How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Did God consult you before you were born, Eric? Did you choose the circumstances of your birth, the geography of it, your family? Or did God decide that for you?

First of all, just because some things about my life are predetermined doesn’t mean that all aspects of my life are.

Secondly, the meaning of human life is to be in a loving relationship with God and with one another (i.e., the greatest of the commandments are to love God and neighbor). Naturally, some aspects of my creation are out of my hands, being determined by God, as well as my parents and certain circumstances in the world. But seeing as I was created to participate in loving relationships, I must be free to either love or not to love, and I must be free to accept love from others, or not accept it. However, if a loving relationship is forced upon someone, then it ceases being true love by that very action.

Where’s your free will asserted?

As you can see, I have now provided several passages from the Bible demonstrating free will.

But seeing as you believe in predestination, I would like you to ponder this question: Why are you trying to convince me of its truth? If I lack the free will to change my mind then nothing you say can change it either. And if I am predestined to believe in free will then it’s going to happen anyway whether we have this debate or not. So, just out of curiosity, how is this thread debate not a waste of your time?

Moreover, if God decided that for you, and He did, why do you deny Him the right to decide your eternity?

I deny God nothing, and he has the right to do whatever he wants. But that’s not the question. The question, rather, is whether or not OSAS is an authentic part of God’s revelation to humanity. I believe that I have clearly demonstrated that it is not.

 

[William_C]

EricFilmer:

And then after referring me to the words of the Lord you told me what you claim it means. After all, your exact words you said immediately after this referral were, “It means the Father chooses who He will save…” (emphasis added). As soon as you stated, “It means” you indicated that you were making an interpretation

I’ve only referred you to Scripture, however, as I said, when asked a question regarding a verse, I’ve certainly offered an answer to help your understanding.
W C:

You’re ignoring what my words in favor of your own talking points.
EF:

I’m not ignoring anything. Here is the exact statement I made to which you are referring:
Nowhere in this text from John do we see your concept of what it means to believe in Christ…

You are most certainly ignoring my words in favor of your talking points, Eric. I’ve been pointing you to Christ’s statements concerning His charge to do the will of the Father, and to His statements that His sheep will never perish, and you blow that off and go to your talking points concerning “what it means to believe in Christ…”

Please offer your reasoning why OSAS is false, if you’re able.
EF:

First of all, are you now saying that it is ok to formulate Christian doctrine on what the Bible doesn’t say?

No, I was responding to your question to me, to wit: “where in the bible does it say the apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote”?

I responded, “Scripture does not contain your words. Neither does it say, ‘the apostles did interpret what they wrote.’ Isn’t that correct, Eric?”

Well, isn’t that correct, Eric? Scripture doesn’t say what you asked, and it also doesn’t say, “the apostles did interpret what they wrote?” Right?
EF:

Secondly, the Bible doesn’t have to say, “The apostles interpreted what they wrote” because the Bible readily shows them doing it. I thought that this was so obvious that I didn’t need to give examples, but it looks like that is now in order. Keep in mind that, according to most Protestant and Catholic Scripture scholars, the written form of each gospel arose from an earlier oral format (so it is possible for an epistle to interpret a particular gospel whose written format occurred at a later time).

1John 1:5-10 contains an interpretation of John 3:21
1John 2:3-6 contains interpretations of John 13:15; 14:21 & 23; 15:10.
In John 2:18-22, John records the words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple and then provides the correct interpretation of its meaning.
Hebrews 5:7-10 contains an interpretation of Mt 26:36-46 (and elsewhere in the gospels).
James 5:12 contains an interpretation of Mt 5:37.
2Peter 17-21 contains an interpretation of Mk 9:2 (and elsewhere in the gospels).
Romans 2:6-11 is an interpretation of Mt 16:27.
Romans 2:28 is an interpretation of Mt3:9.
1Cor 6:1 is an interpretation of Mt 18:17.

Give me a break, Eric. Writers explaining Jesus words in the Gospels are not writers interpreting their own words in their epistles.

You are quibbling and attempting to turn a molehill into a mountain. The writers wrote and explained theology. They didn’t interpret themselves. Paul didn’t interpret Paul, Peter didn’t interpret Peter, Jude didn’t interpret Jude.

Offer your reasoning why proving OSAS false, if you’re able. That’s the issue.
EF:

I have done nothing dishonestly. I never claimed that you said the apostles “didn’t interpret the Old Testament.” I said that they interpreted “Scripture”, and my intention was meant to imply both the Old and the New Testament. And seeing as I have now provided several Scripture passages showing apostolic interpretations of apostolic writings, my earlier critique of your stance still stands. Namely, an examination of the New Testament shows that your position that the apostles did not interpret their own writings is demonstrably false.

For heaven’s sake. You did what I said you did, Eric, as I showed you.

Now get to your proof that OSAS is false, if have any to offer, and quit with your red herring distractions.
EF:

I didn’t “just offer my opinion” but in the post in question I clearly referred you to your own elaboration on the topic of what it means for something to be apostolic…

More distractions.

Will you ever offer a biblical defense for your position that OSAS is false?

 

[Farsight001]

I think, reading William’s most recent post, it is obvious that he is a troll just trying to get under peoples’ skin. The bold-faced lies don’t help his case much either. (telling a person they have provided no scriptural support of their position just after that person makes five posts involving multiple dozens of verses supporting their position? How dishonest can you get?) I suggest reporting, ignoring, and moving on.

 

[William_C]

EricFilmer:

What you are not taking into account is that the Bible often speaks of salvation is a manner known as “realized eschatology.” This means that some Scripture passages speak about ones future salvation (which is spoken of in its fullness) as something that one can start living now (which is done in a limited way).

How do you know what I am, or am not taking into account, Eric? Are you clairvoyant? If not please refrain from making those type of statements.
EF:

But let us set that aside for the moment and address whether or not the Bible teaches that salvation can be lost. But seeing as I am defending Catholic teaching, I think the statement “salvation can be lost” is more accurately understood (by Catholics) in the belief that it is possible for a person to be in state of grace (and therefore be set to inherit the kingdom of heaven) and, in this life, do something to fall out of state of grace (and therefore be condemned to hell if such a person dies without being properly reconciled with God).

Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart,
leading you to fall away from the living God.
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,”
that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,
while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Hebrews 3:12-15, RSV, emphasis added)

Eric, you haven’t finished the passage. Those being addressed are Jews who have the same potential characteristics as those who perished in the wilderness, never being allowed to see the promised land (cf vv16ff). They were unbelievers the writer says (v19). I agree with the writer. Unbelievers will not enter God’s kingdom, but how does that prove eternal security, or OSAS, as Catholics are fond of calling it, false?
EF:

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

What is meant by “impossible” in this passage is debated among Scripture scholars. Some see this as an indication of an excessive hardening of ones heart to the point that one will refuse to repent. Others see it as a reminder that one cannot be baptized a second time. But the point I’m making by bringing this up is that this clearly states that a person can be “enlightened”, “taste the heavenly gift”, be a “partaker of the Holy Spirit”, “taste the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” and then fall from such a state.

Of course, and I understand. You take all of those words to be proof that the individuals spoken of are saved, IOW, you take the passage to assert that the individuals spoken of had been given eternal life by Jesus.

But what did Jesus say about those to whom He gives eternal life? He says, “they shall never perish.”

Therefore, those words cannot mean the people spoken of were saved, if indeed they perish, which it seems you’re not sure of. Further, if those words do mean, those spoken of are saved, then they will repent, because, “they shall never perish.”

Finishing the passage, we see the encouragement that is given each time stern admonition is given to the reader: ”But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.” (6:9).

So how does that verse prove OSAS is false?

 

[William_C]

EF:

Speaking to the Apostles, Jesus said, “…and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22, RSV)

If Jesus taught OSAS then why do the Apostles need to “endure to the end” in order to “be saved”?

Again you add words to Scripture. Jesus doesn’t say anything about a need to endure. He asserts a truth: those who endure will be saved, a reference to His Sheep: “they shall never perish.” Perseverence is part and parcel of salvation.

Look, scripture is replete with statements concerning what occurs to a person who believes: He is made alive by God who causes Him to be reborn (Eph 4-5; 1 Pet 1:3ff); he receives the Holy Spirit of promise who seals him, and who is the guarantee of salvation (Eph 1:13-14); God transfer the believer from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ, in whom the believer has redemption (Col 1:13-14); the believer is then ACTIVELY protected by the Father through faith for salvation (1 Pet 1:3-5), and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Salvation isn’t about what we do, but what God has done. God is my salvation (Ps 27:1; 62:7; 88:1; Is 12:3, etc.), I’m not.

”Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. (Romans 5:2, RSV)
If Paul believed in OSAS then why did he speak of a “”hope of sharing the glory of God”? Why did he not say “assurance” instead? A person does not “hope” to attain something that is already established as a certainty.

”…having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18, RSV)

Once again, if Paul believes in OSAS then why does he speak of “hoping” to attain the “glorious inheritance of the saints”?

Biblical hope isn’t “I hope so” hope. It is confidence in God, what He has done, what He is doing, what He will do:

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (Php 1:6)

Just as those Old Covenant folks, cited above, were confident in God as their salvation.

”…that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:11, RSV).

If Paul believed in OSAS then why did he say “if possible” about his own resurrection? Once again, where is the language of certainty one would expect from a believer in OSAS?

Paul is being humble. The same Paul insisted in the same epistle that his citizenship is heaven, that God would complete the work of salvation He begins.

The only other alternative is to believe that Paul is completely nuts, and conflicted. I don’t believe that for a minute. I believe Paul was absolutely certain of his salvation. He writes about salvation as a certainty.

I’m tired, and am going to bed now, but will return tomorrow and continue with your posts.

Let’s notice that what you’ve done above is cite Scripture, and ask me why?

That isn’t proof of anything except you can post scripture and ask questions about it.

That most certainly doesn’t prove OSAS false.

Goodnight.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’ve only referred you to Scripture, however, as I said, when asked a question regarding a verse, I’ve certainly offered an answer to help your understanding.

Give me a break, Eric. Writers explaining Jesus words in the Gospels are not writers interpreting their own words in their epistles.

You are quibbling and attempting to turn a molehill into a mountain. The writers wrote and explained theology. They didn’t interpret themselves. Paul didn’t interpret Paul, Peter didn’t interpret Peter, Jude didn’t interpret Jude.

William, I know that you still have a lot of material to respond to, but I think, first and foremost, this issue about “interpreting” and “explanation” needs to be resolved. After all, you say that you are giving your interpretation of Scripture, but instead “answering questions” (i.e., giving an explanation). You say that the apostles, when referencing the gospels, were not interpreting themselves, but were “explaining theology.”

Therefore, I would like you to go ahead and…

1) Post a definition of the term “biblical interpretation”.

2) Post a definition of the term “biblical explanation”. Naturally, this definition should encompass what you claim to be doing in this thread, as well as what you claim the apostles were doing when they “explained theology” while referencing the gospels.

3) Make sure that your response clearly demonstrates the difference between a biblical interpretation and a biblical explanation.

 

[William_C]

William, I know that you still have a lot of material to respond to, but I think, first and foremost, this issue about “interpreting” and “explanation” needs to be resolved. After all, you say that you are giving your interpretation of Scripture, but instead “answering questions” (i.e., giving an explanation). You say that the apostles, when referencing the gospels, were not interpreting themselves, but were “explaining theology.”

Therefore, I would like you to go ahead and…

** 1)** Post a definition of the term “biblical interpretation”.

2) Post a definition of the term “biblical explanation”. Naturally, this definition should encompass what you claim to be doing in this thread, as well as what you claim the apostles were doing when they “explained theology” while referencing the gospels.

3) Make sure that your response clearly demonstrates the difference between a biblical interpretation and a biblical explanation.

** I’m not going to indulge quibbling, Eric.

We are now in the phase of you attempting to make a case which demonstrates that OSAS is false, and we are now engaged in explaining texts.**

 

[William_C]

(Continued…)

I never said that I was confining myself to just the verses you decided to cited. I’m considering this subject in the context of the rest of the New Testament as well. For example:

”For this is the will of my Father,
that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life” (John 6:40, RSV, emphasis added).

Therefore, believing in Jesus is contingent upon receiving eternal life. This is backed up with:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, RSV)

And he called for lights and rushed in,
and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:29-31, RSV)

”…if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9, RSV)

But, as I’ve stated before, the question at hand is: What does it mean to believe in Jesus?
Here is what Scripture says:

Believing in Jesus Includes Obeying His Teachings
…the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (John 3:35-36, RSV)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15, RSV)

”He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me;
and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21, RSV)

And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. (1John 2:3-5, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Being His Follower
”He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Imitating His Example
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (John 14:12, RSV)

By this we may be sure that we are in him:
he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1John 2:5-6, RSV)

Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. (1John 3:21-24, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Not Denying Him
So every one who acknowledges me before men,
I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
but whoever denies me before men,
I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32-33, RSV)

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.
And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. (1John 2:22-25, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Means Doing Works of Mercy
Matthew 25:31-40 – The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us;
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?
Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.
By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him. (1John 3:16-19, RSV)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:24-26, RSV)

(Continued in my next post)
 OK.

 

[William_C]

No, those four words do not rule out the possibility that the “sheep” are free to reject Jesus, and therefore cease being “sheep.” The sheep represent those who believe in Jesus (as explained in the Scripture passages I quoted above) and persevere in their faith (Hebrews 3:12-15).

Eric, the words of Jesus in John 10:28, “they shall never perish,” are both a statement of truth concerning the final disposition of the sheep and a promise to the sheep. And as I said, that promise is cemented in by the additional promise that no one can steal the sheep from their shepherd, and your response is, YEAH BUT IT DOESN’T SAY…

C’mon. Why is your concern toward what Jesus doesn’t say, instead of what He does say? I think it’s because what Jesus says conflicts with what the magisterium says.
EF:

From a grammatical point (in terms of English), I would say that your interpretation is possible, but not likely. The statement is, “No one shall snatch them from out of my hand.” Generally speaking, it takes an outside agent to snatch someone “from out” of something. I think one could make an argument for an exception, but the question is whether or not Greek or Aramaic allows for such an exception (and I don’t know them well enough to say). But it just seems awkward from a linguistic standpoint to suggest that when Jesus said, “No one shall snatch them from out of my hand” he intended us to also conclude that a person cannot snatch himself from out of his hand either.

Following on the heels of the “they shall never perish,” it’s obvious that’s what being said is that those chosen by God for salvation WILL BE SAVED.

As I said in earlier post, Catholics are required to believe de fide that God has predestined some to eternal blessedness. They will not fail to attain the kingdom. That’s OSAS, and you’re required to believe it, and yet you fight against it.

The difficulty in all of this is MEN. They have throughout history taken the words of Jesus, and the apostles, and they have complicated the Gospel beyond all belief.

The Gospel simple because men are simple, and quite stupid.

Bottom line: Jesus Saves. The Law, Men and Men’s rituals don’t.
EF:

No, many do not see it unless they, like you, make extrapolations beyond the plain words of Scripture. Plus, as I have pointed out, it was not until after the Reformation that anyone saw it, which indicates that the OSAS doctrine is an invention of certain Reformers.

You’re quibbling again, Eric, and I told you I’m not going to indulge that.

I suggest in the future you think before publishing any statement here. I will look at, and consider what you say, and what you say has consequences.

Fact is, you said, “if it’s ‘very simple’ than one should see OSAS clearly stated in Scripture,” and another fact is MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO SEE WHAT I SEE.

That’s a fact Eric, please stop contesting it just because Catholics don’t see it.
EF:

I do not claim to be infallible, but I acknowledge that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is.

Look Eric, if you’re going to stand behind the RC magisterium as your surrogate, then you are claiming infallibility on your part.
EF:

OSAS is not supported by Magisterial teaching…

Which is meaningful to you, but not to me. What is meaningful to me is what the writers of Scripture assert, and they assert SALVATION IS FOREVER.
EF:

nor can it be shown to be apostolic.

The writers of Scripture state that salvation is forever; therefore, OSAS is apostolic.
EF:

Then I suggest that you cease making infallible-sounding statements…

Give me a break. I have great confidence in my understanding of Scripture, Eric, there is no reason for me to discard that because it makes you uncomfortable.
EF:

No, I have not taken you out of context. This ongoing exchange between us stemmed from your presentation of John 6 as a demonstration of OSAS. It was all about what it means to believe in Jesus in order to be given to Jesus by the Father. So if you are saying that I “took you out of context” and that the context “had nothing to do with OSAS" then prove it by telling me what the context actually was and how my statement did not actually refute it.

Eric you took my words out of context. My statement had nothing to do with OSAS. You said it did. You were wrong. My point was not OSAS, but the inability for men to believe on their own (cf post 93, at the top).

 

[EricFilmer]

** I’m not going to indulge quibbling, Eric.

We are now in the phase of you attempting to make a case which demonstrates that OSAS is false, and we are now engaged in explaining texts.**

This is not quibbling. If we are going to debate interpretations and explanations of biblical passages then obviously in this discussion there needs to be an understanding of the terminology used! You said, " we are now engaged in explaining texts" so tell me what does it mean to say that one is “explaining texts” and compare/contrast that with a biblical interpretation.

In light of this, once again I present this to you:

1) Post a definition of the term “biblical interpretation”.

2) Post a definition of the term “biblical explanation”. Naturally, this definition should encompass what you claim to be doing in this thread, as well as what you claim the apostles were doing when they “explained theology” while referencing the gospels.

3) Make sure that your response clearly demonstrates the difference between a biblical interpretation and a biblical explanation.

If you continue to say that this is non-essential quibbling then clearly explain why that it so. And keep in mind that the key phrase here is “clearly explain.”

Also keep in mind that I am also giving you a chance to define these terms according to your understanding. If you don’t give me yours then I will most certainly present mine to use as a reference in this discussion. So just don’t complain when that happens.

 

[William_C]

This is not quibbling. If we are going to debate interpretations and explanations of biblical passages then obviously in this discussion there needs to be an understanding of the terminology used! You said, " we are now engaged in explaining texts" so tell me what does it mean to say that one is “explaining texts” and compare/contrast that with a biblical interpretation.

In light of this, once again I present this to you:

1) Post a definition of the term “biblical interpretation”.

2) Post a definition of the term “biblical explanation”. Naturally, this definition should encompass what you claim to be doing in this thread, as well as what you claim the apostles were doing when they “explained theology” while referencing the gospels.

3) Make sure that your response clearly demonstrates the difference between a biblical interpretation and a biblical explanation.

If you continue to say that this is non-essential quibbling then clearly explain why that it so. And keep in mind that the key phrase here is “clearly explain.”

Also keep in mind that I am also giving you a chance to define these terms according to your understanding. If you don’t give me yours then I will most certainly present mine to use as a reference in this discussion. So just don’t complain when that happens.

See post 147.

 

[William_C]

No, it doesn’t. Based on what you said in your earlier post, you seem to be saying that once God chooses someone to be saved, that person automatically believes in Christ.

That is what I’m saying, Eric, and it is what you must believe de fide.
EF:

If that is the case then you need to work that one out, because the concept of God forcing someone to believe is not found anywhere in Scripture, and is not found in the many verses I cited which detail what the Bible says it means to believe in Christ.

The dissonance in this thread is unbelievable.

You are required to believe de fide that God predestines some to salvation; they will not fail to attain the kingdom; that is OSAS, and you are required to believe it, AND you attack it!
EF:

All the Scripture passages I cited above regarding belief in Christ admonish people to take certain actions and embrace certain aspects of the Faith.

And I agree, men are volitional beings. That’s not the issue. There’s nothing in Scripture which states men have free wills. That’s a secular position.

Jesus and the apostle clearly state that men are SLAVES… either to sin, or to God (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:20-22).

That being the case, that both Jesus and Paul assert men are slaves, how is it you assert they have free will?

Also, if the will of man is truly free, how come He can’t come to Christ unless God brings Him? Men can’t even choose God without the aid of grace. How then do you insist that man’s will is free if it can’t choose by itself, but MUST BE GRACED?
EF:

When the righteous turns from his righteousness,
and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.
And when the wicked turns from his wickedness,
and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. (Ezekiel 33:18-19, RSV)

The penalty for wickedness in the old testament was PHYSICAL DEATH, and not necessarily spiritual death. Remember, Jesus sheep shall never perish, and Jesus will raise them up on the last day.

Moses was prevented from entering the promised land, and died because of his unfaithfulness to God. Do you believe Moses lost his salvation?

”He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” (Rev 3:5, RSV)

If we are predestined, then why is there even a possibility of having our names blotted out of the book of life?

WHAT?

Jesus says ou ma that’s about the strongest Greek negative there is. IOW, Jesus says I will never, no not ever, ever, ever wipe out the name of the conquerors.

Please explain to me how Jesus’ promise that He won’t wipe out the names of conquerors means it’s possible for Jesus to wipe out the names conquerors???

Every Catholic says that same thing about that verse time, and time, and time again, and it makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

By the way, the elect of God, those whom God has chosen to save, and those in whom you must believe de fide, are called conquerors in Romans 8:37 using the same Greek word.
EF:

Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him (James 1:12, RSV)

If I am saved and “once saved, always saved”, then why do I need to endure trials?

You are again inserting words into the text.

That passage does not assert a need, it asserts a FACT.
EF:

If I do not have free will, then why is there a “test”? What purpose does a test serve to someone who is already predetermined to pass or fail?

You’re required to believe in predestination to salvation de fide, so ask yourself that question.
EF:

Genesis 22: God put Abraham’s faith to the test when he required him to sacrifice Isaac.

If Abraham had no free will, what was the point of testing him to see whether or not he would go through with it?

Asking me **“why if one thing is required another thing isn’t so," **doesn’t prove anything, Eric, except that you have a lot questions.

Your style of argumentation is prevrenting you from proving OSAS is false, and it is preventing you from proving man has a free will.
EF:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body (2Cor 5:10, RSV, emphasis added).

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done (Rev 20:12, RSV, emphasis added).

So according to Paul and Revelations, judgment is in accordance with our actions. Moreover, if we do not have free will, then why is there a judgment in the first place?

See immediately preceding answer.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What does James 2:24 mean?

 

[William_C]

What does James 2:24 mean?

Probably not what you think it does.

 

[mab23]

Probably not what you think it does.

your not providing any real evidence you keep keep saying de fide and have
repeated a line or 2 in scripture over this whole thread

OSAS is false, was started recently , and you are following traditions of those men that started it

“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand” – John 10:28

Proponents of this doctrine are absolutely correct when they state that salvation is a free gift, but they miss the fact that a gift, even if it is initially accepted, can ultimately be scorned, sullied and rejected. Although no one can snatch you from Christ’s hand, you can wriggle yourself free if you so choose.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Son chose to renounce his sonship, leave his home and go his own way. As a consequence of this he became “lost” and “dead” (Luke 15:32). The same spiritual death is open to us if we choose to reject our Father and walk away from our family home

and OSAS is simply denied straight out in scripture by James 2:24

**
and your versus do no reconcile with the rest of scripture again you are believing what you want in the Gospels and rejecting what you don’t like - you Believe in yourself - not the Gospels

**

“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death” - 1 John 5:16-17

“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches…For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you…Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” – Romans 11:1-23

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again iby a yoke of slavery…You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have** fallen away from grace**” – Galatians 5:1, 4

“And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,** provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel”** – Colossians 1:21-23

“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ,** if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end**” - Hebrews 3:12-14

“If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud’” – 2 Peter 2:20-22

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is** thrown away** and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” - John 15:1-6

…and many, many more…

If it is possible to die, be cut off, yoked back into slavery, turn away, fall away from grace, thrown away and burned then it is possible to lose your salvation. For Paul and John, once saved clearly doesn’t mean always saved.

 

[EricFilmer]

That is what I’m saying, Eric, and it is what you must believe de fide.

The dissonance in this thread is unbelievable.

You are required to believe de fide that God predestines some to salvation; they will not fail to attain the kingdom; that is OSAS, and you are required to believe it, AND you attack it!

You’re required to believe in predestination to salvation de fide, so ask yourself that question.

William, I’m giving you the opportunity to revise these kinds of responses. First of all, they did not actually refute the Bible verses I quoted, but rather you’re simply trying to say that as a Catholic (and because predestination is taught in Catholicism) I am required to accept your explanations of Scripture.

Secondly, there is nothing in my posts which contradicts the Catholic understanding of predestination, so I think it is high time that this subject be clarified in this thread:

The Catholic Teaching on Predestination

Many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, have theological teachings concerning predestination. This does not, however, mean that the nuances of predestination are equally agreed upon. For example, there is a notable difference between Catholicism and Calvinism concerning exactly what predestination entails.

For a good overview of the Catholic teaching on predestination, I invite people to read Tim Staples’ article, Predestined for Freedom. Here are some notable quotes from this article:

For Catholics, when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” (CCC 600). Thus, anyone who is finally saved will have been predestined by God because it was God’s predestined plan and God’s grace that went before him and enabled him to be saved.

God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will is always accomplished. The mistake is to reject free will because of this truth. We have already seen that it is God’s will for all to be saved (2 Pt 3:9, cf. 1 Tm 2:4, 1 Jn 2:1-2). But it is also true that some men will not be saved (cf. Mt 7:13, 25:46; Rv 21:8). This implies the freedom to choose to serve God or not (cf. Dt 28:15, Mt 19:17-22). All of this must be understood within God’s predestined plan. How do we reconcile all of this? We conclude that God’s will has an antecedent and a consequent nature. It is God’s antecedent will that all be saved. However, as a consequence of God’s gift of free will, some reject God’s antecedent will. It then becomes God’s consequent will for that soul to go to hell. God’s will is accomplished and our free will, which is revealed in Scripture, is preserved. It is God’s predestined plan for us to have free will (CCC 600).

Now, if you still feel that I have posted something that contradicts what is stated in Staple’s article, or in any magiesterial document, then provide the necessary quotes and make your case. Otherwise, I consider the issue of whether or not Catholics are obligated (as an aspect of de fide) to accept your concept of predestination to be settled.

 

[William_C]

your not providing any real evidence you keep keep saying de fide and have
repeated a line or 2 in scripture over this whole thread

An easy assertion to make, a more difficult one to prove. And I note you are not denying that you must believe in predestination/election to salvation which makes your denial of assurance of salvation all the more strange.

mab23:

OSAS is false, was started recently

OSAS is not false, it is taught in Scripture (cf Jn 6:38-44; Jn 10:27-28; Eph 1:13-14; 1 Pet 1:1-5, etc., etc.).

…and you are following traditions of those men that started it

Indeed I am, and they are the apostles of Jesus Christ, writers of God’s scripture.

mab23:

Proponents of this doctrine are absolutely correct when they state that salvation is a free gift, but they miss the fact that a gift, even if it is initially accepted, can ultimately be scorned, sullied and rejected. Although no one can snatch you from Christ’s hand, you can wriggle yourself free if you so choose.

Scripture nowhere refers to the gift of salvation in the same way you have above. There is no assertion by any of the scripture writers that those God has chosen to save, the elect, whom you are required to believe in de fide, can, or will reject salvation at any time.

If one who accepts Christ rejects Christ at some future time, he either 1) is elect and therefore will repent, or 2) is not elect, but merely professed faith in Christ that wasn’t real.

mab23:

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Son chose to renounce his sonship, leave his home and go his own way. As a consequence of this he became “lost” and “dead” (Luke 15:32). The same spiritual death is open to us if we choose to reject our Father and walk away from our family home

Oh please. If you’re going to refer to this parable to support your case you must use the entire parable, and not just stop at a point where your your presuppositions are supported. You must finish the parable

Finishing the parable, the son repents, returns home, and is welcomed home with open arms by the Father, thus proving what OSAS, or perseverance of the saints teaches: God protects the believer from salvation, and perseveres the believer to the end.

The parable does not support your position, but mine.

mab23:

OSAS is simply denied straight out in scripture by James 2:24

James 2:24 says nothing about OSAS, but states that simply saying “I have faith,” is not sufficient if that “said faith,” has no works to accompany it.

James 2:24 does nothing to support your assertion that OSAS is false.

“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death” - 1 John 5:16-17

You’re throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. What kind of death is being spoken of in that passage, physical? Spiritual? What is this sin that leads to death? You can’t tell me because the verse doesn’t say. Where does that verse say anyone has lost their salvation? It doesn’t.

That doesn’t prove OSAS is false.

mab23:

But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches…For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you…Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” – Romans 11:1-23

A few chapters earlier, Paul told the same people the elect of God were untouchable, and that nothing can separate them from God (Rom 8), and now he’s admonishing them to stop having a bad attitude toward the Jews. The elect belong to God, and He gives them to Christ to raise up on the last day, and Christ says He will do that because He gives His sheep life, and they shall never perish (Jn 6:39; 10:28). Therefore, strong admonitions from Paul, or any apostle, are just that: strong admonitions. Salvation can’t be lost, the elect belong to God (cf Rom 11:1-4).

That verse fails to prove that OSAS is false.

(continued)

 

[William_C]

(continued from post # 157 )

“And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel” – Colossians 1:21-23

In a nutshell, you are taking the inference from the passage, “if we don’t continue in the faith, we shall lose it.” But the truth is, we have not been saved if we do not continue in the faith. That’s the sign of a true believer. Leaving the faith means you never had it, it’s a gift (Eph 2:8ff) also called eternal life, and eternal life is given by Jesus, and Jesus says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “they shall never perish.”

So from the Colossians passage, one’s failure to meet the future condition (continuance in the faith to the end) is due to ones not experiencing the past conclusion (And you…He has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death).

The Colossians passage you cite doesn’t prove OSAS false.

mab23:

“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end” - Hebrews 3:12-14

This passage is the same as the passage from Colossians. If there is no holding on to the confidence of Christ in the future, you are not now sharing in Christ because your profession of faith is a false profession.

Remember: Jesus says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “they shall never perish.”

The verse doesn’t prove salvation can be lost.

mab23:

“If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud’” – 2 Peter 2:20-22

Those referred to in the passage are described at the beginning of the passage as ** FALSE TEACHERS. **

False teachers are, by definition, FALSE, in everything they do regarding God right down to their profession of faith: it’s false. This is proven in v22, in which it is shown what they truly are by that to which they return. False teachers are always dogs, and swine. That’s always manifest in the end.

That verse does nothing to prove OSAS is false

Stop ignoring what the Lord says about those God gives to Him, and about He says about those to whom He gives eternal life.

mab23:

your versus do no reconcile with the rest of scripture

Yes they do.

mab23:

again you are believing what you want in the Gospels…

So are you.

mab23:

and rejecting what you don’t like - you Believe in yourself - not the Gospels

So are you.

 

[William_C]

EricFilmer:

William, I’m giving you the opportunity to revise these kinds of responses.

I’m not revising anything, Eric.
EF:

First of all, they did not actually refute the Bible verses I quoted…

They weren’t meant to, Eric, but were meant to show the disconnect in the thinking of Catholics who oppose OSAS.

… but rather you’re simply trying to say that as a Catholic (and because predestination is taught in Catholicism) I am required to accept your explanations of Scripture.

No so.

I’m saying that you are required to accept the consequences of the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.
EF:

Secondly, there is nothing in my posts which contradicts the Catholic understanding of predestination, so I think it is high time that this subject be clarified in this thread:

The Catholic Teaching on Predestination

Many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, have theological teachings concerning predestination. This does not, however, mean that the nuances of predestination are equally agreed upon. For example, there is a notable difference between Catholicism and Calvinism concerning exactly what predestination entails.

For a good overview of the Catholic teaching on predestination, I invite people to read Tim Staples’ article, Predestined for Freedom. Here are some notable quotes from this article:

For Catholics, when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” (CCC 600). Thus, anyone who is finally saved will have been predestined by God because it was God’s predestined plan and God’s grace that went before him and enabled him to be saved.

God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will is always accomplished. The mistake is to reject free will because of this truth. We have already seen that it is God’s will for all to be saved (2 Pt 3:9, cf. 1 Tm 2:4, 1 Jn 2:1-2). But it is also true that some men will not be saved (cf. Mt 7:13, 25:46; Rv 21:8). This implies the freedom to choose to serve God or not (cf. Dt 28:15, Mt 19:17-22). All of this must be understood within God’s predestined plan. How do we reconcile all of this? We conclude that God’s will has an antecedent and a consequent nature. It is God’s antecedent will that all be saved. However, as a consequence of God’s gift of free will, some reject God’s antecedent will. It then becomes God’s consequent will for that soul to go to hell. God’s will is accomplished and our free will, which is revealed in Scripture, is preserved. It is God’s predestined plan for us to have free will (CCC 600).

Now, if you still feel that I have posted something that contradicts what is stated in Staple’s article, or in any magiesterial document, then provide the necessary quotes and make your case. Otherwise, I consider the issue of whether or not Catholics are obligated (as an aspect of de fide) to accept your concept of predestination to be settled.

In Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost. That’s OSAS.

Therefore, Catholic predestination demands acceptance of OSAS.

 

[Philthy]

Just because Paul uses “US” to describe his audience doesn’t mean everyone in his audience is saved. That’s absurd.

Is saved, William? Where did I or anyone suggest that? Paul clearly believes that they were saved at one point in time - they are among those whom “Christ has set…free”. Unless, of course, you believe that Christ set the non-saved free? Is that what you’re prepared to say?? I don’t think so. You seem desperate to discredit my comments without actually addressing them. Your attempt at a refutation - is, of course, is a projection of your own notion of what being saved is. Paul’s is quite different apparently. You would say that it’s impossible for Paul to know, but Paul seems to use a different standard - perhaps Baptism, for example - as the defining standard as to whether they “were” saved. But ultimately it is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Paul identifies the “us” as being those whom Christ has freed from slavery. In your theology those are all members of the elect, those predestined to salvation and all his comments regarding that “us” is what follows. It doesn’t matter at all whether some of the audience is not saved - what matters is that Paul is directing his comments to those who “for freedom Christ has set…free”, and it is those who Paul is addressing. So please deal with the actual issues and not your attempts at diversion.
And while your at it, would you please tell us exactly what Christ meant by “My sheep” in John 10-28 and what he meant - exactly- by “My sheep hear my voice”. You started this entire discussion with the claim that clearly establishes OSAS. It’s well past time for you to tell us what those parts of that verse mean and to tell whether or not you are fallible in your interpretation of that verse.

blessings