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

[benedictus2]

Let’s start with what you as Catholics are required to believe concerning predestination, de fide.
…
From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, concerning which the Publisher claims:…
It’s important to note that the number of that group is eternally fixed, none can be added to it, and none can be subtracted from it.
…
Both systems of predestination worship a God who is the sovereign creator of all things, including people, and both claim that there is nothing that is impossible for Him to do—He could save everyone, should He desire to do so, but he does not.

He saves some, and the others, by their rebellion, condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

How do you answer, benedictus2, with a god like that, who needs the devil?

First of all thank you for the link. To be quite honest I have not given predestination much thought and had not really read up on it till the issue came up on this thread so had to do a bit of googling (links on the highlighted text below).

But first in answer to

How do you answer, benedictus2, with a god like that, who needs the devil?

My conclusion of a god who creates human beings with the sole purpose of sending them to hell completely follows from all the premises you’ve posted.

But I say the loving God of Scripture is not like the god of your posts. If you recall my earlier question to vichlopet, you said: Yes, god would have sent him to hell had he died prior to “being saved”(i.e. confessing Jesus as Lord and saviour )in 1993 even though he had obeyed Christ’s commandment of love all his life.

And now to the issue of predestination or how we get to the destination. The difference between your and my belief comes down to Free Will.

As I have explained in my earlier post, your position negates Free Will.
If God has determined before hand who will live and who will die an eternal death, then Free Will does not come into play at all, for this presupposes that God has also determined your choices.

For the Catholic however, Free will is part of the whole scheme of things. God allows us to either choose or reject Him. We always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.

Predestination is the infallible foreknowledge of God.

I was trying to make sense of this sentence and this is what I came up with:
We say a man has been “predestined” to damnation, not because God has decided before he was born that He is damning him and so will withhold grace necessary for his salvation (which is your position), but rather that God who sees through all eternity, already knows from conception that he will reject God’s overtures no matter the amount of grace given.

It would be like, were I to see into my future, I would see there my future choices of denial and/or acceptance of God. God already knows all the responses that I will make to his showering of grace and whether my final answer will be a yes or a no.

And that is why the exact number of the elect is known to God – because He is in eternity.

From the Catholic view point, **God does not damn us, we damn ourselves by our choices. **

Which brings us back full circle to the question of faith and works. Our choices are made flesh in our actions, our works.

“Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do on to me.
When I was huingry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink.
Now enter into the home of my Father.

This passage from Matthew gives hope to those who through no fault of their own do not hear the Gospel and so cannot confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Life is always hope filled, because God is the shepherd who leaves the 99, to seek out and woo back to his pasture the one who strayed.

I have often wondered why most evangelicals are fixated on God’s power. Now I understand.

So to reiterate, thanks be to God, my image of Him is not like that.

 

[benedictus2]

Let’s start with what you as Catholics are required to believe concerning predestination, de fide.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, concerning which the Publisher claims:

He saves some, and the others, by their rebellion, condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

How do you answer, benedictus2, with a god like that, who needs the devil?

.

God is not like that! And that is my whole point.

Predestination differences in a nutshell
bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

CALVINISM AND CATHOLICISM CONTRASTED
Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.
Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.
Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.
Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.
Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.
Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.
Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.
Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.
Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.
Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.
Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.
Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

 

[benedictus2]

You’re trying to “run out the clock,” as the thread is now approaching “closing time.”
.

On another matter, How do you know when the thread is about to close?

I am new here so would appreciate if you can tell me.

.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

On another matter, How do you know when the thread is about to close?

I am new here so would appreciate if you can tell me.

.

Threads typically close at 1000 posts. Sometimes earlier if it wanders off topic or becomes uncharitable.

 

[Ronald_E]

God is not like that! And that is my whole point.

Predestination differences in a nutshell
bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

CALVINISM AND CATHOLICISM CONTRASTED
Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.
Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.
Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.
Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.
Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.
Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.
Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.
Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.
Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.
Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.
Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.
Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

Hi Benedictus,
I do not know the teaching on predestination. Just from reading Is6: 9-13, Jn 12:40, Acts 28:26, Rm 11:8-20 it appears the elect are those who have the responsibility of teaching the world about God.
Since God is Love, then it would seem that everything written and passed down through Tradition must be interpreted through God’s Love.
How we speak or write about God either exhibits how we have grown in God’s Love or have not grown.
An example of God’s Love was recently told to me. It is in an earlier post. I was told about an atheistic mean alcoholic who is now in his mid to late 60’s. He died in April of '05. He was pronounce dead for 20 minutes. He has medical records to prove this. While dead he described being surrounded by a beautiful light and heard beautiful singing. He felt joy and love he had never experienced before. From this light appeared John Paul II.
JP II then approached him and gave him a blessing. At that point he states he came back to life. He is totally changed and loves “that Pope”.
He was later told that he died the same day as John Paul II.
What is God trying to tell us? It is not just a nice story.
I would be interested in hearing what Sandusky might have to say about this miracle.

 

[guanophore]

So then, you believe that the wicked servant is one who’s been saved, but later rejects the grace of salvation?

We don’t think of salvation as something that happens once in time, for all time. For us, salvation begins at baptism, continues working itself out during our life on earth, and is completed when we leave this world in God’s friendship.

The parable is about two “servants”. They are in a relationship with the master where they have obligations to him.

While it is true that we are the servants of God, and it is our duty to do all that is commanded for us, it is a very narrow view of “salvation”.

The point of the parable is that both fall short, and are punished. The one that knew what was expected and didn’t do it has the greater punishment.

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

My conclusion of a god who creates human beings with the sole purpose of sending them to hell completely follows from all the premises you’ve posted.

You have the same dilemma in your predestination, but the church denies it. What the church has done is word her form of predestination in terms she considers “more palatable,” specifically with respect to free-will. Free-will, according to the scripture, is not really “free” in the libertarian sense that it’s able to choose the good from the bad; clearly that was destroyed when Adam fell.

God reveals to men that they are born “children of wrath,” and “shut-up under sin” (Eph 2:3; Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22); IOW, the free-will of man prior to regeneration dwells and moves in the sphere of Satan, sin and darkness (cf Col 1:13-14); therefore the will is free only in a “limited” sense—free to sin. Once regenerated, man’s will is free not only to sin, but it’s now free not to sin (Rom 6).

Back to the issue of God creating men for the sole purpose of sending them to hell, it must be remembered that had God created men, let them all live on the earth, and then, redeemed none, but sent them all to hell, He would have been right and just in doing so.

The amazing thing in all of this is that God saves anyone.

benedictus2:

But I say the loving God of Scripture is not like the god of your posts.

That’s an appeal to emotion.

benedictus2:

If you recall my earlier question to vichlopet, you said: Yes, god would have sent him to hell had he died prior to “being saved”(i.e. confessing Jesus as Lord and saviour )in 1993 even though he had obeyed Christ’s commandment of love all his life.

That’s true; in order to be saved, men must believe:**John 3:18

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.**Notice that everyone walking around today who has not confessed Christ is condemned already.

benedictus2:

As I have explained in my earlier post, your position negates Free Will.
If God has determined before hand who will live and who will die an eternal death, then Free Will does not come into play at all, for this presupposes that God has also determined your choices.

My position doesn’t negate free-will, it understands the biblical definition of free-will correctly. Furthermore, God does determine beforehand who will live, and who will die, as Ott’s explanation of Catholic Predestination states.

benedictus2:

For the Catholic however, Free will is part of the whole scheme of things. God allows us to either choose or reject Him.

Actually, your church has it backwards (it always puts man in the position of primacy, IMO, though you’ll deny that). It’s God who chooses who will be in His kingdom, much as you choose who will be in your circle, and who will enter your “kingdom,” or home. You claim the right for yourself to choose who it is that will enter your dwelling place, but you deny God that same right. That’s the point being made in Jn 6:26-65; namely, it’s God who chooses who will believe, and who will enter His Kingdom.

benedictus2:

We always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.

The goal of election is “life.” It’s not by accident that the analogies chosen by the HS depict the natural man as being “dead in sins and trespasses,” and state the remedy for that as being “born again,” or being made a “new creation” (Eph 2:1-10, Col 2:13; Jn 3:3; 1 Pet 1:3, etc.)

If you’ve never been around the dead, you won’t appreciate the Spirit’s illustration.

Dead people can’t do anything, they don’t respond to anything—they’re dead.

benedictus2:

I was trying to make sense of this sentence and this is what I came up with:
We say a man has been “predestined” to damnation, not because God has decided before he was born that He is damning him and so will withhold grace necessary for his salvation (which is your position), but rather that God who sees through all eternity, already knows from conception that he will reject God’s overtures no matter the amount of grace given.

Assumes that God gives “the grace to believe” to everyone (cf Jn 6:26-65), clearly from that passage, He doesn’t give everyone the grace to believe.

benedictus2:

It would be like, were I to see into my future, I would see there my future choices of denial and/or acceptance of God. God already knows all the responses that I will make to his showering of grace and whether my final answer will be a yes or a no.

Postively, that would base God’s choice upon the merits of man’s actions—a position your church rejects.

benedictus2:

And that is why the exact number of the elect is known to God – because He is in eternity.

That’s one possibility.
benedicts2:

From the Catholic view point, God does not damn us, we damn ourselves by our choices.

I agree, men left to themselves, will damn themselves by their rebellion, hatred and rejection of God.

benedictus2:

This passage from Matthew gives hope to those who through no fault of their own do not hear the Gospel and so cannot confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Another unsupported, “warm and fuzzy” assertion.

 

[Ronald_E]

Hi Benedictus,
I do not know the teaching on predestination. Just from reading Is6: 9-13, Jn 12:40, Acts 28:26, Rm 11:8-20 it appears the elect are those who have the responsibility of teaching the world about God.
Since God is Love, then it would seem that everything written and passed down through Tradition must be interpreted through God’s Love.
How we speak or write about God either exhibits how we have grown in God’s Love or have not grown.
An example of God’s Love was recently told to me. It is in an earlier post. I was told about an atheistic mean alcoholic who is now in his mid to late 60’s. He died in April of '05. He was pronounce dead for 20 minutes. He has medical records to prove this. While dead he described being surrounded by a beautiful light and heard beautiful singing. He felt joy and love he had never experienced before. From this light appeared John Paul II.
JP II then approached him and gave him a blessing. At that point he states he came back to life. He is totally changed and loves “that Pope”.
He was later told that he died the same day as John Paul II.
What is God trying to tell us? It is not just a nice story.
I would be interested in hearing what Sandusky might have to say about this miracle.

Sandusky,
I am interested in what you might think of the above.

 

[fbl9]

God reveals to men that they are born “children of wrath,” and “shut-up under sin” (Eph 2:3; Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22); IOW, the free-will of man prior to regeneration dwells and moves in the sphere of Satan, sin and darkness (cf Col 1:13-14); therefore the will is free only in a “limited” sense—free to sin. Once regenerated, man’s will is free not only to sin, but it’s now free not to sin (Rom 6).

Actually, your church has it backwards (it always puts man in the position of primacy, IMO, though you’ll deny that). It’s God who chooses who will be in His kingdom, much as you choose who will be in your circle, and who will enter your “kingdom,” or home. You claim the right for yourself to choose who it is that will enter your dwelling place, but you deny God that same right. That’s the point being made in Jn 6:26-65; namely, it’s God who chooses who will believe, and who will enter His Kingdom.

Dead people can’t do anything, they don’t respond to anything—they’re dead.

.

to the first part so far so good…since you reject what Jesus has said about eating his flesh and drinking His blood you too are condemened by these words…dead people don’t respond,guess you had better read in the gospels about Lazuarus,Jesus called to him,“Lazarus come forth” and the dead dude came forth…i guess the dead can respond…

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It’s not a false distinction, Robert, the distinction is clearly seen by the two different words used: justification and sanctification. (Note the two different words).

Perhaps the better way to say it is that it is false to separate the two; while also refusing to see justification as a process, as opposed to a legal imputation. I’ve already addressed each of these points. We disagree. Read “The Effects of Justification” from the article here

sandusky:

What proof do you offer that justification and sanctification are the same, and what proof do you offer that “justification is a real change in the person?”

I’ve already offered proof that justification is a real change in the person. Here it is again (taken from the same article linked above and here:

sandusky:

Where do we find the teaching that there remains in the believer, “concupiscence” which is not sin?

I’ve already given you the citations. You see the teaching throughout Tradition, formally stated at Trent, and supported by Scripture. See here.

sandusky:

Absolutely false; before the Fall Adam had no knowledge of evil; do you now have no knowledge of evil? If not, then according to what you say, you’re not jusitifed.

What I said was that we are completely sanctified - i.e. all attachment to sin is removed before we enter heaven. (Rev. 21:27) I am not there yet. I will be completely purified in Purgatory, before I enter heaven.

sandusky:

Purgatory only makes sense to those who believe it, and those who believe in purgatory do so because they don’t understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ, IMO.

It makes sense even to those who don’t want to believe it. It doesn’t make sense to you because you are reading the scriptures from a different paradigm - a man-made paradigm.

sandusky:

After the forgiveness of sins, the law of sin remains in the believer (Rom 7:23)—sin, not concupiscence.

Paul was not speaking of actual sin. He was speaking of concupiscence, which sprang from sin and which leads to sin. See here. (Follow the links to read the fully supported Catholic position on Sanctifying Grace, Justification, and Sin.)

sandusky:

How can there be an attachment to sin, if justification is the actual removal of sin, as you assert it is in the preceding post? (In the red type.)

Because there is a scriptural and real distinction between Original sin (what we inherit from Adam and Eve) and personal sin. Personal sin is actually removed with baptism. The ability and attachment to sin remains because of what you would call the “old nature.” Concupiscence remains so that we can endure with God’s grace, unto salvation.

sandusky:

How can you be attached to something that’s been removed???

You are not attached to the personal sins that are removed by baptism (and reconciliation) but your fallen humanity remains - that humanity is what we are all attached to, and striving to overcome by completing the sanctification that Paul speaks of.

sandusky:

How can you be tied to something that’s been removed?

See above. You are not tied to forgiven personal sins. Those are forgiven and there is no condemnation (although there may be temporal punishment to repair the damage caused by those personal acts). What remains is the inherited predisposition to the lower impulses, the state that can lead to sin, but which can be overcome by God’s grace. (See above.)

sandusky:

You’re leaving because you can’t support your position, all you can do is repeat your position—over, and over, and over again.

You’re right in one respect. I’ve continued to repeat my position. But I’ve also supported it. You simply choose to ignore authority and reinterpret select scriptural passages - out of context - to support Calvin’s point of view. But its as wrong today as it was 500 years ago.

…And YOU still refuse to answer my question: How do you personally know that you are going to go to heaven when you die, and that you are not one of the unsaved (and uncalled) who has been fooled into believing s/he is justified?

I think I’ve been more than patient about it. Now, please ANSWER THE QUESTION in your next post to me or I will take your lack of response as a concession that you CANNOT ABSOLUTELY KNOW.

I will not respond to further questions of yours until you answer my question.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[jmcrae]

So then, you believe that the wicked servant is one who’s been saved, but later rejects the grace of salvation?

He’s in the household; he’s not a stranger who’s never heard of the Master before. He “got saved” so to speak when he entered into employment and started living on the premises.

 

[mikeledes]

If you read the parable in Luke 12 carefully, you’ll discover that it is talking about two different servants. A good servant, and a wicked servant, and it’s the wicked servant who is punished.

With respect to the second Peter passage, you’re still missing much of the context. Start with v1, and go to v22, and then explain.

That passage is not talking about two different servants. It is talking about one servant who is put in charge of his master’s slaves and two possible ends:

Luke 12:42

**42And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? **

In verse 42, Jesus identifies the subject of the parable as th *faithful and sensible *steward who is put in charge of His servants. So it clearly establishes that the servant that was placed in charge of his fellow servants started out faithful and sensible. Now Jesus gives to possible scenarios regarding this faithful seervant:

43"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44"Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

If that faithful servant was placed in charge of his fellow slaves perseveres until the coming of his master (finds so doing), he is rewarded.

** 45"But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers**

“That slave” makes it clear that Jesus is referring to the same slave he describes as faithful and sensible in the beginning of the parable. If that slaves turns away from fulfilling His duties and starts abusing those slaves that were put in his care, then he will not have a good end. The fact that verse 46 talks about assigning this slave a place with the unbelievers does not mean he was never a believer. It means that he will suffer the same fate as the unbeliever. What is described here is similar to what we find in Ezekiel 18:24

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

Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

Free-will, according to the scripture, is not really “free” in the libertarian sense that it’s able to choose the good from the bad; clearly that was destroyed when Adam fell.

Would you agree that grace enables us to choose good from bad?

Did Cain have the ability to choose good from bad?

Gen 4:7
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

God reveals to men that they are born “children of wrath,” and “shut-up under sin” (Eph 2:3; Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22); IOW, the free-will of man prior to regeneration dwells and moves in the sphere of Satan, sin and darkness (cf Col 1:13-14); therefore the will is free only in a “limited” sense—free to sin. Once regenerated, man’s will is free not only to sin, but it’s now free not to sin (Rom 6).

I think we agree that it is grace that enables us to choose the good. We just have a difference about how this happens.

it must be remembered that had God created men, let them all live on the earth, and then, redeemed none, but sent them all to hell, He would have been right and just in doing so.

This boggles the mind. I think it does reflect on one’s understanding of the nature of God.

It also reflects on the nature of creation. Everything he made, he declared “good”. It does not make logical sense to condemn what was made “good”.

The amazing thing in all of this is that God saves anyone.

It may seem amazing to you, but from a Catholic point of view, God created mankind so that He could have fellowship with him,now, and for eternity. He is not pleased by the loss of souls.

That’s an appeal to emotion.

Apparently you have been trained to say this, but it really has more to do with logic, and one’s rational understanding of the nature of God.

Actually, your church has it backwards (it always puts man in the position of primacy, IMO, though you’ll deny that).

I am not sure that “primacy” is the best word. It seems clear to me that God has elected to let people choose.

It’s God who chooses who will be in His kingdom, much as you choose who will be in your circle, and who will enter your “kingdom,” or home. You claim the right for yourself to choose who it is that will enter your dwelling place, but you deny God that same right. That’s the point being made in Jn 6:26-65; namely, it’s God who chooses who will believe, and who will enter His Kingdom.

I was thinking about this yesterday when I was listening to the Gospel:

Matt 22:2-14
"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

You will likely say this has nothing to do with salvation, because it is a parable told to the Jews.

But it seems to me that those that were invited refused to come, so others were “compelled” to come in. All but one chose to wear the wedding garment.

Assumes that God gives “the grace to believe” to everyone (cf Jn 6:26-65), clearly from that passage, He doesn’t give everyone the grace to believe.

Perhaps it might be more proper to say that He gives grace sufficient to respond to the invitation. Clearly those invited to the banquet did not believe.

 

[sandusky]

That passage is not talking about two different servants. It is talking about one servant who is put in charge of his master’s slaves and two possible ends:

Luke 12:42

42And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?

In verse 42, Jesus identifies the subject of the parable as th *faithful and sensible *steward who is put in charge of His servants. So it clearly establishes that the servant that was placed in charge of his fellow servants started out faithful and sensible. Now Jesus gives to possible scenarios regarding this faithful seervant:

43"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44"Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

If that faithful servant was placed in charge of his fellow slaves perseveres until the coming of his master (finds so doing), he is rewarded.

** 45"But if that slave **says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers

“That slave” makes it clear that Jesus is referring to the same slave he describes as faithful and sensible in the beginning of the parable. If that slaves turns away from fulfilling His duties and starts abusing those slaves that were put in his care, then he will not have a good end. The fact that verse 46 talks about assigning this slave a place with the unbelievers does not mean he was never a believer. It means that he will suffer the same fate as the unbeliever. What is described here is similar to what we find in Ezekiel 18:24

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

Ezekiel 33:13

**13"When I say to the righteous **he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

God Bless,
Michael

IMO, that’s a quibble.

As I’ve tried in the past to get you to understand, parables generally deal with one point, and that point is generally stated at the end of the parable, and the end of this parable is in vv47 and 48 where the point is made: punishment in hell will vary according to the degree of knowledge of God’s will (hearing the gospel and embracing it, or hearing the gospel and rejecting it), and the willful disobedience to God’s will, and that ignorance of God’s will (never hearing the Gospel) does not excuse one from eternal punishment.

It’s a parable.

 

[sandusky]

to the first part so far so good…since you reject what Jesus has said about eating his flesh and drinking His blood you too are condemened by these words…dead people don’t respond,guess you had better read in the gospels about Lazuarus,Jesus called to him,“Lazarus come forth” and the dead dude came forth…i guess the dead can respond…

Thank you, flb9, for helping make my point.

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ…”

Dead sinners can’t believe without God.

 

[sandusky]

He’s in the household; he’s not a stranger who’s never heard of the Master before. He “got saved” so to speak when he entered into employment and started living on the premises.

It’s a parable, the point of which is made at the end.

It’s didactic teaching, not dogmatic teaching.

 

[sandusky]

…And YOU still refuse to answer my question: How do you personally know that you are going to go to heaven when you die, and that you are not one of the unsaved (and uncalled) who has been fooled into believing s/he is justified?

I think I’ve been more than patient about it. Now, please ANSWER THE QUESTION in your next post to me **or I will take your lack of response as a concession that you CANNOT ABSOLUTELY KNOW.

I will not respond to further questions of yours until you answer my question.**

I never take a dare for the sole purpose of proving someone wrong.

So long, Robert.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s a parable, the point of which is made at the end. -

So, you’re saying Jesus wasted words by providing a beginning and middle for the parable?

Didn’t he have the ability to tell one-sentence stories?

(“But, Officer, I was only going one way!!” “For sale: never worn, babies’ shoes.”)

It’s didactic teaching, not dogmatic teaching.

It’s a parable, which is a picture of the spiritual life, with regard to life after death. The beginning and middle of the story are just as important as the ending; if not, Jesus would not have bothered with them. Again - the servant was a member of the household; he was not an unbeliever.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky,
I am interested in what you might think of the above.

I don’t give those things much attention. The opening of Hebrews 1 makes it clear that no more revelation is forthcoming with the death of the apostles, and the close of the scripture.

 

[sandusky]

So, you’re saying Jesus wasted words by providing a beginning and middle for the parable?

Nope.