I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[cazayoux]

2 Timothy 2:10

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect…You’re not getting it, IMO.

2 Tim 2:10
[10] Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

The word is ‘may’ and not ‘will’.
So … there are elect that might not obtain salvation?

Maybe I need to back up a little and do a level set.
Tell me again who the ‘elect’ are?
Are these the ones that get to go to heaven?
The only ones?
… or are these the only ones that have a ‘chance’ to get to heaven.

I’ve read so many posts now, I’m just not sure what your specific beliefs are.
Sorry for having to ask you to repeat, but it will help me.

Thank you!

michel

 

[cfrancis]

2 Timothy 2:10

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect…You’re not getting it, IMO.

So Paul knows who are the elect, and he endures for them? Or, rather, does he know not all will be saved, even though God, in His love, provided His Son so that all could be saved?
Note the difference between 2 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 2: it’s Paul in the former, God in the latter:

1 Tim 2:1-6:
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires **all men **to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

While God knows, in His ominscience, who will and will not be saved, He desires all to be saved, because He is perfect Love.
We on earth do not know - which is why all of us must never be “arrogant…[and] continue in His kindness; otherwise [we] also will be cut off.” (Rom 11:18, 22)

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

You’re not listening to what I’m saying. What you state here is not necessarily inconsistent with what I am saying UNLESS you artificially define justification as a one-time legal imputation.

Justification is a one-time legal imputation; I’ve used two verses in support, and will offer more.

The Hebrew term zedekah, usually translated in terms of “righteous” or “righteousness,” has two meanings. It is used to describe what is considered “moral righteousness,” or “uprightness,” as it does in describing Joseph as a “righteous man” (Mt 1:19), and Zechariah and Elizabeth as “just” (Lk 1:6). (It is also translated in the Septuagint as “dikaioō,” the term used in the NT as well.)

It also carries a forensic, or legal meaning—that of being right in relationship to the law. That’s generally the case with the verb form.

There is one instance in which the word may mean “to make righteous,” or “to turn to righteous” (Dan 12:3), “those who lead many to righteousness [will shine] like the stars for ever and ever.”

Otherwise, the word is always used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning, not “to make just or righteous,” but “to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.”** Proverbs 17:15

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.**”Justified” here cannot mean “to make righteous,” because a person who made the wicked righteous would not be an abomination to the Lord; therefore, the forensic sense is meant: “pronounces, or declares righteous.” **Deuteronomy 25:1

“If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,**The context is a law court. Obviously, to justify the righteous means to give a legal, forensic declaration regarding one’s standing before the law.

And, that is the sense in which Paul uses the term.

Note that the act of justifying is paralleled with the act of condemning.Romans 4:6-8

6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered.

8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”Look at the parallels: the imputation of righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin are likened to forgiveness of sins, and their “covering.”

Where’s CC teaching in that? No change is wrought in the individual.

See Romans 8:33-34 which also contrasts “to justify” with “to condemn.”
Robert in SD:

I have, you dismiss the passages by falsely concluding the persons were “never saved” in the first place. That is the result of artificially and improperly understanding justification as a legal imputation as opposed to a covenantal relationship.

All you’ve offered is inference, as there is nothing that states that justification can be lost as clearly as Paul states that justification includes perseverance and endurance (Rom 8:30).

It’s all inference, and presupposition. (And, I’ve already stipulated we both have presuppositions.)
Robert in SD:

You have confidence; confidence and great hope. But you cannot be sure, unless you can foretell the future. You have already conceded that point, when you admitted the person who does not endure either was never saved or, if he was saved, will repent and turn back to Christ. You don’t know which you will be, because you do not know the future. But you can hope, with great confidence, that you are one of those who turns back to Christ.

Where else can I go, Robert?

I understand the ultimate dilemma for you, and that’s magisterial teaching against what I say, IMO.
Robert in SD:

Not sure if this was intended to be a slight of Catholicism or an admission that your own statement of absolute assurance is akin to an infallible statement by “pope sandusky?” I’ll assume the latter, in charity.

Everyone has their “fuzzies,” for Catholics, they’re “infallible fuzzies.”
Robert in SD:

In my opinion, your presumption is the height of arrogance. Does this sort of exchange accomplish anything, or would you prefer to ratchet down the hysteria now and support the fundamental objection that I have raised to your belief in an absolute assurance of personal salvation?

I was not at all hysterical when I said what I said, and I’m not hysterical now. I’ve made no bones that we don’t believe the same gospel. I’m writing from that position, and add to that the reason we don’t believe the same Gospel: it’s a different Spirit teaching us, IMO.

 

[Contarini]

Forgive me, I left out some words.

Infants receive the same grace as any other unbeliever—none, (other than common grace) until they are able to believe the gospel. If they die in infancy, then by grace, they’re immediately with the Lord.

I’ve stated that consistently on this thread.

Feel free to go back and check.

Check which posts? I was responding to this particular post. And obviously those three words that you happened to miss out are pretty key to the whole argument. In fact, the entire argument we’ve been having is silly and could have been avoided if you had just remembered to include those three words.

We could, of course, have a different argument. Why does grace only kick in at the moment of death? Another interesting discussion could be over whether your view could also be applied to adults who have never consciously rejected the Gospel. Might they, too, be saved by God’s grace at the moment of death? (It’s highly speculative, but that is the view to which I incline.) You have decided that this happens for infants and only for infants. Why?

But these discussions might be too much of a digression.

I thought it was odd that someone who generally sounded like a Calvinist was suddenly sounding like a Campbellite. But weirder things have happened in the strange and wonderful world of American Protestantism. I was simply trying to respect what you actually said. And for that I got accused of failing to listen!

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

Check which posts? I was responding to this particular post. And obviously those three words that you happened to miss out are pretty key to the whole argument. In fact, the entire argument we’ve been having is silly and could have been avoided if you had just remembered to include those three words.

Sorry, Edwin, however, I don’t have the luxury of an editor checking what I’m writing.

Contarini:

We could, of course, have a different argument. Why does grace only kick in at the moment of death?

For me, it’s a logical position based upon God’s revelation of Himself.

Contarini:

Another interesting discussion could be over whether your view could also be applied to adults who have never consciously rejected the Gospel. Might they, too, be saved by God’s grace at the moment of death? (It’s highly speculative, but that is the view to which I incline.) You have decided that this happens for infants and only for infants. Why?

As far as adults, I don’t see that as being necessary; God is omnipotent, therefore, He is able to ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He intends to save; with respect to infants, to me, it’s obvious why that would happen for infants.

Contarini:

I thought it was odd that someone who generally sounded like a Calvinist was suddenly sounding like a Campbellite. But weirder things have happened in the strange and wonderful world of American Protestantism. I was simply trying to respect what you actually said. And for that I got accused of failing to listen!

Forgive my accusation, Edwin.

 

[Ronald_E]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, I simply believed that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with his blood and I called upon him to save me: just like the Philipian jailer in Acts 16:31. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” He did, and he was. To the saved believer, the thought of someone trying to administer God’s grace through some ritual is the highest form of idolatry there is. Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.

I left Catholicism at 18 and 40 years later Christ opened my eyes to His Love and I did not even ask for it. I then went to non-denominational services that my friends particiapated in. They had their rituals of praise and worship, preaching, healing and altar calls. Something was missing. I went to confession Easter vigil of '05 because I had unfinished business with the Catholic Church. I disrespected her. I held myself above her. I even received Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin when I got married at 28 because it was really nothing but a man’s ritual anyway.
I was led to make it right with the Catholic Church by Jesus because He showed me very clearly that my disposition was of anger and pride rather than humility and love. So I honored Our Lord’s request and I thought I would be done with it. I began my confession with stating how I had disrespected Catholicism and the tears just began pouring out along with the shame I had accumulated over 40 years of feeling superior to Jesus and the Catholic faith.
Now I see that what I thought were empty rituals were not empty rituals. I was empty. The Mass is not a ritual. The Mass is our the mystery of the Kingdom of God here on earth. The Mass is Our Lord’s Life here on earth as it is in Heaven.
I have learned that anything outside of the Mass is worship created by men. Every event in the Mass is created by Jesus. I am no longer empty.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We don’t engage in altar calls; however, we have an area reserved for the deaf, and a signer.

As far as living without grace sufficient to salvation, no one possesses unless God gives it them, and until they believe.

So when does God give his grace to the lost? An infant unable to speak for itself, does not recieve God’s Grace according to your belief? Grace then has to be earned by someone who can accept it by a confession? If your church does not engage in altar calls, then how did you recieve God’s Grace?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Justification is a one-time legal imputation; I’ve used two verses in support, and will offer more.

Your argument is the common Calvinist presentation of the mere covering up of sin. How sad that you believe yourself to have no greater aspiration than a dunghill covered in snow, rather than confident hope you will become the completely sanctified creation that God wills. The Catholic Church (consistent with both Scripture and Tradition) teaches active justification as a process, and much more than merely a legal imputation.

In active justification an actual and real forgiveness of sins takes place so that the sin is really removed from the soul, not only original sin by baptism but also mortal sin by the sacrament of penance (See e.g. Trent, Sess. V, can. v; Sess. VI, cap. xiv; Sess. XIV, cap. ii).

The Catholic view is entirely conssistent with the teaching of Scripture. The biblical expressions: “blotting out” as applied to sin (Psalm 1:3; Isaiah 43:25; 44:22; Acts 3:19), “exhausting” (Hebrews 9:28), “taking away” [2 Samuel 12:13; 1 Chronicles 21:8; Mich., vii, 18; Ps. x (Heb.), 15; cii, 12], cannot be reconciled with the idea of a mere covering up of sin - i.e. legal imputation - which is supposed to continue its existence in a covert manner.

Similar biblical expressions are just as irreconcilable with your idea, for instance, the expression of “cleansing” and “washing away” the mire of sin (Psalm 1:4, 9; Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 36:25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 1:5), that of coming “from death to life” (Col. ii., 13; 1 John 3:14); the removal from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:9). These latter expressions are significant, because they characterize justification as a *movement *from one thing to another which is directly contrary or opposed to the thing from which the movement is made. The opposites, black and white, night and day, darkness and light, life and death, have this peculiarity, that the presence of one means the extinction of its opposite.

Therefore, it is clear that in the one who is justified, though concupiscence remain, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:50); and why, according to James (i, 14 sqq.), concupiscence as such is really no sin; and it is apparent that St. Paul (Romans 7:17) is speaking only figuratively when he calls concupiscence sin, because it springs from sin and brings sin in its train.

Biblical the expressions such as “covering up” and “not imputing” sin occur, as for instance in Ps. 31. But they must be interpreted and understood in accordance with the Divine perfections, for it is repugnant that God should declare any one free from sin to whom sin is still actually cleaving. It is one of God’s attributes always to substantiate His declarations; if He covers sin and does not impute it, this can only be effected by an utter extinction or blotting out of the sin. Tradition also has always taught this view of the forgiveness of sins. (See Denifle, “Die abendländischen Schriftausleger bis Luther uber justitia Dei and justificatio”, Mainz, 1905) (See New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Grace, here)

sandusky:

Where’s CC teaching in that? No change is wrought in the individual.

(See above.)

sandusky:

All you’ve offered is inference, as there is nothing that states that justification can be lost as clearly as Paul states that justification includes perseverance and endurance (Rom 8:30).

It’s more than a mere inference that I have shown you. You simply do not wish to concede the point. **And **you have dodged my original question yet again:
Robert in SD:

How do you know you are one of the justified, as opposed to being one who just thinks they are justified? You have not answered that question. And you have already conceded that one who does not endure could be either a “saved” person who the HS will cause to return or a “never saved” person who will never repent of all of his sins. How is it that we can know with absolute assurance that we are the former and not the latter, if one can repent and turn to Jesus even on the death bed? You have not (can not?) answer that by simply quoting Romans 8:30. The passage does not support your conclusion.

And Romans 8:30 STILL does not support your conclusion, no matter how many times you point to it.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Ronald_E]

I hope somebody reads this. I was told a something last week that I believe exhibits the Love of God that goes beyond all understanding.
A 30-something woman related to me a miracle that her parents related to her about a week ago.
Her parents went on a vacation about a month ago with another couple they had not seen for a number of years. The husband of this couple who is probably in his 60’s was a longtime angry alcoholic and atheist.
He is no longer a practicing alcoholic and now believes God is real. He also has changed completely according to what I was told.
He died in April of '05. He was pronounced dead for 20 minutes. He told this woman’s parents that during his death he was surrounded by a beautiful light and heard singing that he could not describe. He felt joy and love he had never experienced before.
From the light he saw John Paul II appear and come to him. JP II then made the sign of the Cross and blessed him. At that point he stated he awakened from his death. He discovered later that he had died the same day that JP II had died.
Now he says all the time, “I love that Pope.” I was told he has medical records to support his death.
He is not a member of any faith at this time. I was told that he has also received the gift of healing. She told me he is a shy man and is not sure what to do at this time.
There may be more info to come.

 

[cfrancis]

I hope somebody reads this. I was told a something last week that I believe exhibits the Love of God that goes beyond all understanding.
A 30-something woman related to me a miracle that her parents related to her about a week ago.
Her parents went on a vacation about a month ago with another couple they had not seen for a number of years. The husband of this couple who is probably in his 60’s was a longtime angry alcoholic and atheist.
He is no longer a practicing alcoholic and now believes God is real. He also has changed completely according to what I was told.
He died in April of '05. He was pronounced dead for 20 minutes. He told this woman’s parents that during his death he was surrounded by a beautiful light and heard singing that he could not describe. He felt joy and love he had never experienced before.
From the light he saw John Paul II appear and come to him. JP II then made the sign of the Cross and blessed him. At that point he stated he awakened from his death. He discovered later that he had died the same day that JP II had died.
Now he says all the time, “I love that Pope.” I was told he has medical records to support his death.
He is not a member of any faith at this time. I was told that he has also received the gift of healing. She told me he is a shy man and is not sure what to do at this time.
There may be more info to come.

Beautiful story! Thank you for sharing that with us!

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

So Paul knows who are the elect, and he endures for them?

Or, rather, does he know not all will be saved, even though God, in His love, provided His Son so that all could be saved?

Note the difference between 2 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 2: it’s Paul in the former, God in the latter:

He doesn’t know who they are, but he knows that they’ll be saved.

cfrancis:

While God knows, in His ominscience, who will and will not be saved, He desires all to be saved, because He is perfect Love.

We on earth do not know - which is why all of us must never be “arrogant…[and] continue in His kindness; otherwise [we] also will be cut off.” (Rom 11:18, 22)

Biblical hope, which is confident hope, is not arrogant.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

But “confident hope” is not the same thing as an absolute assurance of personal salvation either.

If one correctly understands the Gospel, one can have that absolute assurance—that’s the loud and clear testimony of scripture
Robert in SD:

Far from saying (or even implying) that “citizenship in heaven means an absolute assurance of salvation,” Paul is speaking of his salvation in the future tense, and exhorting his fellow christians to endure and have hope in the Savior. He is not saying they can presently be absolutely assured that they are going to inherit the prize. He is saying that they can hope to attain salvation in Christ by their steadfast faith and by following Paul’s example.

In time, salvation occurs in the past, in the present, and finishes in the future, as stated in Rom 8:30; Paul confidently articulates that, and just as confidently he adheres to that.

 

[sandusky]

cazayoux:

2 Tim 2:10

[10] Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

The word is ‘may’ and not ‘will’.

So … there are elect that might not obtain salvation?

That verse is in the “subjunctive mood,” or what grammarians call the “mood of probability.”

In the Greek that mood performs various functions depending on its tense, voice, etc.

This particular verse is often used to illustrate the “final subjective,” because it employs the “hina clause,” (SO THAT), to indicate the purpose of an action. All that to say, it’s not possible for the elect not to obtain salvation.

cazayoux:

Maybe I need to back up a little and do a level set.
Tell me again who the ‘elect’ are?
Are these the ones that get to go to heaven?
The only ones?

The elect are identified as those chosen in Christ by the Father “before the foundation of the world,” and further, those “foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified” by the Father in eternity (Eph 1:3ff; Rom 8:29ff), and yes, I find the scripture to state that the elect are the only ones who will be saved.

cazayoux:

… or are these the only ones that have a ‘chance’ to get to heaven.

God does not operate on the basis of a “roll of the dice,” but He is purposeful in what He does; therefore, nothing is by fate, or by chance, which are purposeless.

 

[cfrancis]

If one correctly understands the Gospel, one can have that absolute assurance—that’s the loud and clear testimony of scripture

Interesting, as I say if one correctly understands the Gospel, one cannot have absolute assurance, such is the loud and clear testimony of scripture.

In time, salvation occurs in the past, in the present, and finishes in the future, as stated in Rom 8:30; Paul confidently articulates that, and just as confidently he adheres to that.

This is a very Catholic statement! Yes, I was saved at Baptism; I am in the process of being saved; and I hope I will be saved, as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling!

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

Interesting, as I say if one correctly understands the Gospel, one cannot have absolute assurance, such is the loud and clear testimony of scripture.

Of course you do, however, as per your church, no one but her can correctly interpret the scripture; therefore, IMO, your taking her word for it, and her words contradicts the teaching of the Lord, the apostles, etc. (1 Jn 5:10-15 etc.)

cfrancis:

This is a very Catholic statement! Yes, I was saved at Baptism; I am in the process of being saved; and I hope I will be saved, as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling!

Everything’s a Catholic statement, by her reckoning no one can be saved outside of her, and yet, at the same time, anyone can be saved outside of her.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I like the one where the blind man wants to be healed and Christ mixes mud and spittle in His hands and rubs it on the mans eyes with the instructions to go and wash it off.
He did not have to do that, He could have just healed him with a thought, even without ever meeting the man, but He let the man come to Him and He chose to use matter, mud and spittle, and a little ritual, washing oneself.
He knows us very well I suppose and we, as material, as well as spiritual creatures need to know and sense something has happened.
Baptism with water, eat the bread of life, laying on of hands, etc. are all the material methods and rituals He chose as real conduits of grace, and not man made rituals.

Yes, the bible is full of rituals that God uses to effect his ends, as the examples given above. For the blind man, what if he had not gone to the pool of Siloam to wash the mud off? His sight would not have been restored. Or if he had simply gone home and used his basin at home? Or rubbed the mud off? No, he had to do as Jesus told him to do.

At Passover, God told the Israelites to slay a lamb, eat it, and put its blood over their door, so the angel of death would pass over. Why did God require this ritual, when He could simply have told the angel which houses to pass over?

When the Israelites were being bitten by the fiery serpents, getting ill and dying, what did God tell them to do? There was a ritual he had them perform. Make a bronze serpent, look upon it, and be healed. Thinking about it symbolically would not have healed them.

In 2Kings, when General Naaman was told by Elisha to wash seven times in the Jordan, it was only when he performed the ritural did the general become cured of his leprosy. His skin became like a child’s. (This is a type for baptism, where we are washed and become as pure as a child. That is why Peter can say baptism now saves you.)

It is evident that God uses physical activities, rituals if you will, to effect his ends. We are creatures made of matter, and God uses material activities for us to do in order for the spiritual ends to be achieved. After all, God Himself became incarnate, became flesh, in order to save us.

 

[cfrancis]

Of course you do, however, as per your church, no one but her can correctly interpret the scripture; therefore, IMO, your taking her word for it, and her words contradicts the teaching of the Lord, the apostles, etc. (1 Jn 5:10-15 etc.)

Again, what a coincidence, as I would say you are taking your word for your interpretation, and your word contradicts the teaching of the Lord, the apostles, etc (Mt 24:13, Mk 13:13, Rom 2:7, Rom 11:22, 1 Jn 5:16-17. etc…).

 

[Soutane]

I believe that those who object to the sacrements and their physicality and efficacy do not truly comprehend the Incarnation.God could have made us pure spirit but he did not-he made us physical as well as spiritual and he placed us in a physical world.There is nothing wrong with the concrete nor utilizing same in the worship of our Lord or in the exercise of his sacrements.Jesus Christ Himself became flesh-concrete physicality.Did He have to?Absolutely not!He chose to!This protestant abhorance of the physical is truly mystifying.Our Lord gave us a sensual Church.

 

[Ronald_E]

I believe that those who object to the sacrements and their physicality and efficacy do not truly comprehend the Incarnation.God could have made us pure spirit but he did not-he made us physical as well as spiritual and he placed us in a physical world.There is nothing wrong with the concrete nor utilizing same in the worship of our Lord or in the exercise of his sacrements.Jesus Christ Himself became flesh-concrete physicality.Did He have to?Absolutely not!He chose to!This protestant abhorance of the physical is truly mystifying.Our Lord gave us a sensual Church.

In order to have a Protestant interpretation you must interpret through the physical senses. The worship is also done in such a way as to promote the excitation of the senses. There is a difference between spiritual sensuality and physical sensuality. Spiritual sensuality is something that occurs inwardly and without anyone stimulating us through some contrived method. The Mass is the result of an internal passionate relationship with God. The Mass does not intend to arouse the senses. Rather, it fulfills the passion of my internal relationship with God.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If one correctly understands the Gospel, one can have that absolute assurance—that’s the loud and clear testimony of scripture.]

No. That’s the loud and clear testimony of the reformers. Calvinists read Calvin into the scriptures, because to do otherwise is to admit they are wrong about the matter. The Gospel does not give one absolute assurance as Calvin taught it. Calvin misreads the Scriptures, as do you, because you both have a flawed understanding of predestination.

sandusky:

In time, salvation occurs in the past, in the present, and finishes in the future, as stated in Rom 8:30; Paul confidently articulates that, and just as confidently he adheres to that.

I believe Paul, but I do not believe the Calvinist misinterpretation of Paul. Paul is adhering to the Catholic teaching on the process of justification.

Peace,
-Robert