Lack of security in salvation

[Thing]

Our pride is related to being autonomous from God. See Romans 1.

Satans’ sin was pride. ’ I will not serve.’

Every creature is given autonomy within its own sphere of life, whether its the independance of an animal acting independantly within the limits of its instincts or humans acting with freewill.
Not every independant gesture you make nor every independant move you make is a deadly sin. But it was the pride of the Devil which destroyed him, given the choice he wished for himself superiority over God.

 

[James_N]

That’s similar to Protestantism too. We tend to be either Arminians or Calvinists on these issues. Double-predestination is simply carrying out the issues to an honest conclusion.

Except that official Catholicism and most Calvinists reject double-predestination as heresy. God ordains both sides, but God actively draws some. His passing over others is not a willing them to sin but allowing them to sin.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Except that official Catholicism and most Calvinists reject double-predestination as heresy. God ordains both sides, but God actively draws some. His passing over others is not a willing them to sin but allowing them to sin.

I noticed that you are Reformed. Hyper-Calvinists believe in a positive positive schema of double predestination which is heretical. Reformed Christians believe in a positive- negative schema of double predestination which God passes over the reprobate. Here’s an article from Sproul for you to consider as a Calvinist. I used to attend a PCA Church next to Westminster West consisting of seminary professors, and Westminster graduates and students. and they all believe in double predestination just like Sproul.

the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Double Predestination
R. C. Sproul

“A horrible decree …” “Most ruthless statement. . . .” “A terrible theological theory. . . .” “An illegitimate inference of logic. . .” These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

The “Double” of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the “double” aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.

 The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination....

click link to finish the article

the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

 

[Dancelittleewok]

No, my question wasn’t in with the Cross but personal judgment. As believers, people commit personal sin…does God take credit for that sin if we have no free will?

Follow up, re-reading your posts—since you believe autonomy is an affront to God, is God in fact an author to sin?

 

[paul_c]

I noticed that you are Reformed. Hyper-Calvinists believe in a positive positive schema of double predestination which is heretical. Reformed Christians believe in a positive- negative schema of double predestination which God passes over the reprobate. Here’s an article from Sproul for you to consider as a Calvinist. I used to attend a PCA Church next to Westminster West consisting of seminary professors, and Westminster graduates and students. and they all believe in double predestination just like Sproul.

the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Double Predestination
R. C. Sproul

“A horrible decree …” “Most ruthless statement. . . .” “A terrible theological theory. . . .” “An illegitimate inference of logic. . .” These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

The “Double” of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the “double” aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.

 The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination....

click link to finish the article

the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Jesus calls all men to himself and God wishes no man to be condemned. The unfortunate fact is, not all men respond positively to the invitation. Do not blame this on God. Just because God has perfect foreknowledge of our actions, does not mean that we don’t take those actions on our own.

 

[ryanoneil]

Predestination and the Catholic Church

by Adam C. Kolasinski

Thomist still accept # 4. God not giving everyone the gift of final perseverance does not = God actively damning those to hell (double predestination).

So which one to do believe and not believe?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Thomist still accept # 4. God not giving everyone the gift of final perseverance does not = God actively damning those to hell (double predestination).

So which one to do believe and not believe?

I agree, for that view would be a postive postive schema of double predestination which would be nicknamed hyper-calvinism which is not true.

This is the way I see it:

Thomist rejects # 4 for the non-elect. God not does not give everyone the gift of final perseverance = God passively passing over the retrobate (biblical double predestination).

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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: Catholic Predestination

catholicsource.net/Predestination.html

If you have a Catholic Thomist view of predestination, then you believe very similar to me.

 

[Philthy]

God’s Everlasting Love

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? - Apostle Paul

I think you guys need to answer the Apostle’s questions above. And your answers are?

My short answer to the question of “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” is that some of us, on our own, will choose to separate from the love of Christ. This separation is known as the state of mortal sin - or being spiritually dead - during our earthly life and it is known as Hell in eternity. In each case we choose self over God and neighbor. It is not a question of whether God’s love for us will ever end - God is love and he loves all of his creation, but that reality does not mean that no one is going to Hell. They are entirely separate issues.

 

[Philthy]

God is outside of time. He knows beforehand who will be in Heaven and who will not be, prior to the creation of the world.

Not to be argumentative, but is this a biblical claim or a theological one? I dont remember this being clearly articulated in Scripture. I know for sure that it is - for us - at best useless to ponder and at worst destructive. **Anyhow what is the Scriptural basis for this claim?
**

 

[2nd_Adam]

My short answer to the question of “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” is that some of us, on our own, will choose to separate from the love of Christ. This separation is known as the state of mortal sin - or being spiritually dead - during our earthly life and it is known as Hell in eternity. In each case we choose self over God and neighbor. It is not a question of whether God’s love for us will ever end - God is love and he loves all of his creation, but that reality does not mean that no one is going to Hell. They are entirely separate issues.

Would it be fair to say that man is sovereign over God in salvation in your view?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Not to be argumentative, but is this a biblical claim or a theological one? I dont remember this being clearly articulated in Scripture. I know for sure that it is - for us - at best useless to ponder and at worst destructive. **Anyhow what is the Scriptural basis for this claim?
**

For starters, please read Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, then Romans chapters 8 and 9.

 

[Philthy]

Before saying anything further, I am going to qualify that my comments relate to someone who comes to faith and then has the opportunity(ie time, talent, treasure) to make choices through that faith.

Okay, we know that all mankind will give an account to God.

 

[Thing]

Would it be fair to say that man is sovereign over God in salvation in your view?

Mans will sovereign over Gods will.

I’ve often heard that old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over…

So Catholics believe that God chose some men, ancient old Prophets, and predestined them. As he was sending them as messengers to His vinyard, they were chosen to go the whole way to deliver this message. So Catholics believe in this predestination.

You worry about, and your objection to Catholicism, is this idea of a conflict between Gods will and mans will, His sovereign will over mans sovereign will.

But when God predestined those old prophets He already displayed, if that was even necessary to an omnipotent God, that His will was sovereign to mans will.

He has shown that His will is stronger than mans will. But He does not need to repeat that exercise.

He is not insane, He does not need to prove His ability to place His sovereign will over mans will and over and over.

As God, and as an omnipotent being, He could in the twinkling of an eye send everyone to heaven, good and bad, by ‘fixing’ the bad guys. But not everyone gets to heaven, though His desire is that all men will come to Him, He does not force them.

 

[ryanoneil]

I agree, for that view would be a postive postive schema of double predestination which would be nicknamed hyper-calvinism which is not true.

This is the way I see it:

Thomist rejects # 4 for the non-elect. God not does not give everyone the gift of final perseverance = God passively passing over the retrobate (biblical double predestination).

If you have a Catholic Thomist view of predestination, then you believe very similar to me.

I think it is the terminlogy that is confusing. We just don’t use the word “double” along with predestination.

There is not a total rejection of #4 for Thomist. God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, because he doesn’t command the impossible. God who is the Prime Mover, grants man grace which moves man’s will toward the good. When man habitually resists God’s grace, God withdraws His grace and allows the person to fall away. God allows them to resist and does not send them extraordinary graces to break the resistance).

God give efficacious grace (final perseverance) only to His elect. 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. 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.

 

[Philthy]

Would it be fair to say that man is sovereign over God in salvation in your view?

Not at all! That would be completely unfair to say.
I would say that God, in his sovereignty and mercy, has bound Himself to conditions related to the salvation of Mankind, and that some of those conditions cannot be met without the cooperation of the individual in question. Individual faith in Christ, for example, would be a prerequisite that God, in his sovereignty, has established but which simultaneously requires the cooperation of the individual to some extent.
Now that I have answered your question clearly and then qualified my answer with an explanation, I hope you reciprocate when presented the opportunity.

 

[Philthy]

For starters, please read Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, then Romans chapters 8 and 9.

I will read them again with a particular emphasis on where God declares that from all eternity some are predestined to accept Christ (Heaven) and some are predestined to reject Him (Hell) according to God’s Sovereign Will.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think it is the terminlogy that is confusing. We just don’t use the word “double” along with predestination.

There is not a total rejection of #4 for Thomist. God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, because he doesn’t command the impossible. God who is the Prime Mover, grants man grace which moves man’s will toward the good. When man habitually resists God’s grace, God withdraws His grace and allows the person to fall away. God allows them to resist and does not send them extraordinary graces to break the resistance).

God give efficacious grace (final perseverance) only to His elect. 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. 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.

Please see the red text above. It sure sounds very similar to the P in TULIP.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If you are elect you can’t go to hell.

Catholic doctrine agrees with “once elect, always elect.” However, not all professing to be Christian are necessarily among the elect. Scripture teaches that of those who have been saved by their baptism in Christ, some may be severed from Christ due to their sins.

For example, St. Paul calls those to whom he writes in Galatia “you are all sons of God, through faith.” (Gal 3:26). Later he explains that some of them had “fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4) and as such, are “severed from Christ.”

Consequently, predestination to “faith” is not the same as being predestined to eternal glory, that is, among the “elect” properly so-called.

Those given the gift of faith, for example, but who do not have the gift of final “perseverence” are not among the “elect,” even though they were at one time properly called “saved” because they “hear the word and immediately receives it with joy…endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.” (Matt 13:20-21). They were indeed as St. Paul says, “sons of God, through faith,” but later “fallen from grace” and “severed from Christ.” Due solely to their deliberate and final impenitence (e.g. lack of sorrow for their grave sins, a sorrow principally due to one’s love for God above all else), they cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

St. Paul is clear on this: “… fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:19-12).

If what St. Paul teaches makes you tremble, then I say with St. Paul, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12)

 

[Philthy]

For starters, please read Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, then Romans chapters 8 and 9.

What a beautiful letter!  Thank you for asking me to read it again…

I will be brief with my comments.

First, no where does it say clearly that God knows who is going to Heaven and who is not. It says that he chose us before the foundation of the world in Christ - the us is ambiguous, and the specifics of what is implied by by the term “chose us” is somewhat unclear. I understand some of the INFERENCES that might lead you to conclude what you have stated though, based on the beginning of Chapter 1. But if one keeps reading with the intention of clearly challenging that inference(ie doesnt take it as a given), there is some strong stuff which clearly refutes your claims (at least the way I understand them!)

Eph 2:11-13 Seems to contradict your claims. It clearly articulates that some who* previously were separated from Christ have now been brought in* through faith. This is not clearly a refutation of your position, though. Much more damaging would be Ephesians 5:5 where Paul says exactly what he says in 1Cor:6:9! “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” This is CLEARLY A WARNING TO BELIEVERS - the same folks he addressed as being “chosen” in Chapter 1.

Why would Paul possibly seek to link the kingdom of God and of Christ with a BEHAVIOR?? And more importantly, WHAT IS THE POINT OF BRINGING IT UP if our actions to change those behaviors have no eternal consequence - either God has chosen us or he hasnt?
I would answer that behaviors clearly matter and have eternal consequences despite the fact that God has chosen us in Christ from the foundation of the world. What say you?

 

[2nd_Adam]

What a beautiful letter! Thank you for asking me to read it again…
]

That is why ecumencism is a good thing!