Lack of security in salvation

[JustaServant]

There is the lack of trust in yourself, however.

Eternal security becomes more about ME than about GOD. The security becomes the most important factor. Not focusing on God, but my comfort. That’s why it is a sales pitch very hard for those duped to let go of.

 

[SteveGC]

Eternal security becomes more about ME than about GOD. The security becomes the most important factor. Not focusing on God, but my comfort. That’s why it is a sales pitch very hard for those duped to let go of.

Indeed…

And here’s the paradox…atleast in my personal experience

The need to espouse and publicly proclaim eternal security stems not just from a pious acknowledgement to, and glorification of, God’s sovereign power and love…and not just from a misinterpretation of various scripture verses…but also from an intrinsic fear and doubt within the mind of a OSAS believer of their eternal destiny.

I truly believe that deep down under the surface, whether they are conscious of it or not, the OSAS’er embraces this absolute assurance idea because, in the absence of any real awareness of how and where to receive grace and fully understand eternal security, the remaining option is to simply proclaim God has already saved them, as though this proclamation pleases God sufficiently for Him to do as they proclaim He does.

Whereas the Catholic possesses a calm, moral assuredness…never in doubt about God’s promises, always aware of their state in life, and of how to reconcile themselves to God, all the while maintaining and defending the truth that we cannot proclaim we are eternally saved while still alive.

So, in my experience only, it is paradoxically the Catholic who possesses the most assurance of their salvation, and the non-Catholic who lives in constant, albeit unconscious, fear.

 

[mdcpensive1]

To add to the question of security in salvation, I would say we have the security in knowing the promises of Christ. That is assurance enough for those who have faith.

There is the lack of trust in yourself, however. How do you know that in 10 years you will want to follow God’s will? You hae to rely on God’s grace, so it becomes a circular thing like predestination/free will. God’s grace keeps you wanting to choose of your own free will to accept Christ and be saved. So the real activity is outside of yourself - God’s Grace.

This is why we needed Christ to bridge that gap and give the Grace to rise to the supernatural status so that the good we do is of a supernatural nature. We cannot do charity that is the love of God without His Grace working in us.

God’s grace allows you to do good works that are of a supernatural nature and are acceptable in God’s sight. It’s the grace of God working in us.
Everything you do is tainted to some degree, though, don’t you think. Is it possable in this life to be truely selfless?

Hello Grandpa, good to hear from you. I just wanted to say that we do have a lack of trust in ourselves as St. Paul had and this is a healthy mistrust in ourselves. It shows that we have a fallen nature and cannnot rely on ourselves to do the right thing and understand the right thing and so we must “put on Christ” to reflect Him in our actions.

When we do His work through the Graces He gave us that were merited on the Cross, we are doing something that is not tainted but of a holy nature. This is because they are not of the flesh but of the spirit.

mdcpensive1

 

[crazzeto]

Therefore, you believe in the sovereignity of man in salvation, correct?

I believe in the sovereingty of may to accept or reject salvation. This is the free will aspect of salvation. It boils down to, yes most of us are sinners (a few are able to over come this through extreme commitment to the Lord, in addtion to Graces). But we know we must do in order to be saved. We know we must surrender our selves to Christ, we know we must be repentant.

We have absolute assurance however, that God will uphold his end of the bargin.

 

[ryanoneil]

Do you really believe that man is sovereign at the same time that God is sovereign? If, so please how you are able to reconcile this belief in your own words. Thereafter, could you post Scripture to support that conclusion?

I don’t know what you mean by man is sovereign.

St. Thomas teaches that God, who is the Prime Mover, grants man grace which moves man’s will toward the good. It is all God at this point. God makes the first move. Thomas calls this “operating grace.” At this point, man can resist or not resist the grace. If man does not resist the grace, it is the grace that is allowing his nonresistance and cooperation. Then, by using his freewill, man can actually move toward the good, and the grace strengthens and supports his will toward that end. This grace is called “cooperating grace.” Both operating and cooperating grace are the same grace, but they produce two effects. The first is to move the will (by virtue of the grace alone); the second is to will the movement of the will (by virtue of the same grace along with human freewill). This is why Paul says, “for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). God’s grace first moves the will to the good, and then leads the person to work the good.

In1Tim 2:4, Paul reveals that God desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” However, man can resist this grace. When man habitually resists God’s grace so that He places himself in opposition to God, God withdraws His grace and allows the person to fall away. Thus, God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned as a punishment for their rejection of grace, as His justice exacts. Thus, salvation and damnation come from the same immutable will of God, who wills to save all men, but who also wills to punish evil.

**how long will you turn away at my reproof? Lo! I will pour out to you my spirit, I will acquaint you with my words. "Because I called and you refused, I extended my hand and no one took notice; Because you disdained all my counsel, and my reproof you ignored-- I, in my turn, will laugh at your doom; I will mock when terror overtakes you; When terror comes upon you like a storm, and your doom approaches like a whirlwind; when distress and anguish befall you. (Prov 1:23-27)

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! (Mt 23:37)**

Maybe we should look at this from another angle? How sufficient is the grace of God to accomplish what God intended? If grace is only a help to save those who utilize the grace of God, then man’s will is stronger than God’s grace in those who will be eternally lost. In those cases… those who do not cooperate with the grace of God and are lost, in that group… man’s will is greater than God’s grace. In the reprobates, man is sovereign over God.

God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved. This is true because God antecedently wills all to be saved, and He doesn’t command the impossible, meaning that all have the possibility of salvation. If the man is a member of God’s elect, then God also gives that man efficacious grace, which means he predestinates that man to heaven with the grace of final perseverance. In either case, the man is free to accept or reject the grace. But in the case of the elect, God wills the man to infallibly accept the efficacious grace (which is why it is efficacious), without taking away his freewill. That is how powerful God is. How God predestinates some through efficacious grace while giving sufficient grace to all is one of the greatest mysteries of our faith.

St. Thomas makes a distinction between grace that is intrinsically efficacious to achieve its end and grace that is not. With sufficient grace, God gives man the power to act but man resists. With efficacious grace, God actually moves man to act, even though man remains free to resist but does not. With the former, the power to act is in potency and is never actualized. With the latter, the power to resist is in potency and is never actualized. In both cases, man is free. Hence, it is the type of grace that God gives - sufficient or efficacious - that determines man.

Said another way, with sufficient grace man is able to cooperate with the grace to save his soul, but freely chooses not to, and God permits him to fall away. With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good. In both cases, man is completely free, but in the former, the resistance (which is an evil) comes from man, while in the latter, the non-resistance (which is a good) comes from God.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There’s a difference between being saved and a conversion experience.

To have taken the first step in a race is NOT to have completed the race successfully, to use a metaphor St. Paul used.

Pop-evangelicals confuse the two.

Our security is in Christ, Who is eternal.

Too many people are putting their security in their own act of faith.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I don’t know what you mean by man is sovereign.

St. Thomas teaches that God, who is the Prime Mover, grants man grace which moves man’s will toward the good. It is all God at this point. God makes the first move. Thomas calls this “operating grace.” At this point, man can resist or not resist the grace. If man does not resist the grace, it is the grace that is allowing his nonresistance and cooperation. Then, by using his freewill, man can actually move toward the good, and the grace strengthens and supports his will toward that end. This grace is called “cooperating grace.” Both operating and cooperating grace are the same grace, but they produce two effects. The first is to move the will (by virtue of the grace alone); the second is to will the movement of the will (by virtue of the same grace along with human freewill). This is why Paul says, “for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). God’s grace first moves the will to the good, and then leads the person to work the good.

In1Tim 2:4, Paul reveals that God desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” However, man can resist this grace. When man habitually resists God’s grace so that He places himself in opposition to God, God withdraws His grace and allows the person to fall away. Thus, God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned as a punishment for their rejection of grace, as His justice exacts. Thus, salvation and damnation come from the same immutable will of God, who wills to save all men, but who also wills to punish evil.

**how long will you turn away at my reproof? Lo! I will pour out to you my spirit, I will acquaint you with my words. "Because I called and you refused, I extended my hand and no one took notice; Because you disdained all my counsel, and my reproof you ignored-- I, in my turn, will laugh at your doom; I will mock when terror overtakes you; When terror comes upon you like a storm, and your doom approaches like a whirlwind; when distress and anguish befall you. (Prov 1:23-27)

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! (Mt 23:37)**…

We discussed predestination on a closed TULI P thread. When you consider a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination, it sure seems to parallel Reformed Thelogy in comparision to Catholic Theology. Therefore, it appears a Thomist’s view limits salvation to the elect of God; those who were predestined.

Predestination and the Catholic Church

by Adam C. Kolasinski

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.

Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.

1. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.

1. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.

1. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.

1. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.

For more on the Catholic Church and Predestination, this essay by Ludwig Ott has more:

 

[paul_c]

We discussed predestination on a closed TULI P thread. When you consider a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination, it sure seems to parallel Reformed Thelogy in comparision to Catholic Theology. Therefore, it appears a Thomist’s view limits salvation to the elect of God; those who were predestined.

In Catholic theology, two things are always true: God’s plan will always come to fruition and Man always has the free will to choose between heaven and hell. There are various explanations about how these two concepts fit together, the most famous being the Thomas view and the Molina view. some are predestined for heaven in this theology but none are predestined to hell, which is a major difference from Reformed theology.

 

[Thing]

We discussed predestination on a closed TULI P thread. When you consider a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination, it sure seems to parallel Reformed Thelogy in comparision to Catholic Theology. Therefore, it appears a Thomist’s view limits salvation to the elect of God; those who were predestined.

I thought St. Thomas was a Catholic.
In what was said [above] not everyone who is waiting for heaven is of the elect in Catholicism, whereas in your view everyone ‘saved’ is elect and predestined. But thats ‘prolly because you get permanently ‘saved’ at some point in your past, whereas in St. Thomas’ view most people, the non predestined-elect are always working out their salvation in fear and trembling and are always free to choose to remain or abide in Christ, who saves them and has saved them and will save them - i.e. in a continuous mode.
Even I understand it.

 

[ryanoneil]

We discussed predestination on a closed TULI P thread. When you consider a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination, it sure seems to parallel Reformed Thelogy in comparision to Catholic Theology. Therefore, it appears a Thomist’s view limits salvation to the elect of God; those who were predestined.

I don’t know what they all are, but there are differences. We believe that predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose). Calvin confused the definition of “predestination” (which means God knows what we will do before we do it) and “predetermination” (the erroneous belief that God determines what we will do). God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill. Savation can be lost by those who are predestined to grace, but not to glory.

 

[2nd_Adam]

In Catholic theology, two things are always true: God’s plan will always come to fruition and Man always has the free will to choose between heaven and hell. There are various explanations about how these two concepts fit together, the most famous being the Thomas view and the Molina view. some are predestined for heaven in this theology but none are predestined to hell, which is a major difference from Reformed theology.

I think this is where Catholics mispresent Calvinists by confusing hyper-Calvinists with Calvinists. Reformed theology teaches a double predestination which is acceptable for Thomists Catholics, that God passes over retrobates, leaving unbelievers to freely choose the course that they desire. God is passive in this view. Therefore, I believe Calvinists and Thomists believe in a postive negative schema of double predestination.

Hyper-Calvinists believe in a positive positive schema or a form of double predestination which is not true. They believe that God actively causes the retrobate to do evil. When God hardens Pharoah’s heart, how do you understand this action, through a passive or an active act of God?

 

[Thing]

:coffeeread:

When God hardens Pharoah’s heart, how do you understand this action, through a passive or an active act of God?

Did Pharoah go to hell? Did we get the memo on that?

 

[crazzeto]

:coffeeread:

Did Pharoah go to hell? Did we get the memo on that?

He might have, but if he did it would have been because

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=2&ch=8&l=15&f=s#x

13 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses: and the frogs died out of the houses, and out of the villages, and out of the fields: 14 And they gathered them together into immense heaps, and the land was corrupted. 15 And Pharao seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded.

Not because previously the Lord had hardened his heart.

Edit
Of course it’s commonly beleived that those ingnorant of Christ may well have been saved. I’m not sure what kind, if any, Judgment was applied to souls who died physical death prior to Christ. Pharo might well have been accepted into heaven anyway.

My point for posting this is to bring us back to free will, which is clearly illistrated. Here we see Pharo hardening his own heart against the Lord’s command.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
In Catholic theology, two things are always true: God’s plan will always come to fruition and Man always has the free will to choose between heaven and hell. There are various explanations about how these two concepts fit together, the most famous being the Thomas view and the Molina view. some are predestined for heaven in this theology but none are predestined to hell, which is a major difference from Reformed theology.

No double predestination is acceptable to Catholics. Every man has the possibility of going to heaven and no one is predestined to Hell…

 

[2nd_Adam]

No double predestination is acceptable to Catholics. Every man has the possibility of going to heaven and no one is predestined to Hell…

I believe a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination is very similar to Calvinism in predestinaiton. God passes over the retrobate in His necessary grace to be saved in both group’s view. There is no escaping that conclusion.

 

[paul_c]

I believe a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination is very similar to Calvinism in predestinaiton. God passes over the retrobate in His necessary grace to be saved in both group’s view. There is no escaping that conclusion.

No, you are absolutely wrong in this. Thomas Aquinas held the catholic view that predestinationism is a heresy, described by the Catholic encyclopedia thusly:
Predestinarianism is a **heresy **not unfrequently met with in the course of the centuries which reduces the eternal salvation of the elect as well as the eternal damnation of the reprobate to one cause alone, namely to the sovereign will of God, and thereby excludes the free co-operation of man as a secondary factor in bringing about a happy or unhappy future in the life to come.

 

[ryanoneil]

I believe a Catholic Thomist’s view of predestination is very similar to Calvinism in predestinaiton. God passes over the retrobate in His necessary grace to be saved in both group’s view. There is no escaping that conclusion.

From the Thomist view: God gives sufficient grace to all men, but efficacious grace only to His elect (that is, the efficacious grace of final perseverance).

the mystery is that with sufficient grace, man is able to cooperate with the grace to save his soul, but freely chooses not to, and God permits him to fall away. With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

So there is a passing over, but I don’t know how close this is to Calvinism.

 

[crazzeto]

Calvinism, if I’m not much mistaken, accepts double predestination. Some are predestined to heaven, some to hell. This is condemed by the Church and Aquainas, no one is predestined to hell. Salvation is a possiblity for all.

 

[2nd_Adam]

From the Thomist view: God gives sufficient grace to all men, but efficacious grace only to His elect (that is, the efficacious grace of final perseverance).

the mystery is that with sufficient grace, man is able to cooperate with the grace to save his soul, but freely chooses not to, and God permits him to fall away. With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

So there is a passing over, but I don’t know how close this is to Calvinism.

In all honesty, I have no idea how it could be different. We are describing the same thing with different words. Our differences could very well be semantics at this point.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Calvinism, if I’m not much mistaken, accepts double predestination. Some are predestined to heaven, some to hell. This is condemed by the Church and Aquainas, no one is predestined to hell. Salvation is a possiblity for all.

There is a passing over for both Thomist view and Calvinism. If God gives a particular type of grace for one man over the other, than there is definitely a distinction being made.