Fresh Starting: Protestants

[inJESUS]

I missed answering this one erlier…

With predestination, All men have sinned and so offended God, and therefore deserve hell. It is only because he is merciful that He chose to save some of them.

by free-will or without choice?

 

[flameburns623]

btw, i thought the OSAS is a Protestant doctrine that all Protestants believe in. If this is not the case, and if it is just a theological opinion that few believe in, then I’ll let the first Protestant who reads this thread decide the topic he wants to address with Catholics

No, all Protestants do not accept the Once-Saved/Always Saved position. It is derived from Reformed theology, particularly from Calvinism, which is one of a couple of competing theologies within Protestant soteriology: it’s opposite is known as Arminianism. OSAS is variously known as Eternal Security or as the Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints.

Calvinism, by the way, is a development of Augustinianism, which is a valid theological approach within RCC theology. In Roman Catholicism, the opposing position is usually known as Molinism. Most contemporary Roman Catholics have been exposed primarily to Molinism and/or Arminianism and find Augustinian and Calvinistic theology somewhat repellent, generally because they do not understand either their own theological biases nor what Augustinians and Calvinists are trying to say. Very often, Molinists and Arminians end up refuting Calvinism or Augustinianism by arguing for Pelagianism (an early Christian heresy).

I happen to be a Calvinist and happen to believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. I’ve posted links to the issue before: the subject is somewhat difficult and there are a lot of emotional landmines along the way. I strongly encourage those really interested in this subject to get a thorough grasp of the underlying issues involved. The opposing theologies (Calvinism versus Arminianism or Augustinianism versus Molinism) are not so far apart as they first appear to be, and if one can grasp the fundamental agreements among the views, one can go a long way towards really understanding their differences and discussing them peaceably.

 

[Syele]

by free-will or without choice?

Well I was referring ot the Calvinist view that Men are Totally Depraved and unable to do anything good on their own. I’m not sure that view would allow for free-will. however now we have located a Calvinist in flameburns623 who could probably give a better answer than I.

flameburns623:

Very often, Molinists and Arminians end up refuting Calvinism or Augustinianism by arguing for Pelagianism

**Syele Grumbles about accusations of Pelagianism.
Nice to meet you flameburns! I haven’t seen you in a thread before for some reason.

 

[Zooey]

in Calvinism Is there isn’t really any free-will.

oh Lord, i don’t know how can all God’s mercy fit into all this. It’s too gloomy.

Depressing as all heck, as far as I can see, but Calvinists think that us Arminians have a depressing view of faith.http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif

So Syele, the OSAS is belief based on personal choice and not a Protestant doctrine. Which means it is NOT a point of contension between Protestantism and Catholicism right?

Between Catholics & Arminian Protestants like me ( I’m Methodist), there is agreement here. But when it comes to Calvinists, this is a big, big stumbling block. (I have a Presbyterian friend who bases her belief in the “falseness” of the Catholic Church almost solely on the subject of OSAS.

I suppose that is accurate. Generally particular denominations are solidly in one camp or another. For example, I never met a Baptist that was not OSAS.

You never met my grandfather nor his parents. (Well, I never did either; they all died before I was born, but they were all Free Will Baptists, who are Arminians!)

Well let’s see, I hesitatie to say ALL protestants anything, cause it’s always possibel there is a group I don’t know about somewhere… but it’s generally safe to say protestants:

1. Reject the Authority of the Catholic Churhc
2. Believe that NO human can be sinless or infalliable (Except Jesus, He is exempted only because He is also fully God.)
3. Believe in Justification by Faith (Works are part of Sanctification)
4. Believe that the Bible is inerrant and no doctrine may contradict it.
5. Most protestants believe that you should not pray to Saints or Mary.

Re: #2: It is possible to live without sin, according to J. Wesley. I don’t know of anyone who would argue that it is likely, however. Personally, I believe that Mary was, & I am open to the idea that some others may have achieved a state of holiness where they no longer sinned. That would not be total sinlessness, however.

Re #5: For the life of me, I have never been able to see why not!! I do it all the time, myself…

i got a bit confused sorry. Are Calvinism and Arminianism contradictory? or did they settle things in 1916?

They’re totally contradictory. “Settle[d] things in 1916”?? No…In fact, if some of Calvinists & Arminians I have met in my lifetime had been there, they might have “settled” blunt objects in one another’s heads…

 

[Zooey]

OSAS is variously known as Eternal Security or as the Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints.

In fairness, I have to say that there is a distinction to be made here. Some Calvinists believe that if you are among the Elect, you will perserveere to the end.
Then there are the ones who are Antinomians; they believe that you are eternally secure, even if you were at that 1916 occasion, & used the aforementioned Blunt Objects on one another.

I happen to be a Calvinist and happen to believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. .

Well, that’s that; I’m a Dead Dodo! (JK!!!..Honestly!!!)

 

[Syele]

Depressing as all heck, as far as I can see, but Calvinists think that us Arminians have a depressing view of faith.http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif

Really? they just accuse me of Pelagianism.

You never met my grandfather nor his parents. (Well, I never did either; they all died before I was born, but they were all Free Will Baptists, who are Arminians!)

I have heard of Free-will Baptists but never met one, I also never met a Westboro Baptist either which I hear I wouldn’t want to… But I don’t know if they are Calvinist or… WHAT…

Re: #2: It is possible to live without sin, according to J. Wesley. I don’t know of anyone who would argue that it is likely, however. Personally, I believe that Mary was, & I am open to the idea that some others may have achieved a state of holiness where they no longer sinned. That would not be total sinlessness, however.

Re #5: For the life of me, I have never been able to see why not!! I do it all the time, myself…

well I tried to qualifiy all thos with most and “not all”

Seriously though, I agree on the part where a person can stop sinning for the rest of their lives… but that dosn’t mean they never started.

They’re totally contradictory. “Settle[d] things in 1916”?? No…In fact, if some of Calvinists & Arminians I have met in my lifetime had been there, they might have “settled” blunt objects in one another’s heads…

ROFL! too true, and you created a funny mental picture in my head.

 

[flameburns623]

The classic Calvinist answer to the issue of free will is that humans are free within the limits of their nature, which Scripture says is utterly depraved and at absolute enmity against God. To put it more simply: no, Calvinists do not believe in free will.

My German Shepherds like Diamond brand dog food over most other brands of dog food. They like ‘people food’ even better. My dogs cannot, however, go out into the world, seek for themselves some sort of gainful employment, earn a wage, and then drop by McDonald’s for a Big Mac, or stop by the feed store for a bag of Diamond dog food. If my dogs were turned out to fend for themselves, they would likely fare very poorly (most stray dogs live at most only a year or two on their own, often much less). Their choices in what they eat are limited by their nature.

It is said that Adam was created able to sin or not to sin; his descendants, by virtue of Adam’s fall, were rendered unable not to sin; in Christ, the Elect will be made forever able not to sin. It is important to realise that God holds all humankind culpable for sin, and that because of sin we have no rights at all before God. He is absolutely within His rights to consign all the human race to perdition, and He has no obligation whatever to save any member of the human race. Moreover, humans in our natural state do not want to be saved, anyhow: we hate God, we want to replace Him with some sort of lesser ‘god’ of our own choosing (ultimately, ourselves), and we make ourselves enemies against God. God acts in grace to change the hearts of some–for His own good will and purposes, and not because of any merit or virtue in any of those whom He chooses–and in grace causes them to love Him, saves them, and sanctifies them.

**Syele Grumbles about accusations of Pelagianism.

Syele: I wrote with some degree of care to make it clear that Arminianism is NOT Pelagianism and has a great deal more in common with Calvinism than many of it’s amateur proponents fully grasp. By the same token, Calvinists are not antinomians, though some have used the illustration that an Elect person remains elect even if the last act of their lives were to be to commit some sort of horrific atrocity. The illustration may help in some contexts to drive home the point of Eternal Security, but it misses the larger point that the Elect would be extraordinarily unlikely to commit such an atrocity precisely because the Spirit of God working in them would have changed their nature so that their conscience would constrain them from grossly wicked behavior of that sort.

My point in mentioning Pelagianism is that many in the Arminian or Molinist camps often revert to Pelagian arguments to prove their point. Many Trinitarians like to illustrate the Godhead by speaking of water as having a liquid, vapor, and frozen form–missing the point that their illustration actually proves the heresy known as modalism rather than demonstrating the Trinity. Hope that clarifies my point.

 

[Syele]

Syele: I wrote with some degree of care to make it clear that Arminianism is NOT Pelagianism and has a great deal more in common with Calvinism than many of it’s amateur proponents fully grasp. By the same token, Calvinists are not antinomians, though some have used the illustration that an Elect person remains elect even if the last act of their lives were to be to commit some sort of horrific atrocity. The illustration may help in some contexts to drive home the point of Eternal Security, but it misses the larger point that the Elect would be extraordinarily unlikely to commit such an atrocity precisely because the Spirit of God working in them would have changed their nature so that their conscience would constrain them from grossly wicked behavior of that sort.

My point in mentioning Pelagianism is that many in the Arminian or Molinist camps often revert to Pelagian arguments to prove their point. Many Trinitarians like to illustrate the Godhead by speaking of water as having a liquid, vapor, and frozen form–missing the point that their illustration actually proves the heresy known as modalism rather than demonstrating the Trinity. Hope that clarifies my point.

Thanks for this explaination, I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer… my complaint wasnt directed at you but at accusations of the past. It would have been better for me to have behaved and been quiet. Hopefully your further explaination will be helpful to someone and redeem my flippancy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ok i think the point of contention is very subtle. Are we saved by grace or by work? if not mistaken, we are saved by grace because our work is not enough, but this does not mean our work is not important because faith without work is not faith. So first grace then work. if we say grace alone is not enough, OSAS believers will ask back: so God is not enough? ok i understand this position…but what if i do smth wrong? OSAS answer is: you won’t if you are elected…so it’s a circle.

Predestination? election? isn’t it too gloomy?

No, No, NO !!! ​

Not in the least !!! It shows that God’s purpose to redeem is in & for & unto Christ, is eternal, wise, constant, impossible to thwart, and utterly faithful. No way can it fail. It is a whole load of reasons to admire & acknowledge Him - to see how great He is.

God is an electing God - and His election is a work of Divine Sovereignty over every creature; not only is He King by title, but by activity also. Only an Omniscient, Almighty, All-Wise, All-Gracious God could do this - election shows us a great deal about Him.

Why does He elect ? Partly at least, because it gives Him Glory, & Honour, & Praise from those who see His work - it glorifies His Name. And in the OT, He is very concerned for His Name. But the real reason Who includes every other, is Jesus Christ, the Elect One of God.

Election is all over the Bible, & in nature - it’s as utterly Biblical and true as the atonement by Christ. It is frequently asserted in the NT - it’s about as central to the Gospel as one could possibly ask for.

See blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/e/1161661880-533.html - for starters##

if i kill, does it mean God made me kill cuz He pre-determined what i’ll do? so God created me to send me to hell cuz am not elected
which begs the question: is this life a play where anyone plays his pre-determined role without choice?

No, to both - election arises from the graciousness of God: no way is it from us. It is what God does by electing that makes the elect to be elect; the elect are no better than any others. It is sin that destroys liberty of choice - not election.​

 

[jemfinch]

If you could “lose” it, then the word eternal has lost its meaning.

No, it just means it’s lost the meaning you’ve arbitrarily applied to it. It’s lost the meaning that your interpretation wants it to have, but it has not lost its original meaning, the meaning Christians, until just a couple centuries ago, all believed.

You want “eternal” to apply to the nature of the individual’s reception of life. You want to say that he or she has received life eternally, and can never lose it.

But that’s not what “eternal life” means. “Eternal” applies to the nature of the life itself: it is eternal. It doesn’t end. “Eternal life,” like any other gift, can be rejected. Like a pardon, it can be refused. The word still has all its original meaning when eternal life can be lost: what is lost is eternal, unending life.

It might be easier to see this if we look at it without any preconceived notions or doctrinal biases. What would you say if I gave you an “eternal gobbstopper,” a piece of candy that would never run out? Would you say that the gobbstopper wasn’t eternal if you were able to give it back, or to reject the gift? What if I gave you an “eternal pot of soup,” one that you could always ladle soup from. Would you say that the word “eternal” has no meaning if you could choose not to serve soup from it?

“Eternal” very definitely has a meaning outside the context of OSAS, and it’s a genuine non-starter to argue that it doesn’t. It’s a circular argument: you’re defining what “eternal” means by using your doctrine of OSAS, and then arguing that without OSAS, “eternal” has no meaning.

Jeremy

 

[VociMike]

Ok, am one of those who do not differentiate between Christians and i never lived this contentions or even felt it. I don’t know all the differences between Catholics and Protestants. I want a fresh start .

I’LL start with OSAS idea. Please state why you believe it with references from the Bible and what does it really mean.

to all: please ONLY ONE idea can be discussed.

I’m curious why you limit the evidence you’ll accept to references from the Bible. Why do you impose that restriction right at the start?

 

[Syele]

I’m curious why you limit the evidence you’ll accept to references from the Bible. Why do you impose that restriction right at the start?

Maybe he is aware he is talking to Protestants who use the Bible as their Authority?

 

[Syele]

You want “eternal” to apply to the nature of the individual’s reception of life. You want to say that he or she has received life eternally, and can never lose it.

Jeremy

No Jeremy, Did you read my posts? I am not OSAS. That was a quote from someone who was. that was a link to thier quoting of scripture to back up their claim. inJESUS wanted to know common arguments for it with scripture backup, and that’s what I gave. Even With all my disclaimers you still read it as what I wanted to believe?

 

[Contarini]

btw, i thought the OSAS is a Protestant doctrine that all Protestants believe in. If this is not the case, and if it is just a theological opinion that few believe in, then i’ll let the first Protestant who reads this thread decide the topic he wants to adress with Catholics

No, all Protestants do not believe it. I don’t believe it either. This doctrine is peculiar to the “Reformed” tradition of Protestantism. Granted that’s arguably the mainstream Protestant tradition. Furthermore, the form that most people around here think of isn’t the classic Reformed belief. The Reformed traditionally believe that God chooses who will be saved and who won’t be, and that whomever God chooses to give grace to will persevere to the end. So unlike in Catholicism, it’s impossible for someone to receive regenerating grace and then fall away. (This requires the Reformed to reject the idea of baptismal regeneration, unfortunately.)

Many Baptists in the 19th century (coming from a Reformed position originally) didn’t like the harshness of the “predestination” doctrine, so they dropped it, but they kept “OSAS.” In other words, they now believe that God wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone a chance, and that those who accept that offer of salvation are secure for ever. Many “non-denominational” Protestants in America also believe this–in fact, one of the strong tendencies in American Protestantism is for everyone to look like Baptists (which is one of the reasons why the Catholics on this forum tend to expect all Protestants to sound like Baptists). Even Methodists, who have (as an official body) always rejected OSAS in the clearest possible way, have many laypeople (and some pastors) who believe it, because it’s in the religious culture that surrounds them (especially in the South).

I don’t believe either version of OSAS, but I think the old-fashioned Reformed version is much more defensible.

OK, I’ll shut up now and let the folks who do believe in OSAS defend it!

Edwin

 

[inJESUS]

i don’t know…it’s all too confusing. How does a Protestant know which Protestant branch to choose? based on what? personal belief? i mean, reading all these differences, if i weren’t Catholic, i wouldn’t know what to believe in

i can see so far that the “main” reason for schism is rejecting the authority of the Church…once you reject the authority, you’ll reject the teachings, right?

 

[Syele]

i don’t know…it’s all too confusing. How does a Protestant know which Protestant branch to choose? based on what? personal belief? i mean, reading all these differences, if i weren’t Catholic, i wouldn’t know what to believe in

i can see so far that the “main” reason for schism is rejecting the authority of the Church…once you reject the authority, you’ll reject the teachings, right?

Protestants are taught from very young to read their Bible and Pray for the Holy Spirit toguide them in what to believe. The ones who grow up in one or the other, generally believe what they have been taught their whole lives. Others study them and the scriptures and choose what makes the most sense to them.

In my case, I grew up in non-denominational churches that never went indepth in studying these things, but someone gave me a Bible Commentary when I was 9 years old that I started to use in my Bible studies. NOW, I understand that that commentary shaped many of my beliefs because it was slanted towards Arminianism.

I believe Catholics have some optins on what to believe too, like Predestination (not Double) and weather to believe Creation was literal in the Bible or not literally that way. How do you handle those sorts of choices?

 

[inJESUS]

well as a Catholic i don’t even care if creation is literal or not…why would i? the point is the same :God created everything…the “how” is not really my concern.It has nothing to do with my salvation.

You said that each individual has to read the Bible and the Holy Spirit will guide him? how do you understand this in light of all the differences in major doctrines?

 

[Contarini]

i don’t know…it’s all too confusing. How does a Protestant know which Protestant branch to choose? based on what? personal belief? i mean, reading all these differences, if i weren’t Catholic, i wouldn’t know what to believe in

People hold religious beliefs for one of two reasons:

1. Because they were brought up to; or
2. Because they have been converted–that is, they have experienced a crisis in their former faith and have been overwhelmed by a sense of the truth and beauty of a different tradition.

Of course, when the differences are so many and so minor as among different branches of Protestantism, the degree of “conversion” involved is relatively slight. And in our culture the poisonous notion has taken root that people start out “neutral” in some way and are supposed to pick and choose the tradition that best suits their personal, independent views. This is nonsense and doesn’t describe how people actually behave. But it describes how many people think they should behave, and the proliferation of varities of Protestantism in an individualistic, consumerist culture certainly promotes a good deal of indecision and flitting around.

One final note–from a traditional Christian perspective, I don’t think there is any meaningful theological difference between 1 and 2. Everyone is a convert–even those of us who were brought up to be Christians.

Edwin

 

[Syele]

well as a Catholic i don’t even care if creation is literal or not…why would i? the point is the same :God created everything…the “how” is not really my concern.It has nothing to do with my salvation.

You said that each individual has to read the Bible and the Holy Spirit will guide him? how do you understand this in light of all the differences in major doctrines?

the Holy Spirit Obvoisly dosn’t lie to people, so it is clear that many to not actually listen to Him.

As for creation, I think alot of our beliefs about the nature of God rely on that.

 

[Zooey]

well as a Catholic i don’t even care if creation is literal or not…why would i? the point is the same :God created everything…the “how” is not really my concern.It has nothing to do with my salvation.

Well, you would get a **lot **of argumnet here, from the more conservative Protestants…Fundamentalists would (& may!) read this part of your post, & I can guarantee they would take this as proof that you were almost certainly going to hell, & start trying to convert you…
A lot of this, you have to realize, comes from the fact that the more one depends on the words of the Bible for one’s only authority, the more need there is, to see it as totally literalist…Not just that “God created everything”, but that “God created everything from nothing in the year 4004 BC, & He took 6 literally 24 hour days to do it”…
Now, I think that when we lose the sense of a literal creation by God at some point in time, that we are moving in a dangerous direction that may end with us rejecting the rest of Scripture…What I don’t believe is that evrerybody who believes as you state here, is necessarily over that line. In fact, you wouldn’t be have this reasoned discussion if you were in the process of deconstructing the Christian faith!!

You said that each individual has to read the Bible and the Holy Spirit will guide him? how do you understand this in light of all the differences in major doctrines?

Well…Some Catholics will argue that this proves that none of us (non-Catholics) are right. I think that’s wrong, because it goes too far. Sometimes some of us are wrong. If we are believeing two opposite things about the same point, one of us has to be wrong…I just happen to think that this may, at times , be the Catholics, & sometimes it is Methodism that is wrong.
(And then, of course, there are the poor Calvinists, who are *always *wrong, but who love & serve the Lord anyway, & God will straighten them all out when they get to Heaven…).