Once Saved Always Saved?

[Sig]

For the last time:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

That is what the Bible says. But the Bible also says:
[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 20:11-15[/BIBLEDRB]
You cannot reconcile these Scriptures without admitting the existence of free will. You won’t do that; instead you blot out 1 Timothy 2:34.

And yet you are also mortal, just as God became. If that’s not a contradiction according to human logic I don’t know what is. And yet you put so much trust in your human logic, your traditions of men, over and above the Word of God.

[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

So are you now saying that Paul is not telling Timothy that God is actively willing all men to be saved?

If so, then what is it you are asserting that Paul is telling Timothy in that verse?

 

[Sig]

Here

That says nothing about babies and children.

 

[Calgar]

He’s looking for Calvinism in the Catechism.

CCC 600:
To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

That’s not Calvinism. That’s humans being given the choice whether to avail themselves of God’s grace.

I thought you were looking for predestination. You want me to find the word calvinism in the ccc?

No thanks. Carry on.

 

[Sig]

And yet you are also mortal, just as God became. If that’s not a contradiction according to human logic I don’t know what is. And yet you put so much trust in your human logic, your traditions of men, over and above the Word of God.

[BIBLEDRB]Proverbs 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Friend, slavery and freedom being opposites words is not a tradition, but a fact. Look up the words in any dictionary, or in any Greek Lexicon,or Romans 6.

 

[Sig]

You cannot reconcile these Scriptures without admitting the existence of free will.

Friend, you assert that men have “free will.” Therefore, the burden of proof is yours, and as of this time, you’ve failed to produce any proof for your assertion.

 

[davidv]

Friend, you assert that men have “free will.” Therefore, the burden of proof is yours, and as of this time, you’ve failed to produce any proof for your assertion.

Free will, as in the the ability to choose to love God, or not, is self evident in our experience of life. It is a fact, not an assertion.

 

[Sig]

Free will, as in the the ability to choose to love God, or not, is self evident in our experience of life. It is a fact, not an assertion.

That’s an assertion.

If it’s a fact, then what’s the need for grace?

 

[Cat_Herder]

That’s an assertion.

If it’s a fact, then what’s the need for grace?

If it’s forced on you, it’s not grace.

 

[fhansen]

That’s an assertion.

If it’s a fact, then what’s the need for grace?

We need both-always have. Adam & Eve lost grace by freely separating from God. God wants us back again, and with His grace- but not without our cooperation with it- the relationship can be restored.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Friend, slavery and freedom being opposites words is not a tradition, but a fact. Look up the words in any dictionary, or in any Greek Lexicon,or Romans 6.

True freedom can only be obtained through slavery to God, just as eternal life can only be obtained by death to self. You disagree with both points and so you disagree with the Scriptures.

I’ve tried to have a rational discussion with you about Hebrews 10:26-29 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Your response has been to construe the latter verse’s declaration that “God wills … all men to be saved” to mean that only some men will be saved. So tell me why this verse
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 3:23[/BIBLEDRB]
… really means that “all” have sinned. Why do you construe “all” differently in these verses?

 

[Sig]

If it’s forced on you, it’s not grace.

If the will is free to choose, then the will doesn’t need grace.

That’s Pelagianism.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If the will is free to choose, then the will doesn’t need grace.

That’s Pelagianism.

The choice is not whether to try to merit heaven apart from grace, but rather to accept grace and respond to it. Apart from Christ we cannot do any good. Maybe you’ll listen to Him.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:31-46[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Sig]

We need both-always have. Adam & Eve lost grace by freely separating from God. God wants us back again, and with His grace- but not without our cooperation with it- the relationship can be restored.

If the will is free to love God, then the will doesn’t need grace because it’s free.

 

[Sig]

The choice is not whether to try to merit heaven apart from grace, but rather to accept grace and respond to it. Apart from Christ we cannot do any good. Maybe you’ll listen to Him.

If the will can do nothing apart from grace, and if the will can do nothing apart from Christ, then the will cannot be free.

A free will would need no grace. It’s free., and unencumbered.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If the will is free to love God, then the will doesn’t need grace because it’s free.

Again, this presupposes that man needs simply to choose to do good in order to merit heaven. That is works-righteousness. Again, the choice is not to do good works, but to accept and cooperate with grace. This necessarily consists of being a sheep and not a goat, to use the Lord’s terminology. But one is saved not because one is a sheep but because one belonged to the Shepherd and did not leave Him.

 

[Sig]

Again, this presupposes that man needs simply to choose to do good in order to merit heaven. That is works-righteousness. Again, the choice is not to do good works, but to accept and cooperate with grace. This necessarily consists of being a sheep and not a goat, to use the Lord’s terminology. But one is saved not because one is a sheep but because one belonged to the Shepherd and did not leave Him.

The subject is free will. If man’s will is free, then man’s will needs nothing to choose anything, but can choose on its own. It’s free.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The subject is free will. If man’s will is free, then it needs nothing to choose, but can do so alone. It’s free.

Choose to be a millionaire and check your bank account. Come back in five minutes and we’ll see if your free choice caused you to become a millionaire.

This isn’t the Matrix, my friend.

On the other hand, Jesus will give you a million dollars (actually, something better: grace) for free. You need only to choose to accept it, and one condition: He’ll come back and ask you what you did with it, and if you chose poorly, you will lose it.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 19:12-28[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Sig]

Choose to be a millionaire and check your bank account. Come back in five minutes and we’ll see if your free choice caused you to become a millionaire.

This isn’t the Matrix, my friend.

Again, the subject is man’s “free will,” and man’s ability to choose God. If man’s will is free to choose God, then it doesn’t need grace.

In fact, if man’s will is free, it needs nothing to choose God, but can do so on it’s own, completely unaided.

That’s Pelagianism, and has been condemned as heretical.

G’night.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Again, the subject is man’s “free will,” and man’s ability to choose God. If man’s will is free to choose God, then it doesn’t need grace.

In fact, if man’s will is free, it needs nothing to choose God, but can do so on it’s own, completely unaided.

That’s Pelagianism, and has been condemned as heretical.

You might want to reread the above post, as I fleshed it out a little more.

G’night.

We’ll see if you’re a millionaire in the morning then.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Free will, as in the the ability to choose to love God, or not, is self evident in our experience of life. It is a fact, not an assertion.

I think Sig realizes that. But he/she thinks that the will cannot be free to choose God, because if the will was free to choose God, then the will would be free to bridge the infinitely large chasm between God and man. That’s a false premise.

Suppose that the chasm between God and man is bridged by a rope, i.e. grace. Sig is insisting that God throws the rope. We agree. But Sig further believes that God lassos certain men with the rope and drags them across the chasm without any (name removed by moderator)ut from man, i.e. no free will. This is a heresy, namely Calvinism.

Actually, God throws the rope to every human being and allows each man and woman to catch it and hold on to it if the person desires to do so. The fact that we are able to catch the rope through human action does not mean that there is no need for the rope at all. Pelagianism is the heresy that the rope does not exist.