- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Aw, p-shaw!
shaw:
P
paul_c
Guest
If your definition is that those in heaven are called the elect, than of course its self defining.Only the elect go to heaven Paul.
The apostles says there are two types of vessels that God has made:
That’s it. There’s no third group.
- Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
- Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory. (Rom 9:22-23).
And yes, ultimately, you go to heaven or hell. There is no other choice.
But this does not mean that God predestines some to hell. That is Calvin’s innovation that can be found no where in scripture. Pharoah was identified as a vessel of wrath made for distruction, but it doesn’t say he was condemned to hell before he was born. That is an extrapolation. It says that God used him to demonstrate His power. His destruction in this case was a distruction of his earthly power.
S
Sig
Guest
No, they’re not.
No, it doesn’t.
I would like for all to see, including the lurkers, that you have refused to give an explanation concerning your position on Romans 11, while you demand that I refute what you haven’t explained. :whacky:
Nope, and I asked you first, and you haven’t answered. Will you answer now? Do you accept my opinion as proof of your error?
I can’t tell you that until you explain why it is you think Romans 11 says that a saved person can lose their salvation. That’s what I’ve been telling you from the beginning of this exchange. I can’t tell you where you’re wrong, until you explain to me why the passage says your right. Mkay?
Answered above.
Please go through the verse and explain why you think it supports your position that a saved person can lose salvation. If you don’t, I can’t tell you why you’re wrong.
That’s right. No punishment, no judgment for the believer (Jn 5:24; Rom 7:1-6).
What the believer faces from God for disobedience is DISCIPLINE, Heb 12:3-11.
I’m not sure. Can you tell me?
S
Sig
Guest
What???
A genuinely disingenuous and specious response, Paul, IMO. That is not the point that was by citing those verses.
Here’s the point: there are only two groups of people in scripture prepared by God:
- Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
- Vessels of mercy prepared for glory (Rom 9:22-23).
S
Sig
Guest
I’ve imitated your style.
Maybe, but you know what there’s no maybe about?
There’s no maybe about you ignoring and doding my request of you, and here’s the request:
**P.S., if you go through the passage you cited, and give a full explanation of why those verses teach that a saved person can lose their salvation, I’ll respond to your explanation and tell you why you’re wrong. **
There’s no maybe about you dodging that. You’ve had plenty of time to respond, even if only to say you will work at it, and post it later.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is an interesting segue: what does the Scripture say about artificial birth control? And what does your pastor say about it?
New thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8695461#post8695461
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct in this trend that occurs quite frequently on the CAFs.
Prediction: right before radio silence will be lots of mocking and smirking. Lots of smiley icons and winkies.
Then…
radio silence.
Followed by, for those who are intellectually and spiritual noble and honest…
RCIA!
S
Sig
Guest
Pot meet kettle.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pitcharan,
Ahhhhhhh… what did I tell 'ya?
Maybe I will move on to picking winning lotery ticket numbers! 
Don’t lose your cool - but, just don’t expect any better from him, either. We can continue to post as to why OSAS is not supported by Scripture, comdemned as a heresy and truly leads souls away from God. I think that is important and worth doing.
God bless
Ahhhhhhh… what did I tell 'ya?
Maybe I will move on to picking winning lotery ticket numbers! Don’t lose your cool - but, just don’t expect any better from him, either. We can continue to post as to why OSAS is not supported by Scripture, comdemned as a heresy and truly leads souls away from God. I think that is important and worth doing.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pablope,
Nicely done!
The profound quality of his argument… “No they’re not” is a 3-word tribute to the type of evasions and non-responses he has provided for 30+ pages. The inability to demonstrate any understanding of Romans is sad, indeed.
My guess that any lurker who is inclined to OSAS is equally stunned by what can only appear as ‘stone-walling’… just refusing to answer… over and over again! If this isn’t an embarrassment, then I just don’t know what is.
God bless
Nicely done!
The profound quality of his argument… “No they’re not” is a 3-word tribute to the type of evasions and non-responses he has provided for 30+ pages. The inability to demonstrate any understanding of Romans is sad, indeed.
My guess that any lurker who is inclined to OSAS is equally stunned by what can only appear as ‘stone-walling’… just refusing to answer… over and over again! If this isn’t an embarrassment, then I just don’t know what is.
God bless
Sig;8695382:
So far, up to this point, you have avoided answering them.Well, Sig…how can you know that your scripture refences do not contradict Rom 11 if you do not know what Rom 11 mean?
So looks like you just contradicted yourself…
Well, let us see who is evading.
In Post 679…after qouting Rom 11, I asked these simple questions…
**
I asked the question first, and you have not provided an answer. Mkay…
Hmmm…seems like you missed v 27… but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God…
And what is God’s discipline…v27 again…27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and **of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God… **
Do you think “raging fire” will still save you? Where do you think this raging fire is anyway?
And why don’t you answer the question posed by v29…29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
If I knew, I would not be asking you. Or is it you are avoiding the question again?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, PRmerger,
I know what you and Paul C are saying … ah,… but is there room for a ‘Doubting Thomas’ in this discussion?
Maybe this is because I have not less experience here than you … but NO experience in what you are saying. Having snarky comments (yes) silly face logos (not so much) than ‘radio silence’ (maybe) followed by RICA… (so far, not on my watch). Please do not misunderstand me - I would truly like to see such a change … dare I say… conversion. I just don’t know - that is truly a lot to hope for.
God bless
I know what you and Paul C are saying … ah,… but is there room for a ‘Doubting Thomas’ in this discussion?
Maybe this is because I have not less experience here than you … but NO experience in what you are saying. Having snarky comments (yes) silly face logos (not so much) than ‘radio silence’ (maybe) followed by RICA… (so far, not on my watch). Please do not misunderstand me - I would truly like to see such a change … dare I say… conversion. I just don’t know - that is truly a lot to hope for.
God bless
P
paul_c
Guest
Hi, Pablope,
Nicely done!
The profound quality of his argument… “No they’re not” is a 3-word tribute to the type of evasions and non-responses he has provided for 30+ pages. The inability to demonstrate any understanding of Romans is sad, indeed.
My guess that any lurker who is inclined to OSAS is equally stunned by what can only appear as ‘stone-walling’… just refusing to answer… over and over again! If this isn’t an embarrassment, then I just don’t know what is.
God bless
pablope;8695712:
Don’t gloat. our goal is not to win the argrument but to bring Sig and all the lurkers to the truth byy which they can enter the kingdom of heaven. Gloating is an impediment to that.
P
paul_c
Guest
Trust us. This is a pattern that has repeated itself over and over. I can tell you that several times I have had discussions just like this one and 6 months late in a similar thread. I find the same person arguing from the Catholic viewpoint. The Holy Spirit directs many people to this forum and the conversion process is almost always like this. And the person being converted is often as surprised by the experience as you will be.
F
fhansen
Guest
Because “catholic” church simply means “universal” church, many Protestants consider themselves catholic. Our early creeds use the term and many of the Protestant Churches hold to and profess those creeds as part of their own traditions.
And from another perspective, the CC considers Protestants to be “separated brethern”, united to the Church although imperfectly so.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Paul C.,
OK, I’ll take your word for it … but, when it happens - be sure to let me know! With my memory, wearing a name tag is as much for me as it is for others!
By the way, my wife and I will be praying that this comes to pass.
God bless
OK, I’ll take your word for it … but, when it happens - be sure to let me know! With my memory, wearing a name tag is as much for me as it is for others!
By the way, my wife and I will be praying that this comes to pass.
God bless
S
Sig
Guest
I’ve never said I don’t know what Rom 11 means. What I’ve said is I don’t what it means to you.
It would seem that you’re the one who doesn’t know what Romans 11 means. You’ve had ample opportunity to explain what it means, but you won’t, or can’t.
OK, cut off: From the same root as “severity,” used earlier in the verse. God deals swiftly and severely with those who reject Him.
But not all of Israel was “cut off.” God says:
”I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
That’s the remnant, or the elect. God saves for Himself, out of all mankind, a remnant, the elect, as Paul explains:
”Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise, work is no longer work” (Rom 11:4-6).
Here again we see, according to Paul, that only the elect are saved, and that they are elected and saved by grace, apart from works (cf Eph 2:8ff).
Have you ever read all of Romans 11? If you haven’t, continue reading what Paul says:
***What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest *[the non-elect] were blinded. Just as it is written:
God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.
**And David says:
Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always…
The non-elect of Israel were blinded and deafened by God so they could not see or hear the truth. That’s the same thing Paul says concerning the proclamation of the Gospel into the present age (2 Cor 4:1-4).
Those who accept the offer of salvation experience His goodness (2:4), those who reject it experience His severity (2:5). Continuing in His kindness is perseverance. Genuine saving faith always perseveres (cf Jn 8:31; 15:5,6; Col 1:22, 23; Heb 3:12-14; 4:11; 1 Jn 2:19).
So Romans 11 supports everything that’s been said by the protestants on this thread concerning election to heaven, and elsewhere, and the fact that salvation, once obtained, cannot be lost, and that all of it is on the basis of grace, and not works.
Those who believe are clean (Jn 13:10; cf Jn 15:3; Eph 5:26)
What scripture says about their “remaining” clean is that they are “kept by the power of God for salvation” (1 Pet 1:5). God does the keeping. He is their protector, their savior.
Hmmm, pablope, seems you don’t understand the elect are loved by God, and are not His enemies; therefore, that verse CANNOT be in reference to the elect.That’s right. No punishment, no judgment for the believer (Jn 5:24; Rom 7:1-6).
pablope:
I”ve explained it above, but I will say it for you again: the elect are not enemies of God; therefore, that passage cannot be a referring to them.
- Status