freely appropriating it to themselves could then benefit from it; rather blood sacrifices were offered to take away sins with specific application to those covered by the sacrifice. In the same way, Christ died specifically for his sheep (cf, John 10:11).

There are so many problems with this its hard to know where to begin

 

[kmaaj]

Non-sequitur. You’re claim here assumes a univocal meaning of “all,” when in fact there can be a range of meanings for the word.

Evangelicals, with very few exceptions, will not even acknowledge that type of argument when they are using that same verse to claim Mary had sin.

So which is it?

 

[Cat_Herder]

There are so many problems with this its hard to know where to begin

Let’s start with English 1301.

But surely Christ’s intercessory work on the cross, his blood that pays the ransom price, is not for all people without exception, or else we would have to posit that all people will be saved.

versus

Rather, Christ game himself for a ransom for all men without distinction, thereby securing “eternal redemption” by his blood, (Hebrews 9:12).

Are these words, “exception” and distinction," really different? Let’s consult the thesaurus…

Main Entry: difference
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: dissimilarity, distinctness
Synonyms: aberration, alteration, anomaly, antithesis, asymmetry, change, characteristic, contrariety, contrariness, contrast, departure, deviation, digression, discongruity, discrepancy, disparity, dissemblance, distinction, divergence, diversity, exception , heterogeneity, idiosyncrasy, inequality, irregularity, nonconformity, opposition, particularity, peculiarity, separateness, separation, singularity, unconformity, unlikeness, unorthodoxness, variance, variation, variety

… Nope. “exception” and “distinction” mean the same thing.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=8265

Spin again. You could start here:
John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Cruxis117]

I’ve been reading Romans in it’s entirety, and I’ve been finding that it does make sense that it connects to all people without exception/distinction, but in the sense that all people have been given the grace of God, but we are to respond to it. I also found 2 Peter 3 to be a great help, especially with verse 9. Am I going in the right direction?

 

[Cathoholic]

The concept of God hardening a heart . . .

Miguel Sastre, you asked:

Why would God “harden” some (Romans 9:18) if he desires every single person to come to salvation?

You were referring to this verse:

ROMANS 9:18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

When God “hardens” someone’s heart He is NOTsaying “I’m not going to give this guy grace for salvation!” No. Rather quite the opposite and God hardening their hearts illustrates free will. How?

Scott Hahn does a good job explaining this concept. God gives grace that the people freely reject. This is the “hardening” of their hearts. It is because of their free will and REJECTION of grace that God can harden their hearts.

Hahn uses the example of pro-life people in front of an abortion “clinic”. A guy and a gal are coming to the facility to kill their child. Nobody is angry or gritting teeth at this point.

Now all of a sudden the pro-life people inform the pro-abortion people what they are about to do and suggest to them that they NOT DO IT.

Now all of a sudden the gal is snarling and the guy is gritting his teeth and clenching his fists. Their consciences are piqued but they will continue on in their will despite the conscience irritation. Their hearts are hardened (even more than a couple of minutes earlier).

The pro-life people hardened the pro-abortion people’s hearts. But if the pro-abortion people accepted this grace of God working through the pro-life people, they would have been better off of course (as would have their baby).

But to interpret the pro-lifer people as “hardening the pro-abortionist people’s hearts” in the sense that they want destruction on the pro-abortion folks, would be a grotesque caricature.

The pro-life people want the best for these and all pro-abortion people. The pro-abortion persons’ own free will played a role in the hardening of hearts but the intention of the pro-life people was nothing but the best for the pro-abortion couple. So it is with God. He wants the best for us, but we have the free will to reject it. There can be no real love without free will.

Why does God offer good to those that He knows will reject it is mysterious but God is All-Good so it shouldn’t surprise us. Why do pro-life people offer good to non-pro-life people that they know 80-90% of them will reject? Because we want to imitate Christ (1st Corinthians 11:1-2) and follow all the Apostolic Traditions that the Apostles passed down to the custodians of Traditon - The Bishops.

St. Paul primarily referring to the Bishops in one sense and secondarily referring to Christians as a whole in another sense states:

2nd CORINTHIANS 2:15-16 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

As Scott Hahn also states, the wrath of God can be giving a person exactly what they want. But it is not contrary to free will. Rather it is BECAUSE of free will. Romans 1, is certainly the contextual backdrop to Romans 9 and explains the concept of how we can darken our intellects with sin. That darkened intellect is WHY pro-abortion people who know a baby is a baby will still call it a “blob of tissue” if it is in the womb and really fool themselves into believing it – their intellects are darkened from sin and they think they are wise.

ROMANS 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore **God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts **to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

 

[panevino]

Perhaps 2 Cor 6:1We then, [as] workers together [with him], beseech [you] also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

Ie: implication is that u can receive it in vain , ie fall.
Heb 6:4-6

I just finished reading Jimmy Akins book
The salvation controversy
It was easy and enjoyable to read, it deals with OP queries I think.

Extract"… While a Catholic cannot say that the atonement is limited …he can say that the atonement is limited in that god only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all)…" pg 79

 

[Philthy]

There are so many problems with this its hard to know where to begin

Begin with the last thread on the topic that Miguel abruptly left!