Faith Alone

[Pax]

Hebrews is an apologetic argument for the supremacy of the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. It is addressed to the gathered church, which contains both believers, and unbelievers.

Because of that, those who preach God’s word must announce both the promises of God, and His warnings, as they do not have the ability to see into the hearts of men thereby identifying true saving faith.

The work of the Spirit causes the promises to be joyfully embraced in the heart of the believer. The warnings are used by God both to exhort the saved, and to pronounce judgment on the hypocrites.

The essential message of the whole epistle is that Christ is the fulfillment of the promises of God in the Old Testament, such that, there is nothing to “go back to.”

The old way is gone, and those who leave the church to return to the “old way” are so offensive to God that He abandons them to their ways, and He is finished with them.

They have, the writer states, “again crucified Christ.”

IOW, after weighing the claims of the Christ, and His Gospel, they have themselves become a Sanhedrin, pronouncing Christ guilty, and handing Him over to Pilate insisting that He be crucified—that’s the comparison of their leaving.

They had seen the miracles and signs first-hand (2:4), they had received the Gospel from the mouths of the apostles, and finally, after a time of deliberation, they rejected the truth; what further reasoning, or explanation on the part of God need be offered to them.

The ones described in Hebrews 6 are fully, and finally abandoned by God; therefore, they were never Christ’s.

I know this because the Lord Himself says that His sheep hear His voice, and He knows them, and they follow Him, and He gives eternal life to them, and they will never perish.

The only way in which they “lost salvation,” is that when the opportunity for believing the Gospel was presented to them, they rejected it.

Any future opportunity for repentance is not available to them from God forever.

I stand on the scriptures I’ve quoted and the posts I have made that tie them together. I’ll let the readers decide which conforms to the clear and plain meaning of the scriptures.

:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Your position assumes that within the group being addressed in the epistle, and within the church generally, all are believers; however, not all are believers, according to the Lord

This would be very true to day, but not in the time this book was written. It was written to a persecuted Church, that could not have open meetings,and the only ones permitted to attend were those who were initiated, or were sponsored (note how Barnabas had to bring Paul to theApostles in Jerusalem). Outsiders were considered spies and inquisitors.
.

God’s committment to honor His promise to glorify the elect is immutable.

Those He justifies, He also glorifies (Rom 8:30).

This is not a promise, as you have rewritten the text to reflect that it is. On the contrary, it is a commentary on those who persisted until the end, and are now glorified. It does not apply to those who are still working out their salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[sandusky]

I stand on the scriptures I’ve quoted and the posts I have made that tie them together. I’ll let the readers decide which conforms to the clear and plain meaning of the scriptures.

:tiphat:

OK.

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

Okay…we agree here. But you seemed to claim that Catholics are REQUIRED to believe that God predestines some people for hell, and this is not true.

In looking at this again, you can dismiss Ott’s claim that you are required to believe De fide that God predestines some to hell on the basis of their foreseen merit, if you like.

I doesn’t have any bearing on the question that I posed to you. I re-state the points and the question and remove the part concerning the De fide belief concerning predestination to hell.

I said,

As a Catholic, you are required to believe that:God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness (De fide)Therefore, those predestined to eternal blessedness cannot lose their justification, or salvation, if you will.

Do you have any problem with fact that in Catholic predestination the elect to eternal blessedness cannot, according to church teaching, lose their salvation?

If not, then you must also have no problem with those predestined to election in model.

No significant difference exists between the two.

In each case, a sovereign God, with the ability to save every single human being, chooses not to do so.

Rather, He chooses to save an elect number of human beings according to His own will, and not on the basis of any foreseen merit in the creature (cf Titus 3:5).

Therefore, the true reason that the elect in either Catholic, or the biblical model persevere to the end, and cannot lose their salvation, is God’s gift of perseverance.

Akin says:

**…one is predestined to glory if one is predestined to enter the glory of heaven.

Thus it is absolutely true that all those who are predestined to glory end up being called, justified, and glorified.**

So Akin says nothing different from Ott with respect to those predestined to eternal blessedness, or glory, so you don’t need to study Akin on that, Catholic Dude has provided it for you in his link post #300.

On the basis of what both Ott, and Akin say, I’ll re-phrase my question, and make it a statement:**If you don’t have a problem with the fact that in Catholic predestination the elect to eternal blessedness cannot, according to church teaching, lose their salvation (both Ott, and Akin agree their salvation cannot be lost), then you must also have no problem with those predestined to election in Calvin’s model.

No significant difference exists between the two.**Hope that helps :tiphat:

 

[sandusky]

This would be very true to day, but not in the time this book was written. It was written to a persecuted Church, that could not have open meetings,and the only ones permitted to attend were those who were initiated, or were sponsored (note how Barnabas had to bring Paul to theApostles in Jerusalem). Outsiders were considered spies and inquisitors.
.

This is not a promise, as you have rewritten the text to reflect that it is. On the contrary, it is a commentary on those who persisted until the end, and are now glorified. It does not apply to those who are still working out their salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[guanophore]

Hebrews is an apologetic argument for the supremacy of the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. It is addressed to the gathered church, which contains both believers, and unbelievers.

It is addressed to Hebrew Christians, who gathered only in secret, and with those who were known to them (catechumens and those who professed faith). It may be that there were some imposters present, but the letter is addressed to the believers. They were meeting in homes, caves, and catacombs, so as not to draw attention to themselves from the authorities. They are not like our mixed congregations today. They had guards for the doors, and the uninitiated were escorted out after the Liturgy of the Word, because htey had not yet been admitted to the mysteries.

The old way is gone, and those who leave the church to return to the “old way” are so offensive to God that He abandons them to their ways, and He is finished with them.

The ones who “leave the church” were first members of it, partakers of the HS, and having tasted of the powers of the age to come. In fact, the writer chides them because they ought to be teachers already.

They have, the writer states, "again crucified Christ."

IOW, after weighing the claims of the Christ, and His Gospel, they have themselves become a Sanhedrin, pronouncing Christ guilty, and handing Him over to Pilate insisting that He be crucified—that’s the comparison of their leaving.

But first, they accepted HIs crucifixion on their behalf. Otherwise, they would not crucify him a second time. For those who are first considering the claims, He has already been put to death for their sins, they have only to see it. Those that see it, then spurn Him, crucify Him afresh.

They had seen the miracles and signs first-hand (2:4), they had received the Gospel from the mouths of the apostles, and finally, after a time of deliberation, they rejected the truth; what further reasoning, or explanation on the part of God need be offered to them.

Much more than just “deliberation”. Partakers have gone beyond deliberating:

Heb 6:4-6
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Clearly these persons were once repentant. This means they were justified. One cannot partake of the HS unless one is justified by faith. Also, one cannot fall away from something to which one is not holding.

Unbelievers cannot commit apostasy, because they have made no pledge of faith to the truth.

Also, it is clear that these persons have begun in the faith already:

Heb 6:1-4
6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.

They have already been instructed in the elementary doctrines, and have had the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith toward God. The writer admonishes them to move on into deeper matters. Such instruction is not given to the faithless. Catechumens made a profession of faith prior to instruction.

The ones described in Hebrews 6 are fully, and finally abandoned by God; therefore, they were never Christ’s.

Then how did they become partakers of the HS? One cannot abandon something one never had. A person who never had faith cannot commit apostasy, since they have always been dead in their trespasses and sins. Only a person who has been enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift can turn away again.

 

[Seagirt]

Summary:
Catholics understand the fall of Adam to be first and foremost the loss of Adam’s original "holiness and justice.” As mentioned above this is commonly known today as sanctifying grace and was an added gift by God, not part of human nature itself, thus when it was lost human nature was not corrupted, though it suffered serious physical and spiritual consequences. Protestants see the fall of Adam as a corruption of human nature (which is far more devastating than the Catholic understanding) which included the disease of concupiscence which for Protestants is itself sin.

In the Catholic model above I described original sin as the lack of gasoline in a car, in the Protestant model it is as if the car was totaled in a severe car wreck. In the Catholic model God is displeased with the car not operating at potential, in the Protestant model God is displeased because the car is literally a corrupt mass of metal with only slight evidence it is still a car.

Finally it should be noted that the Catholic model teaches man can still do “natural good” but apart from grace cannot do supernaturally pleasing works in God’s sight. While the Protestant model logically means man cannot do even “natural good,” none the less Protestants insist man is not ‘as evil as he could be’ and the middle quote above they teach man has in some weakened sense the ability to do some "natural good.” Given that we see non-Christians doing good works like giving to charity, caring for their family, being an upright citizen, etc, this good is purely on the natural level and apart from grace these good works are unable to rise to the supernaturally good level which God’s standards require. The Catholic model does a far better and clearer job of explaining why man is not as evil as he could possibly be, because his nature is not corrupt.

Reformed or Calvinist theology has always been distrustful of humanity. Calvin was a dour and humorless man. The Great works of Catholic Christian Art were done by Joy filled men and women. There is little or no Calvinist Art.

 

[Pax]

In looking at this again, you can dismiss Ott’s claim that you are required to believe De fide that God predestines some to hell on the basis of their foreseen merit, if you like.

I doesn’t have any bearing on the question that I posed to you. I re-state the points and the question and remove the part concerning the De fide belief concerning predestination to hell.

I said,Akin says:So Akin says nothing different from Ott with respect to those predestined to eternal blessedness, or glory, so you don’t need to study Akin on that, Catholic Dude has provided it for you in his link post #300.

On the basis of what both Ott, and Akin say, I’ll re-phrase my question, and make it a statement:**If you don’t have a problem with the fact that in Catholic predestination the elect to eternal blessedness cannot, according to church teaching, lose their salvation (both Ott, and Akin agree their salvation cannot be lost), then you must also have no problem with those predestined to election in Calvin’s model.

No significant difference exists between the two.**Hope that helps :tiphat:

Both OTT and Akin agree that a person can be justified and lose their salvation. That is, they both agree that not all who are justified are part of the elect.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Both OTT and Akin agree that a person can be justified and lose their salvation. That is, they both agree that not all who are justified are part of the elect.

I understand that, Pax; however, I’m dealing with the real group of those predestined to glorification, and on the disposition of that group both sides agree—they cannot lose their salvation.

That is one of only two groups described in scripture.

Rom 8:30 states that those God foreknew, He also predestined, those He also called, those He also justified, and those He also glorified—all active voice verbs; each of those actions is what God does.

The other group mentioned in Scripture are those who are disobedient to the Gospel, and refuse to believe, and upon those the wrath of God abides, and to that they have been appointed (Jn 3:39 etc.; 1 Pet 2:8).

Where in Sacred Writ is a statement as explicit as the those mentioned above that pertains to a group that Catholics assert God foreknew, predestined to grace, justified, and then God let many of those lose that justification and be condemned to hell?

 

[Pax]

The examples have been given several times on this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In looking at this again, you can dismiss Ott’s claim that you are required to believe De fide that God predestines some to hell on the basis of their foreseen merit, if you like.

I doesn’t have any bearing on the question that I posed to you. I re-state the points and the question and remove the part concerning the De fide belief concerning predestination to hell.

I said,Akin says:So Akin says nothing different from Ott with respect to those predestined to eternal blessedness, or glory, so you don’t need to study Akin on that, Catholic Dude has provided it for you in his link post #300.

On the basis of what both Ott, and Akin say, I’ll re-phrase my question, and make it a statement:**If you don’t have a problem with the fact that in Catholic predestination the elect to eternal blessedness cannot, according to church teaching, lose their salvation (both Ott, and Akin agree their salvation cannot be lost), then you must also have no problem with those predestined to election in Calvin’s model.****No significant difference exists between the two.**Hope that helps :tiphat:

It does, and I think rolleyes I have no problem with this. I was also quite certaine that “double predestination” is a non-starter for Catholics. Thanks for conceding that point.

My original reaction was to what I perceived to be an argument in favor of “eternal security” or OSAS.

Would you draw any distinction between OSAS and what you have written in your post above?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand that, Pax; however, I’m dealing with the real group of those predestined to glorification, and on the disposition of that group both sides agree—they cannot lose their salvation.

That is one of only two groups described in scripture.

Rom 8:30 states that those God foreknew, He also predestined, those He also called, those He also justified, and those He also glorified—all active voice verbs; each of those actions is what God does.

The other group mentioned in Scripture are those who are disobedient to the Gospel, and refuse to believe, and upon those the wrath of God abides, and to that they have been appointed (Jn 3:39 etc.; 1 Pet 2:8).

Where in Sacred Writ is a statement as explicit as the those mentioned above that pertains to a group that Catholics assert God foreknew, predestined to grace, justified, and then God let many of those lose that justification and be condemned to hell?

The story of the prodigal son pretty much says it all. The son left the household on his own accord. Upon coming to his senses he returns to his father’ household and confesses that he has sinned. Scripture then gives us the clear message about what has taken place. In Luke 15:22-24 it says:
“the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry.”
Jesus is telling this parable about salvation. The son was a member of the household but “squandered his inheritance.” The son was “dead.” Upon returning in repentance to the household, the son is “alive again.”

This truth of wandering off in sin and then being restored is spoken of elsewhere in scripture as well. For instance in James 5:19-20 it says,

“My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

IMO, These two passages of scripture totally debunk OSAS.

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

My original reaction was to what I perceived to be an argument in favor of “eternal security” or OSAS.

Would you draw any distinction between OSAS and what you have written in your post above?

Not at all, although I know that Trent does; but then again, Trent must; they dare not be understood to be in collusion with any of the Reformers in any way.

That said, the essence of both positions is that God predestines to glorification, and included in that predestination is the gift of final perseverance—the elect to glorification cannot fail.
Randy Carson:

IMO, These two passages of scripture totally debunk OSAS.

I’m sure for you that they do; however, that’s not what I asked for.

Let me restate what I said:

There are two groups described in scripture.

Rom 8:30 states that those God foreknew, He also predestined, those He also called, those He also justified, and those He also glorified—all active voice verbs; each of those actions is what God does. Those are called the elect.

The other group mentioned in Scripture are those who are disobedient to the Gospel, and refuse to believe, and upon those the wrath of God abides, and to that they have been appointed (Jn 3:39 etc.; 1 Pet 2:8).

Where in Sacred Writ is a statement as explicit as those mentioned above that describes the group that Catholics claim God predestined to grace only—He foreknew them, predestined them to grace, called and justified them, and then lets many of them lose their justification and be condemned to hell?

That’s the question I’d like answered—the one in blue.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Sandusky, one clear answer to your question in blue I gave in my post 291.
Also there is the passage “many are called but few are chosen” in Mat 22:14.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sandusky, one clear answer to your question in blue I gave in my post 291.
Also there is the passage “many are called but few are chosen” in Mat 22:14.

And given that God is present both Past, Now, and Future we come to the correct conclusion as stated in CCC

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.

 

[Thing]

sandusky:

Where in Sacred Writ is a statement as explicit as those mentioned above that describes the group that Catholics claim God predestined to grace only—He foreknew them, predestined them to grace, called and justified them, and then lets many of them lose their justification and be condemned to hell?

They, the group, are called Humanity - in the figure of Adam and Eve, they fit the above conditions - but that no human knows the occupants of hell by name. - My thoughts.

 

[sandusky]

Seagirt:

Catholics understand the fall of Adam to be first and foremost the loss of Adam’s original "holiness and justice.” As mentioned above this is commonly known today as sanctifying grace and was an added gift by God, not part of human nature itself, thus when it was lost human nature was not corrupted, though it suffered serious physical and spiritual consequences. Protestants see the fall of Adam as a corruption of human nature (which is far more devastating than the Catholic understanding) which included the disease of concupiscence which for Protestants is itself sin.

Yes, the biblical scenario is far worse than the Catholic scenario, which, IMO, leads men to trust more in themselves, and their free will for eternal life than they ought.

Seagirt:

In the Catholic model above I described original sin as the lack of gasoline in a car, in the Protestant model it is as if the car was totaled in a severe car wreck. In the Catholic model God is displeased with the car not operating at potential, in the Protestant model God is displeased because the car is literally a corrupt mass of metal with only slight evidence it is still a car.

The Fall was not a car that ran out of gas, but a car wreck of such magnitude that the only solution was for God to assume humanity and take upon Himself the punishment of those those He saves—the truth of the matter is much more serious than your analogy of running of gas belies, and much more serious than your church teaches—think about it.

Seagirt:

Finally it should be noted that the Catholic model teaches man can still do “natural good” but apart from grace cannot do supernaturally pleasing works in God’s sight.

Scripture teaches that.

Seagirt:

The Catholic model does a far better and clearer job of explaining why man is not as evil as he could possibly be, because his nature is not corrupt.

Actually, Scripture does a better job in that than the Catholic model, and the Scriptural model is what the Calvinist model articulates.

Seagirt:

Reformed or Calvinist theology has always been distrustful of humanity.

Where has Calvin stated his distrust for man?

Seagirt:

Calvin was a dour and humorless man.

Calvin was also a brilliant, hard-working, and in demand preacher, who despite later severe physical ailments, that required him to be carried from his home to the pulpit to preach, nevertheless continued as a faithful servant of his Lord, and a faithful expositor of his Lord’s
true gospel.

He was a great theologian, as well as a great man.

Seagirt:

The Great works of Catholic Christian Art were done by Joy filled men and women. There is little or no Calvinist Art.

The Great works of Catholic art while beautiful, and I very much appreciate them, nevertheless are temporary and fading away.

Calvin’s work of the correct preaching of his Lord’s Gospel for the salvation of souls is eternal, and is not fading away.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Yes, the biblical scenario is far worse than the Catholic scenario, which, IMO, leads men to trust more in themselves, and their free will for eternal life than they ought. Due to an apparent bias which won’t allow to see Truth.

Actually, Scripture does a better job in that than the Catholic model, and the Scriptural model is what the Calvinist model articulates. Scipture is part of the Catholic model. It’s not a separate entity.

Where has Calvin stated his distrust for man? His distrust for man is reflected in his desire to led men away from Truth.

Calvin was also a brilliant, hard-working, and in demand preacher, who despite later severe physical ailments, that required him to be carried from his home to the pulpit to preach, nevertheless continued as a faithful servant of his Lord, and a faithful expositor of his Lord’s
true gospel.

He was a great theologian, as well as a great man.

Calvin’s work of the correct preaching of his Lord’s Gospel for the salvation of souls is eternal, and is not fading away.

If you claim to be “of Calvin” that’s fine, free will lead you there. The believer’s in Christ’s Church are “of Christ” and no one else. Calvin was just a man, his beliefs were his own. His authority was self professed. Prove that his preachings were all correct. Prove that his beliefs are not fading away. Prove that he was saved. Prove that he was predestined to be saved. Prove that the letters of Paul which Calvin takes out of context are to be understood as this man Calvin did. Prove that Calvin was guided by the Holy Spirit to more of a degree than me or any other Catholic faithful person.

What you say, there is no proof of any of those things. Then preach Christ instead!

There is no proof that his significance in history has found more favor with God. There is no proof that his beliefs were correct regarding his personal faith. Why do you continue to preach “Calvin”? Preach the crucified Christ as stated by Paul.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sandusky said: Calvin was also a brilliant, hard-working, and in demand preacher, who despite later severe physical ailments, that required him to be carried from his home to the pulpit to preach, nevertheless continued as a faithful servant of his Lord, and a faithful expositor of his Lord’s
true gospel.

He was a great theologian, as well as a great man.

Calvin’s work of the correct preaching of his Lord’s Gospel for the salvation of souls is eternal, and is not fading away.

If you think so highly of Calvin, then why do you not accept his view on Mary and her Perpetual Virginity?:

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.

"
John Calvin; “Sermon on Matthew”, published 1562
Care to explain?

 

[Gamera]

Where has Calvin stated his distrust for man?

Didn’t Calvin espouse the notion of “total depravity” – the proposition that fallen humanity is utterly devoid of any goodness?