Heb. 6:4-6

[sandusky]

Pax:

We differ in an important way in this discussion. I do not agree with your assertion that only true believers are the elect. Both the OT and NT speak of faith. Believers are not categorized in the fashion that you present. Calvinism teaches that the gift of faith and the gift of perseverance come all in one package, but there really is no evidence in scripture that suggests that this is the case.

I know you don’t with my position on the elect.

We have completely different views on most everything theological—a different view of God, a different view of Christ, a different view of man, and importantly, a different view of the church.

Pax:

You do not believe that the warning given to the Jewish converts in Hebrews 6 pertains to “believers.” Your view doesn’t conform to the way Hebrews actually reads. Moreover, the two Protestant commentaries in my library also disagree with your view.

So then you do see this as a warning to believers, and not an account of the actions of believers—good.

Pax:

Gray’s Home Bible Commentary says:

“Some think these ‘present the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns back from Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation,’ but who never experienced real faith. But we differ, and hold the opinion that a true believer is meant.”

I wouldn’t disagree with what little you’ve presented from Gray; however, I don’t think Gray would espouse that a believer could lose his salvation at all, and certainly not fully and finally; I don’t know, I don’t have that commentary.

Pax:

Henry’s Concise Commentary says:

"The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel…

That doesn’t sound at all like Matthew Henry:…(1.) They may be enlightened. Some of the ancients understand this of their being baptized; but it is rather to be understood of notional knowledge and common illumination, of which persons may have a great deal, and yet come short of heaven. Balaam was the man whose eyes were opened (Num. xxiv. 3), and yet with his eyes opened he went down to utter darkness. (2.) They may taste of the heavenly gift, feel something of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit in his operations upon their souls, causing them to taste something of religion, and yet be like persons in the market, who taste of what they will not come up to the price of, and so but take a taste, and leave it. Persons may taste religion, and seem to like it, if they could have it upon easier terms than denying themselves, and taking up their cross, and following Christ. (3.) They may be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, that is, of his extraordinary and miraculous gifts; they may have cast out devils in the name of Christ, and done many other mighty works. Such gifts in the apostolic age were sometimes bestowed upon those who had no true saving grace. (4.) They may taste of the good word of God; they may have some relish of gospel doctrines, may hear the word with pleasure, may remember much of it, and talk well of it, and yet never be cast into the form and mould of it, nor have it dwelling richly in them. (5.) They may have tasted of the powers of the world to come; they may have been under strong impressions concerning heaven, and dread of going to hell. These lengths hypocrites may go, and, after all, turn apostates. Now hence observe, [1.] These great things are spoken here of those who may fall away; yet it is not here said of them that they were truly converted, or that they were justified; there is more in true saving grace than in all that is here said of apostates. [2.] This therefore is no proof of the final apostasy of true saints. These indeed may fall frequently and foully, but yet they will not totally nor finally from God; the purpose and the power of God, the purchase and the prayer of Christ, the promise of the gospel, the everlasting covenant that God has made with them, ordered in all things and sure, the indwelling of the Spirit, and the immortal seed of the word, these are their security. But the tree that has not these roots will not stand.

You can read its entirety here. And here would be Gill verse 4, 5, and 6, and Robertson, as well.

I think your time would be better spent citing Catholic sources.

(cont.)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post # 140)

I’ll post D.A. Carson’s commentary on the passage as well. This too, may sound as though it sides with your position, but it doesn’t.4–6 The stern warning of these verses (echoed in 10:26–31; 12:15–17) is for those who fall away or commit apostasy (cf 3:12), because they cut themselves off from the only sacrifice for sins under the new covenant and the only hope of eternal life in Jesus Christ. Such people are crucifying the Son of God all over again, rejecting him as deliberately as his executioners did, and subjecting him to public disgrace, openly putting themselves in the position of his enemies. Nothing is impossible for God, but he offers us no hope of reclaiming those who take a continuous and hard-hearted stand against Christ. As noted in connection with 3:12–13, those who harden their hearts against God may reach a point where they are ‘hardened’ beyond recall. The writer does not accuse his readers of being in this position, but the fate of apostates is something they and we should not forget. In its context, this passage stands as a warning about where sluggishness could lead.

But can genuine Christians become apostate? Hebrews certainly suggest that those who fall away may have every appearance of being truly converted. They have once been enlightened, indicating a decisive entrance of the light of the gospel into their lives. They have tasted the heavenly gift, which may mean receiving Christ himself and all the spiritual blessings he offers. ‘Tasting’ implies experiencing something in a manner that is real and personal (not merely ‘sipping’). They have shared in the Holy Spirit (lit. having become partakers of the Holy Spirit’), so that their rebellion involves insulting the Spirit of grace (10:29). Finally we are told that they have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age. This suggests a decisive experience of the benefits of the new covenant. However, those who have enjoyed such a relationship with God cannot presume on that relationship, believing themselves to be immune from the possibility of apostasy. Promises like Jn. 10:28–29 and Phil. 1:6 are a guarantee that God will keep his children faithful to the end. Hebrews has its own way of encouraging confidence in God’s ability to sustain us in our faith. But we all need to be challenged to make our ‘calling and election sure’ (2 Pet. 1:10), and this is the practical and pastoral significance of the warning passages in Hebrews.

We may wish to say that those who are truly regenerate will never fall away, but the genuineness of the new birth is proved by persistence in faith. The writer of Hebrews is clearly confident that a true work of God has taken place in the congregation he addresses (6:9; 10:39). ‘But this does not exclude the possibility that some of their number are rebellious at heart and, unless there is a radical change, will find that they have reached the point of irremediable apostasy.’ (P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1977), p. 212). It is possible to get caught up in the spiritual experience of a group without being genuinely converted. Sometimes people show all the signs of conversion but drift away from Christ after a time and demonstrate that they were never truly God’s children. More specifically, the writer has in view those who see clearly where the truth lies, conform to it for a while, and then, for various reasons, renounce it. Continuance is the test of reality. Those who persevere are the true saints and a passage like this will be used by God to sustain them in faith.

7–8 Jesus used the parable of four ‘soils’ to explain different responses people have to the gospel (Mk. 4:1–20 and parallels). Hebrews only refers to two possibilities. The good soil that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. This refers to those who persist in hearing and obeying the word of God. By God’s grace they are spiritually fruitful. The bad soil that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. It never responds to cultivation and in the end it will be burned. This describes the fate of those who harden their hearts in unbelief and turn away from God (cf 10:26–31). The writer provides no middle ground for the sluggish and the slack. He wants his readers to be sure that they all fit into the first.Don’t forget, writers from a reformed, Calvinist position would not support the idea that a truly regenerate believer can lose salvation.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

So you admit that the “fallen away” of Hebrews 6 is not a blanket statement on all those who fall away - for there can be people who do fall away and come back, these being the elect - but its talking about a specific group of fallen away. That is what I’ve been trying to argue. There will be those who fall away and die in that state, fallling away with finality. That is the group Hebrews 6 is talking about. Others can fall away temporarily and come back, perhaps many years later, which is what we call the revert. Those who fall away permanently were not predestined to glory.

I believe I said earlier on the thread that I think it’s possible, but not very probable that one of the post-regenerate elect will apostatize; my objection to your understanding of the passage has most to do with the idea of a justified person, losing his justification/salvation; that’s impossible.

mikeledes:

BTW, I thought you were taking a vacation.

Not a vacation; I have a lot of reading and studying to do to obtain some building inspection certifications I’m after, so my time here will be sporadic.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

I don’t how this contradicts Hebrews 6. The “sacramental bond” cannot be broken, but sanctifying grace can be lost. There will be those who will fall away with finality. Hypothetically they have access to the sacrament of penance, but they will not enjoy the benefits because they will not repent.

It’s not simply the “sacramental bond,” that cannot be broken, but the bonding of one to Christ through the ontological change produced by baptism—it seems that in the writers’ view that is a permanent bond to Christ. It seems to me, that for them to say that that bond with Christ cannot be lost by reason of any act or defection is to say that acts and defections are somehow illusions, and never truly occur; and yet, the whole statement has to do with describing the process for a proper defection from the church; perhaps they’ve written a clarification on the statement; if not, and if I were a Catholic, I’d be seeking one.

 

[mikeledes]

I believe I said earlier on the thread that I think it’s possible, but not very probable that one of the post-regenerate elect will apostatize; my objection to your understanding of the passage has most to do with the idea of a justified person, losing his justification/salvation; that’s impossible.

Okay, I can understand that. I just didn’t agree with your interpretation of the passage within a Catholic theological context. I believe it’s impossible for someone predestined to glory to die as an apostate. Since I don’t believe all of the justified are predestined to glory, that’s where we primarily disagree on this issue.

Not a vacation; I have a lot of reading and studying to do to obtain some building inspection certifications I’m after, so my time here will be sporadic

That’s definitely not a vacation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

The burden that you have is to prove by way of scripture that a person that is justified cannot fall away. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that they can. Likewise, so do the following passages.:

2 Peter 2: 20-22

Romans 11: 20-21

Hebrews 2: 1-3

Please note that I could go on with many other verses that prove that the justified can lose their salvation, but let’s just look at Hebrews 10:26-31 which says:

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

It is important to notice that once again the author of the epistle uses the collective “we.” The author is a justified Christian and he includes himself in the warning. The “we” refers to people that are justified by the blood of the covenant. We know this because it says that they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant. We know from 1 Cor 6:11 that when you were justified “…you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” If you are sanctified you have been justified.

Likewise, those described have “outraged the Spirit of grace and that God will judge His people.” You are not one of God’s people unless you are a member of the body of Christ. You are not one of God’s people unless you are an adopted son or daughter of God. Those spoken of are definitely justified Christians.

Neither you or your sources have shown by scripture that these are not justified Christians. Instead, you have only superimposed your doctrine on the scripture, and have expressed your personal belief. A person can be justified, but that does not guarantee that they will persevere. We agree that the elect will persevere. We simply haven’t seen any evidence that all of the justified will be among the elect. Scripture tells us that not all of those that are justified will persevere.

 

[mikeledes]

Sandusky,

The burden that you have is to prove by way of scripture that a person that is justified cannot fall away. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that they can. Likewise, so do the following passages.:

2 Peter 2: 20-22

Romans 11: 20-21

Hebrews 2: 1-3

Please note that I could go on with many other verses that prove that the justified can lose their salvation, but let’s just look at Hebrews 10:26-31 which says:

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

It is important to notice that once again the author of the epistle uses the collective “we.” The author is a justified Christian and he includes himself in the warning. The “we” refers to people that are justified by the blood of the covenant. We know this because it says that they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant. We know from 1 Cor 6:11 that when you were justified “…you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” If you are sanctified you have been justified.

Likewise, those described have “outraged the Spirit of grace and that God will judge His people.” You are not one of God’s people unless you are a member of the body of Christ. You are not one of God’s people unless you are an adopted son or daughter of God. Those spoken of are definitely justified Christians.

Neither you or your sources have shown by scripture that these are not justified Christians. Instead, you have only superimposed your doctrine on the scripture, and have expressed your personal belief. A person can be justified, but that does not guarantee that they will persevere. We agree that the elect will persevere. We simply haven’t seen any evidence that all of the justified will be among the elect. Scripture tells us that not all of those that are justified will persevere.

Here’s another passage:

Ezekiel 18:24

**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **

The implication being that the person will die in that state. Moreover, you cannot be righteous before God apart from His grace (i.e. justified), whether its Old Covenant (i.e. Abel, Abraham, Rahab, David, Samuel, etc.) or New Covenant.

God Bless,
Michael

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,

The burden that you have is to prove by way of scripture that a person that is justified cannot fall away. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that they can.

Pax, you and I have been over this many, many, many times; if we were to go over it again, my argument would remain the same, and so would yours.

But I will say this: the only way salvation can be lost is if salvation is by works.

 

[guanophore]

Hebrews 6 speaks against reverts, Mike.

No, it speaks against apostacy. A revert can return to partake. An apostate does not.

I understand the point you’re driving at Mike.

In order for you to be consistent with your point—that the elect can lose salvation—you must also be consistent with the passage, that once salvation is lost, according to this verse, it can never be regained; therefore, all who leave the RCC have lost their salvation, and they cannot regain it through reversion.

This passage does not allow for going back, and forth, or, for falling in, and out of grace.

Unless, of course, you don’t care about being consistent.

There are several errors in this post. The first one is the notion of “salvation”, which the Church teaches us is not attained until the end. Therefore, everyone who has given their lives to Christ is in a process, and will remain in that process until glorification happens. Otherwise, one would have to say that Peter could not “revert” after he denied Christ. Secondly, it is an error to say that “all who leave the RCC lose their salvation” since the RCC does not say this about itself, and this statement discounts all the other Rites of the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, it is most certainly to go back and forth into and out of a state of grace. If not, Jesus would not have told Peter “after you have repented, strengthen your brethren”.

Whatever that means. :hypno:

It means that we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Until the end is achieved, we are still working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[Pax]

Pax, you and I have been over this many, many, many times; if we were to go over it again, my argument would remain the same, and so would yours.

But I will say this: the only way salvation can be lost is if salvation is by works.

Are you baiting me to discuss the doctrine of sola fide?

You could have addressed the entirety of my post, but I realize that the threads are long and it can be a bit tiring. Blessings!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The only way salvation can’t be lost is if God demands His own way–is unloving because He does demand His own way and doesn’t let man exercise freedom of will.

Satan may believe that and may try to get people to believe that.

Catholics don’t believe in such a monster God!

 

[sandusky]

Jerry-Jet:

The only way salvation can’t be lost is if God demands His own way–is unloving because He does demand His own way and doesn’t let man exercise freedom of will.

God getting His way has priority over you getting your way; and, God always gets His way—He’s God, and that doesn’t make Him unloving, it makes you ignorant of who God is, IMHumbleO.

Jerry-Jet:

Satan may believe that and may try to get people to believe that.

Stating what the scripture’s teach is Satanic?

Jerry-Jet:

Catholics don’t believe in such a monster God!

I’m certain that they don’t, and neither do I; but you have no problem constructing that strawman of a God, labeling Him as an unloving monster, and then ascribing to others a belief in your construction.

 

[sandusky]

Are you baiting me to discuss the doctrine of sola fide?

No baiting; you know how many times we’ve been over those subjects; I’ve got nothing new
to add.

 

[Pax]

Yeah I know…that’s why I gave you the 's.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The scrtiptures say “God is Love”.

The scriptures also say “Love does not demand its own way”.

Tell me how it can be logically deduced that since God is love the scriptures could be wrong and God could demand His own way?

The scriptures do not lie.

There is no way for God to be love and for God to demand His own way!

Since there isn’t and God is consistent and does not contradict Himself or His word God cannot demand His own way!

What part of that do you not understand?

If God negates human freedom of will which He has freely given man then God would By Definition contradict Himself which is impossible.

So it is Impossible for God to not allow man to exercise freedom of will.

And yes it is no strawman to say that if God did contradict Himself and not be loving and force man to choose to never leave Him then yes if that were true then God would be a monster!

God doesn’t do that–the freedom of will of man is not negated by an unloving monster God!

And yes Satan would like people to believe in a monster God!

And people who would choose to believe in a Contradciting God where it can be logically proven that that is what in fact they were believing in would be monster God worshipers!

Bottom line: No Calvinist anywhere in the history of the universe can negate the freedom of will of man without blaspheming the nature of God!

 

[sandusky]

Jerry-Jet:

The scrtiptures say “God is Love”.

The scriptures also say “Love does not demand its own way”.

Your understanding is wrong, because you are reading Paul’s words a-contextually; with respect to love not seeking its own, Paul is talking about the type of love the Christian should have toward another (cf Php 2:3-4); the passage has nothing to do with God, or His love.

Jerry-Jet:

Tell me how it can be logically deduced that since God is love the scriptures could be wrong and God could demand His own way?

The scriptures are not wrong, and, God not only demands His way, He gets much of His way presently (letting some of His demands be usurped, for a while), and in the end, God will get all of His way—it’s not a question of logic, but a question of revelation.

Jerry-Jet:

There is no way for God to be love and for God to demand His own way!

Since there isn’t and God is consistent and does not contradict Himself or His word God cannot demand His own way!

What part of that do you not understand?

You are proclaiming the excellency of your human logic, and human logic is the seedbed of all theological error—you will reap what you sow.

Jerry-Jet:

If God negates human freedom of will which He has freely given man then God would By Definition contradict Himself which is impossible.

Man is a volition creature; however, he’s also very ”volitionally-challenged” as well.

If your will is so free, and unfettered, then create a chicken for me, right now. Can’t do it? How ‘bout you do something good for God, right now, and do it completely by the freedom of your will, without the grace of His will—can you do it? Better reassess your understanding of your free will, and do it from scripture—compare and contrast your freedom with God’s freedom.

So it is Impossible for God to not allow man to exercise freedom of will.

Read the story of Abimelech in Gen 20; it was his “free will" to have Sarah; however, God had other plans with that, and put the kaibash on Abimy’s “free-will,” with the initial threat, “Behold, you are a dead man.” (Sounds a bit “unloving,” wouldn’t you say?)

So you see, you’re wrong, it is possible for God to ”not allow man to exercise freedom of will.” And there are other instances of God doing that—can you think of any?

Jerry-Jet:

And yes it is no strawman to say that if God did contradict Himself and not be loving and force man to choose to never leave Him then yes if that were true then God would be a monster!

That’s another strawman, Jerry; no Calvinist believes that God forces the elect to choose to never leave Him; they freely choose to love Him—another of your misunderstandings.

Jerry-Jet:

Bottom line: No Calvinist anywhere in the history of the universe can negate the freedom of will of man without blaspheming the nature of God!

That’s your strawman again, Jerry; Calvinists neither negate mans’ “freedom,” nor do they blaspheme God.

IMO, you’re very mixed-up.

 

[Pax]

…
…
You are proclaiming the excellency of your human logic, and human logic is the seedbed of all theological error—you will reap what you sow.

Man is a volition creature; however, he’s also very ”volitionally-challenged” as well.

If your will is so free, and unfettered, then create a chicken for me, right now. Can’t do it? How ‘bout you do something good for God, right now, and do it completely by the freedom of your will, without the grace of His will—can you do it? Better reassess your understanding of your free will, and do it from scripture—compare and contrast your freedom with God’s freedom.
…
…
IMO, you’re very mixed-up.

I don’t think you get JerryJet’s point, and you are confusing power with free will. Creating a chicken is not within my power. Killing a chicken is within my power. My free will has nothing to do with creating a chicken because it is not within my power. My free will, however, has everything to do with my decision to kill a chicken because it is something within the power of a human being.

Human free will is a gift of God and He does not remove that gift when we are justified. If anything God enhances our free will because His grace enables us to choose good over evil and to His will.

It is God’s will and gift that man has free will. God’s will is ultimately served by many things including our free will. I would agree that if God wills something to happen there is nothing that I can do to stop it from happening whether I have power or free will. God, however, does not remove our freedom to choose him or to choose ourselves. This holds true prior to justification and subsequent to it.

 

[Pax]

That’s another strawman, Jerry; no Calvinist believes that God forces the elect to choose to never leave Him; they freely choose to love Him—another of your misunderstandings.

IMO, you’re very mixed-up.

I agree with you up to a point. Nevertheless you still have to incorporate the Calvinist concept of irresistable grace. If you truly believe as the Calvinists do then you are being somewhat ambivalent in your statements across this and other threads.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

I don’t think you get JerryJet’s point, and you are confusing power with free will. Creating a chicken is not within my power. Killing a chicken is within my power. My free will has nothing to do with creating a chicken because it is not within my power. My free will, however, has everything to do with my decision to kill a chicken because it is something within the power of a human being.

What is the will, Pax, if not power; specifically, and most importantly, the power that needs most to be exercised—the ability to regenerate a dead-to-sin-spirit—a power which man does not possess?

Pax:

Human free will is a gift of God and He does not remove that gift when we are justified. If anything God enhances our free will because His grace enables us to choose good over evil and to His will.

That man is volitional is not an issue.

Pax:

It is God’s will and gift that man has free will. God’s will is ultimately served by many things including our free will. I would agree that if God wills something to happen there is nothing that I can do to stop it from happening whether I have power or free will. God, however, does not remove our freedom to choose him or to choose ourselves. This holds true prior to justification and subsequent to it.

Again, Pax, the only issue you raise is an issue of perception, or, more accurately,
MIS-perception. Calvinism does not teach a loss of will, but a corruption of will. Thus, your misperception—you have not studied the position.

Pax:

I agree with you up to a point. Nevertheless you still have to incorporate the Calvinist concept of irresistable grace. If you truly believe as the Calvinists do then you are being somewhat ambivalent in your statements across this and other threads.

There’s no ambivalence in the position, Pax; again, the problem lies in your misunderstanding of “irresistible grace.”

You understand it to be the removal of freedom, when in fact, it is the key component to restoration of a freedom that Adam possessed in Eden.

Prior to the fall, Adam had the ability not to sin; the fall corrupted that ability, and rendered the will able only to sin. Regeneration restores ability not to sin, but because of the fall, ability to sin is still present; thus the conflicted nature of the believer with respect to the law, and the desires of his flesh.

Your anthropology is faulty; thus your rejection of a total corruption from ALL HAVE SINNED in Rom 3:23 (and in the day you eat of it you shall die Gen 2:17), but, your acceptance of a mere "wounding of the will” (CCC para. 405)—you opt for the teaching and authority of your church, over the teaching and authority of the scripture.

 

[Pax]

What is the will, Pax, if not power; specifically, and most importantly, the power that needs most to be exercised—the ability to regenerate a dead-to-sin-spirit—a power which man does not possess? Power can enable the will to what is right, just as gasoline can enable and engine to run. Gasoline is not an engine and power is not free will.

You are definitionally confused if you believe that power and will are the same thing.

That man is volitional is not an issue. I’m glad we agree on this, just as I thought we would.

Again, Pax, the only issue you raise is an issue of perception, or, more accurately,
MIS-perception. Calvinism does not teach a loss of will, but a corruption of will. Thus, your misperception—you have not studied the position. I have studied the issue and I am aware of the Calvinist positiion.

There’s no ambivalence in the position, Pax; again, the problem lies in your misunderstanding of “irresistible grace.” The ambivalence is not in the Calvinist position but rather some of the things that you have said on this and other threads. This could be a misperception on my part concerning your views because of the difficulty of communicating in an online discussion forum. Nevertheless, your articulations against us leave me wondering because I perceive inconsistencies between your Calvinist posiiton and your methods of criticizing our position.

You understand it to be the removal of freedom, when in fact, it is the key component to restoration of a freedom that Adam possessed in Eden. Catholics do not perceive God’s grace as a removal of freedom. We see a certain defect, however, in the Calvinist view that leads us to look upon your position as having partially done so. What you have stated is only part of the Calvinist doctrine. I do not see the Calvinist position as removing all freedom. Calvinism defintely teaches, however, that we are unable to resist God’s grace. This is in direct conflict with scripture [see Acts 7:51]As a result there are problems within the doctrine…

Prior to the fall, Adam had the ability not to sin; the fall corrupted that ability, and rendered the will able only to sin. Regeneration restores ability not to sin, but because of the fall, ability to sin is still present; thus the conflicted nature of the believer with respect to the law, and the desires of his flesh. There is nothing in scripture that says that man **is only able to sin **after the fall. It is not a sin for a pagan to build a house or to have natural love for his family and friends.

Your anthropology is faulty; thus your rejection of a total corruption from ALL HAVE SINNED in Rom 3:23 (and in the day you eat of it you shall die Gen 2:17), but, your acceptance of a mere "wounding of the will” (CCC para. 405)—you opt for the teaching and authority of your church, over the teaching and authority of the scripture.

Actually, the teaching of the Catholic Church is the teaching of scripture. You misunderstand Catholic teaching when you candy coat the idea of a “wounded will.” If you read Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity you will get a clear picture as to the serious depth of wounding that is a result of the fall. The problem with Calvinism is that total depravity goes just a little too far. Many Protestant scholars now use the term “total inability” which is a more appropriate and accurate description.