Heb. 6:4-6

[Pax]

Sandusky,

At this point, I think that our biggest problem still concerns our freedom to fall from the grace of justification. You believe that a person cannot lose their justification because you place all of the justified within the set of the “elect.” This is perhaps our area of greatest disagreement. Beyond that we probably have very similar, if not identical views, on the group that is indeed the “elect.”

If this is our sticking point we need to present convincing biblical data and sound logic to support one contention over the other. I get the feeling that we pretty much lock arms and walk side by side on the rest of the associated issues concerning the elect.

I hope that you are having an enjoyable and fruitful weekend.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why does it bother people that apostates can never be forgiven?

The angels that rebelled with Lucifer can never be forgiven.

Jesus said that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come.

Jesus doesn’t lie.

Some things just plain old aren’t forgiven!

If apostates are beyond forgiveness if must be because they have made an irrevocable choice after having full knowledge.

Isn’t this what the angels that rebelled with Lucifer did?

Those angels LOST salvation–what’s the big deal about it happening to men, too?

Apparently God din’t consult Calvinist Once Saved Always Saved worshipers when He cast those angels to hell.

If He didn’t consult them then–why would He consult them now?

With apostates it truely Is Impossible to renew them again unto repentance–that’s the cold hard truth–and since it is the cold hard truth then Once Saved Always Saved is a cold hard lie!

Can Sola Scripturaists be trapped by the sovereign word of God?

Yes! Why? Because He’s sovereign!

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

ower 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.

As I said earlier, we don’t have the same understanding of man, so it’s not surprising that we don’t see the will in the same way either.

Pax:

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.

Not true, Pax; Calvinism teaches that irresistible, efficacious, regenerative, salvific grace is given only to the elect, as opposed to your position which states that God gives everyone grace enough to believe, and after that, it’s up to the individual to either believe, or not believe; as Jn 6:37 states, ** “all that the Father gives to me, will come…**; it’s the grace to believe, given only to the elect, that is “irresistible.”

Pax:

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.

The sin has nothing to do with building houses, or loving family, or being a well-known philanthropist, Pax. The sin has to do with refusal to honor God as God (cf Rom1:18ff).

Pax:

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.

And what is the inability?

Pax:

Sandusky,

At this point, I think that our biggest problem still concerns our freedom to fall from the grace of justification. You believe that a person cannot lose their justification because you place all of the justified within the set of the “elect.” This is perhaps our area of greatest disagreement. Beyond that we probably have very similar, if not identical views, on the group that is indeed the “elect.”

We’re not even close, Pax.

Pax:

If this is our sticking point we need to present convincing biblical data and sound logic to support one contention over the other. I get the feeling that we pretty much lock arms and walk side by side on the rest of the associated issues concerning the elect.

Again, our understanding of the elect is not even close.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Not true, Pax; Calvinism teaches that irresistible, efficacious, regenerative, salvific grace is given only to the elect, as opposed to your position which states that God gives everyone grace enough to believe, and after that, it’s up to the individual to either believe, or not believe; as Jn 6:37 states, ** “all that the Father gives to me, will come…**; it’s the grace to believe, given only to the elect, that is “irresistible.”
…
…

I think you genuinely know better than to state my position in the way you have above. If you read my posts on this and every thread you and I have participated in you will never find me saying "that God gives everyone grace enough to believe, and after that, it’s up to the individual to either believe, or not believe. If you really believe your summary of my position then you have failed to read my posts and you fail to understand Catholic teaching. I really think that you know better.

Your views of irresistable grace are simply an error. When you think you can explain away Acts 7:51 and probably a dozen other passages that show that man can refuse God’s grace, then I would like to see you do so. Until then your position of irresistable grace has been refuted.

 

[Pax]

The sin has nothing to do with building houses, or loving family, or being a well-known philanthropist, Pax. The sin has to do with refusal to honor God as God (cf Rom1:18ff).

And what is the inability?

…

Again, our understanding of the elect is not even close.

I agree that man is sinful when he knowingly refuses to honor God as God. Your answer to me is off point. I do not disagree with this response. I disagreed with your original statement. Your response doesn’t correspond with your original statement or my objection to it.

Inability refers to the fact that man cannot save himself, he cannot lift himself out of sin, he cannot know God by faith, and he cannot please God. God’s grace does all of these things and enables man to live by the Spirit and to do the good works that Father prepared in advance of our justification. This is all summarized in Ephesians 2:8-10.

I think that our understanding of the “elect” and the function of God’s grace within the elect is much closer than you wish to admit. What you do not wish to admit is that it is possible for someone to receive the grace of justification and have faith, but fall away. Those that do this clearly are not the elect because the elect persevere to the end.[see Matt 10:22, Matt 24:13, Mark 13:13, John 6:27, 2 Tim 2:12, and many others.]

Scripture indicates that perseverance and endurance are necessary for salvation. Furthermore, scripture indicates that endurance and perseverance are not automatic at the point of justification. This can be seen by the following:

Col 1:11-12
**May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance **and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

Hebrews 10:36
For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.

Please notice that the justified need to be strengthened even though they are already justified.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Notice the word “may.” This is not a definitive and done deal that all that are justified will endure. I can cite more scripture that demonstrates this as well.

One last thing. You spoke of efficacious grace. You seem to confuse this with the Calvinist idea of irresistable grace just as you have confused power and free will. It is important that we recognize important distinctions when examining theological terms. IMHO this may be hindering your understandings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, I missed your post.

According to mikeledes the people being addressed in Heb 6:4-6, those who have left the community of believers, are genuine believers; therefore, they cannot be renewed to repentance—it’s over for them; they’ve lost their salvation finally, and forever.

According to mikeledes’ argument then, those justified by baptism in the RCC, if they leave the RCC, cannot be renewed to repetance, as the writer of Hebrews states—a revert’s repentance may appear genuine, but it’s not; they’ve lost their salvation finally, and forever.

However, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians are members of the Catholic Church - whether they know it or not. After all, the Church is the body of Christ, and Jesus only has ONE body.

Consequently, although someone might leave the formal communion of the Catholic Church for a time, he has not left the Church completely since he remains in “imperfect communion” with the true Church even while worshipping with another “ecclesial community.”

Finally, before I condemned these “reverts” to hell forever, I might spend some time reflecting upon the story of the prodigal son who “was dead but is alive again.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

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

This doesn’t make any sense. Since a person cannot be saved by works, how can they “lose” something they never had?

Stating what the scripture’s teach is Satanic?

Surely you cannot disagree that the plethora of divisiveness that has occured over the variant interpretations of the Scriputre reflects the unity of the Holy Spirit! We know who is the one that wants to cause divisions. When each man does what he thinks is right in his own mind, and shuns the Authority that God has appointed over His Body, multitudes of divisions result.

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.

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!

It seems to me that the OSAS do not understand the purpose of God that we partake in His divine nature. That nature is a free will nature.

 

[guanophore]

Your understanding is wrong,

Wow. Pontifex Maximus Sandusky has spoken ex cathedra!

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.

This is absurd, sandusky! Your example below clearly demonstrates that humans are incapable of loving the way God wants us to love without His grace. This passage has EVERYTHING to do with God’s love!

We can’t be loving without the mind of Christ!

Phil 2:5-8
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Jesus demonstrated that He seeks not His own, and respects those that wish to walk away from Him, though it grieves HIs heart.

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.

Of course, in the end, all heaven and earth will be subjected to HIm. However, those who have chosen to spurn His invitation (“who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” Tim 2:4-5) He will permit to be separated from Himself from eternity out of respect for their free will.

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

This is true, but God’s grace is sufficient. He has provided all that is necessary for us to overcome our challenges, and to enter into life.

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.

God is able to save, but He will also respect the refusal of man to have fellowship with Him. No one is saying that man’s freedom is on par with God’s However, since we are made in His image and likeness, it is clear that He has expressed a degree of His freedom of will in our creation. However, that was never meant to be used in separation from Himself. However, we do see in scripure that man can do supernatural feats by other powers besides God’s grace. We can see in the book of Revelation that the evil one and his minions produce what appear to be miracles by the power He has allowed them to have.

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?

God did not take away Abimilech’s free will. He could have done as pharoah did, and spurn the warning. His life may have been forfeit. Instead, he CHOSE to return Sarah. God is omnipotent. That does not mean man has not free will.

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.

It seems, though, as if the Calvanist position is that God “makes” them choose him. By saying that they cannot apostasize, it seems to negate the free will of man.

IMO, you’re very mixed-up.

I find Calvanism very confusing. I just cannot make all the the scriptures, such as the one in the title here, fit into it.