Faith Alone

[guanophore]

Which specific chapter and verse?

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31

Why would God command men to do something that ultimately, He did not want to happen?

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. 3 This is good, and it is 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.”
1 Tim 2:1-4

How do OSAS believers explain the fact that God appears to want the salvation of all men, yet it does not happen? Doesn’t this detract from the Calvanist notion of the sovereiegnty of God?

Has God revealed Himself as benevolent and loving only?

Surely not! You have rightly stated that all men are under the pentalty of original sin, and will remain separated from God, unless they repent, and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the justice of God, and the salvaton provided in Christ is the mercy of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m merely quoting Ott from the link provided:God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection (De fide)—Ludwig Ott

Are you saying that Ott is the magisterium? That he speaks for the magisterium? That he is personally infallible?

I can certainly understand why it’s a lot of fun to quote a Catholic theologian against us, but really…what does this accomplish?

You know full well Ott is not the final authority in the Church.

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse.

 

[sodak]

As a Catholic, I’m not required to believe anything Mr. Ott says. And his publisher being so enthusiastic about him, as other have said, comes as no surprise.

The Catholic Church and the Magesterium are my guides. Mr. Ott can say whatever he likes.

 

[sandusky]

Thing:

by Ludwig Ott

Introduction

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

While your church deems it necessary to make a distinction between her doctrine of predestination, and Calvin’s, there is no real distinction, but a semantical one, as there is only one true position—the biblical position.

Calvin’s position is biblical—men freely choose to believe the Gospel, and men freely choose to reject the Gospel.Ephesians 1:13

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Acts 13:46

Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

Thing:

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.

He did more than permit the acts, He predestined them, according to His purpose (Acts 4:28); the verb is active, and though God predetermined what would occur, those who acted are responsible for their actions:Luke 22:22

“For indeed, the Son of Man is going [to be crucified] as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

 

[sandusky]

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31

Why would God command men to do something that ultimately, He did not want to happen?

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. 3 This is good, and it is 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.”
1 Tim 2:1-4

How do OSAS believers explain the fact that God appears to want the salvation of all men, yet it does not happen? Doesn’t this detract from the Calvanist notion of the sovereiegnty of God?

Surely not! You have rightly stated that all men are under the pentalty of original sin, and will remain separated from God, unless they repent, and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the justice of God, and the salvaton provided in Christ is the mercy of God.

steppenwolf1218, guanophore nicely demonstrates while I’ll deal with your questions only
by PM (gunaophore thinks that he’s you, and that he can read your mind, and articulate your arguments and questions for you.).

Thank you, guanophore.

 

[sandusky]

Are you saying that Ott is the magisterium? That he speaks for the magisterium? That he is personally infallible?

I can certainly understand why it’s a lot of fun to quote a Catholic theologian against us, but really…what does this accomplish?

You know full well Ott is not the final authority in the Church.

Then I expect you to make your points from magisterial teachings only—no intermediaries, just you, and the magisterium.

 

[guanophore]

steppenwolf1218, guanophore nicely demonstrates while I’ll deal with your questions only
by PM (gunaophore thinks that he’s you, and that he can read your mind, and articulate your arguments and questions for you.).

Thank you, guanophore.

On the contrary, sandusky, the questions were aimed at you. I hope you will answer them!

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

We know the author is talking to and teaching Christian believers because of the verses that precede the subject verses. For example:

Heb 2: 1. “ THEREFORE WE must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and “

The author over and over uses the word “we” and continues to do so in the letter. While there are many things to quote in Hebrews, we can get to the heart of the matter by focusing on some things in Chapter five that clearly establish that the author is addressing believing Christians. Hebrews 5:12-14 says, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Now please notice that the author tells those receiving his letter that by now they ought to be teachers, but that they are immature. He does not say that they are non-believers. Instead, the criticism of immaturity is explained by the fact that they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness.” They still need practice to distinguish good from evil, even though they should already be passed that. It is then that chapter six begins and the author warns these same people of apostasy. Right after the warning the author returns to exhorting them saying, “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”[Hebrews 6:11-12]

Nothing could be more clear than Hebrews 6 on the issue under discussion.

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
(cf Mt 13:25-40).

Pax:

There is another verse that I find quite interesting in this regard as well. In what is popularly known as the “Little Apocalypse” in Matthew 24, Jesus says the following:

Matthew 24:21-22
“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”

If no one that is justified can ever be lost for any reason than Jesus would never have made this kind of remark. Jesus clearly says that even the elect would be lost if the days of tribulation were not shortened during the latter days before the final judgment. This is contrary to OSAS which teaches that no one that believes could ever possibly fall away. The fact is that during trials and troubles people sometimes do fall away, and this fact is supported by what Jesus says in the parable of the sower.

Pax the error you make is attempting to posit a corollary to something that doesn’t happen.

(Besides, Jesus is simply speaking hyperbolically, to emphasize that it’s going to be a baaaaddddd time!!!).

Your apologetic is one of desperation, IMO.

Also, the passage points what I’ve been saying all along; namely without God’s predestination to election, no one would be saved; and, God’s committment to honor His promise to glorify the elect is immutable.

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then I expect you to make your points from magisterial teachings only—no intermediaries, just you, and the magisterium.

Why?

If someone reliably expounds upon or relates and explains the Church’s official position, what is the problem with learning from him or her?

Did you learn everything in school directly from the mathematicians, scientists and historians who did the original work or from teachers and professors who reliably passed on their work to you?

On the other hand, if someone “goes off the reservation” regarding doctrine, is it not reasonable to point this out?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Except for those who lose their justification.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Except for those who lose their justification.

The context of that Rom 8 quote is “all things work together for good for those who love God”. This is not a one time love, but a persevering in love.
Mat 23 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
This verse totally contradicts Calvinism because the dont believe a person’s love can “grow cold” and cause them to not be saved.

 

[Pax]

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
(cf Mt 13:25-40).

Pax the error you make is attempting to posit a corollary to something that doesn’t happen.

(Besides, Jesus is simply speaking hyperbolically, to emphasize that it’s going to be a baaaaddddd time!!!).

Your apologetic is one of desperation, IMO.

Also, the passage points what I’ve been saying all along; namely without God’s predestination to election, no one would be saved; and, God’s committment to honor His promise to glorify the elect is immutable.

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

The author of Hebrews uses the term “we” over and over again. This collective “we” includes the author of the epistle. Are you trying to tell me that the author is not a justified believer? Are you telling me that the definition of apostasy is meaningless? Are you telling me that the warning isn’t to everyone receiving the epistle? Are you telling me that if it is addressed to everyone reading the epistle that it does not apply to all of them? Are you telling me that the warning is only for those that are not justified? If that’s the case there is absolutely no need for the warning. Are you really serious? And you say that my apologetic is one of desperation. You are now making me laugh.

You say that Jesus is merely speaking hyperbolically? This makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Pax]

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

Please prove to me that everyone that has been justified is forever justified and a member of the elect. You’ve made this assertion over and over again, but you have not proven it.

Please prove it and make it good, because thus far you have been totally unable to do so. I have given you numerous examples of believers that fell from grace, yet you brush them off as if they weren’t really believers. Your own doctrine says that a person is saved by faith alone. If that is the case then everyone that believes is “justified.” According to you everyone that is “justified” is a member of the elect. I have shown examples of believers that fell away, and I have given you a number of general statements from scripture that indicate that believers can lose their salvation.

This is quite simple. The elect will never fail in their faith, but not all who are justified are members of the elect. This is obvious, yet you cling to your assertion not because of scripture, but because of your loyalty to an erroneous doctrine.

 

[sandusky]

The author of Hebrews uses the term “we” over and over again. This collective “we” includes the author of the epistle. Are you trying to tell me that the author is not a justified believer? Are you telling me that the definition of apostasy is meaningless? Are you telling me that the warning isn’t to everyone receiving the epistle? Are you telling me that if it is addressed to everyone reading the epistle that it does not apply to all of them? Are you telling me that the warning is only for those that are not justified? If that’s the case there is absolutely no need for the warning. Are you really serious?

Lose the indignation, please. The fact not every church-goer is a believer is a clearly stated point of Christ’s, and to assume that everyone in the church is guilty of every accusation addressed in any of the epistles is, IMO, a denial of Christ’s teaching of the tares among the wheat, and the fact that elect do not always behave properly.

Salvation is not about perfection, but mercy and grace.

Pax:

And you say that my apologetic is one of desperation. You are now making me laugh.

That specifically addressed your fictitious corollary to the non-event of Mt 24.

Pax:

You say that Jesus is merely speaking hyperbolically? This makes absolutely no sense at all.

It’s perfectly true.

Have you cut off your either of your hands, or gouged out either of your eyes, Pax?

 

[Pax]

I’m not swayed your indignation, Pax. The fact not every church-goer is a believer is a clearly stated point of Christ’s, and to assume that everyone in the church is guilty of every accusation addressed in any of the epistles is, IMO, a denial of Christ’s teaching of the tares among the wheat, and that the fact that elect do not always behave properly.

That specifically addressed your fictitious corollary to the non-event of Mt 24.

Have you cut off your either of your hands, or gouged out either of your eyes, Pax, or was that hyprebole?

Would you please get serious. I have not claimed that every church goer is a believer. This is another straw man argument…something that you don’t care for either.

The questions are not indicative of indignation. These questions are generated by absolute astonishment that you can ignore the obvious. So please, address the questions and try to provide some genuine proof. My contentions have thus far remained unanswered.

 

[sandusky]

Would you please get serious. I have not claimed that every church goer is a believer. This is another straw man argument…something that you don’t care for either.

Then quit arguing that those addressed in the epistles are all believers; ISTM, that’s the point of your argument!

 

[Pax]

Please read the epistle to the Hebrews, then read all of my posts. Then take the time to study the definition of apostasy. Then present a logical refutation of what I have said.

 

[Pax]

Then quit arguing that those addressed in the epistles are all believers; ISTM, that’s the point of your argument!

Let me clarify something. I never claimed that “all” of those addressed in the epistle are believers. My claim is that the epistle is addressed to believers. It really doesn’t make any difference if some of them are not believers. Read the passages with this in mind and you will appreciate both the scriptures and my posts for what they both say and intend.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Please read the epistle to the Hebrews, then read all of my posts. Then take the time to study the definition of apostasy. Then present a logical refutation of what I have said.

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.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

From a talk given by Jimmy Akin:Finally, in John 10:27-28, Jesus did say: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”

I would like to quote the great Baptist theologian Dale Moody on this verse. In his systematic theology, The Word of Truth, he states:

“John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28 . . . hardly needs explanation . . . ‘My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me: and I “keep on giving” them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ Some read the passage as if it says: ‘My sheep “heard” my voice, and I “knew” them, and they “followed” me, and I “gave” to them eternal life.’ [But] The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.” (Moody, 357)

In the final analysis, all John 6 says is that if you keep coming to Jesus, he won’t turn you away. But that doesn’t mean you can’t leave. And all John 10 says is that if you keep coming to Jesus, no one will snatch you away from him. But again that doesn’t mean you can’t leave.

The other day I was talking to a Baptist pastor I know who is becoming a Catholic and he pointed out a parallel illustration. He said that if he told his congregation, “Whoever keeps coming to my office for counseling, I will certainly not turn away.” And if he told his congregation, “Whenever you come to my office for counseling, I will not let anyone come and drag you out of my office,” no one would “possibly” think that he was telling them that if you ever “step” into his office you will be committed to an “irrevocable” program of counseling and that you will never be allowed to step outside of his office again as long as you live.