Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[mikeledes]

mikeledes says:

The cost of two tickets to the ballgame, 4 hot dogs, a coke, and a beer: $300.00

The cost of watching mikeledes squirm: Priceless.

Perhaps you do need a break from being online 'cuz I see you’re already hallucinating!

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

St.John 3;17"For God did not send His Son into the world in order to judge the world,but that the world might be saved through Him" seems like a logical view to me.

Sometimes, things are not what they seem.**John 17:6-10

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

“Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

“I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.**Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the meaning of “world?” Above Jesus is not praying for “the world,” but only for those given to Him by the Father from out of “the world.” Specifically, the 11 apostles who are elect to salvation. That’s seen again in vv 20, 21, in which He prays as well, not for “the world,” but only for those who hear their words and believe.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

What I say is what the Catholic Church teaches regarding predestination. Namely, that complete predestination (grace to glory) is independent of every merit. In the execution of the execution of His decrees of predestination, God ensures the free cooperation of those predestined to glory.

That sounds very Calvinistic. I trust now that you’ll ensure that Catholics everywhere drop their notion that in predestination God ”forces men to believe against their will, reducing them to robots.” Will you put the word out that that’s not true?

mikeledes:

Uh… last time I checked John 15:6, it said:

6"If ANYONE does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Last time I checked, Christ said to the apostles, “I am the vine, you [plural] are the branches.” Therefore, according to your ”you plural” hermeneutic, what the Lord says applies only to the apostles; He "is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history,"

I’ll ask again that you please list out all of the finer points of your hermeneutic so we can follow along with your interpretations.

mikeledes:

This also settles 1 John 2:24ff.

Not so; it’s littered with ”plural you(s).”

mikeledes:

You apparently are not getting the point I was trying to make regarding the Phillipians. I am not saying that the truth Paul said exclusively applies to the Phillipians. What I am saying is that the truth he expressed about the Philippians does not necessarily apply to every single genuine Christians throughout history. Paul makes it quite clear why he felt that way about the Phillipians. Just because he believed that this truth would be fulfilled in the Philippians does not mean he believed that this truth will be fulfilled in every single Christian.

I get your point: Php 1:6 is in no way favorable to your position which states that God elects some to grace, justifies and saves them, and then, on the basis of their bad works/sin, either throws them away, or lets them walk away.

Philippians 1:6 does not support that position, but the opposite of that position—security…assurance.

So, IMO, you’ve simply devised a way around that problem by fabricating your literalist ”you plural” hermeneutic. IMO, that’s deceptive, and, also IMO, you show a disregard for the truth.

mikeledes:

By the way, the “throwing away” are not my words. They are the words of Jesus Himself:

6"If does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Who does the throwing away? The Father in His role as “vindresser” (John 15:1-2).

What we have, then, in addition to your teaching on Jn 10:28ff, which teaches that Jesus fails to keep the will of the Father, is another teaching, which teaches that the Father throws away some of Jesus’ sheep, in contradiction to Jesus’ statements in Jn 10 which state the impossibility of His sheep perishing.

The pattern that I see developing from your teaching is that God breaks His promises, and He is not immutable with respect to the elect, and, that God is not trustworthy.

There is no peace in such a Gospel.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the meaning of “world?” Above Jesus is not praying for “the world,” but only for those given to Him by the Father from out of “the world.” Specifically, the 11 apostles who are elect to salvation. That’s seen again in vv 20, 21, in which He prays as well, not for “the world,” but only for those who hear their words and believe.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the meaning of the passage. Reading Calvinism into a passage will not result in truth. IF it does, its because the ideal follows that of the true Church, no other reason.

 

[sandusky]

Reading Calvinism into a passage will not result in truth.

But reading Romanism into it will?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

But reading Romanism into it will?

If that is how your faith refers to Christ’s Church, then call it what you want.

 

[mikeledes]

That sounds very Calvinistic. I trust now that you’ll ensure that Catholics everywhere drop their notion that in predestination God ”forces men to believe against their will, reducing them to robots.” Will you put the word out that that’s not true?

What I said is sound Catholic theology and predates Calvinism. Where we differ is on how God distribute His grace and how He ensures a free response to His grace. I don’t believe in irresistible grace as taught by Calvinism.

Last time I checked, Christ said to the apostles, “I am the vine, you [plural] are the branches.” Therefore, according to your ”you plural” hermeneutic, what the Lord says applies only to the apostles; He “is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history,”

I’ll ask again that you please list out all of the finer points of your hermeneutic so we can follow along with your interpretations.

Not so; it’s littered with ”plural you(s).”

I get your point: Php 1:6 is in no way favorable to your position which states that God elects some to grace, justifies and saves them, and then, on the basis of their bad works/sin, either throws them away, or lets them walk away.

Philippians 1:6 does not support that position, but the opposite of that position—security…assurance.

So, IMO, you’ve simply devised a way around that problem by fabricating your literalist ”you plural” hermeneutic. IMO, that’s deceptive, and, also IMO, you show a disregard for the truth.

What we have, then, in addition to your teaching on Jn 10:28ff, which teaches that Jesus fails to keep the will of the Father, is another teaching, which teaches that the Father throws away some of Jesus’ sheep, in contradiction to Jesus’ statements in Jn 10 which state the impossibility of His sheep perishing.

The pattern that I see developing from your teaching is that God breaks His promises, and He is not immutable with respect to the elect, and, that God is not trustworthy.

There is no peace in such a Gospel.

You have completely distorted what I said and then created a “straw man” you can easily attack. Hopefully, all those who have been carefully following this discussion and read my posts will see through this smoke screen. I stand by what I said about the Phillipians. Paul expressed confidence that God would complete the work he started in them and clearly based this confidence on what he has seen and experienced with them. Are you saying then, that you have absolute assurance that every single member of the Church in Phillipi was a member of the elect? That every member of the Phillippian church that heard this letter read to them were members of the elect? I also ask you this, Phillipians 4:15-18:

15You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone;
16for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.
17Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.
18But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.

I assume you live in Phillipi? I assume that you know Epaphoditus personally? I’m glad to hear that Paul received your donation.

Let me restate my point. Maybe someone will finally get it. Just because Paul says that “completion to the end” will be fulfilled in the Phillipians does not necessarily mean that he believed that every single genuine Christian will also experience this. He expressed confidence about them. In order to find out if what he says to the Phillipians will occur to all genuine Christians, you will have to look elsewhere. When we look at his other letters and the rest of Scripture, we see that this is not the case:

Romans 11:22-23

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

There is no “fear” (Romans 11:21) where there is absolute assurance of continuing in God’s kindness and not being cut off and being treated the same way God treates a “reprobated”/ unsaved Jew (“If he did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.”).

John 15:6

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

“Meno” means to abide, continue, stay, endure, etc. The same idea is being expressed as in the above verse. This sure don’t sound like “completion” to me. These verses qualify the verse in Phillipians and reaffirme what I said about that verse, namely, that it does not necessarily apply to all Christians.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

What I said is sound Catholic theology and predates Calvinism. Where we differ is on how God distribute His grace and how He ensures a free response to His grace. I don’t believe in irresistible grace as taught by Calvinism.

Of course it predates Calvin, the reformation was a rediscovery of the Gospel, IMO.

Sounds to me as though the RC position employs the same thoughts concerning irresistible grace; the Calvinist position posits that it ”ensures a free response to His grace,” as you have stated.

mikeledes:

You have completely distorted what I said and then created a “straw man” you can easily attack. Hopefully, all those who have been carefully following this discussion and read my posts will see through this smoke screen. I stand by what I said about the Phillipians. Paul expressed confidence that God would complete the work he started in them and clearly based this confidence on what he has seen and experienced with them.

I’ve not distorted anything you’ve said; I’ve used your hermeneutic, to the best of my understanding, and have asked you a couple of times to list all the rules of your hermeneutic so that I might be accurate in understanding your interpretations; I’m still waiting for your comprehensive articulation of your hermeneutic.

Again, the grammar does not allow for your interpretation.

Paul says, ”I am confident of this very thing, THAT He who began a good work in you will perfect it…”

The very thing in which Paul’s confidence resides is stated immediately subsequent to his statement of confidence; namely, “THAT He who began a good work…,” etc.

What is the antecedent of THAT?

mikeledes:

Are you saying then, that you have absolute assurance that every single member of the Church in Phillipi was a member of the elect? That every member of the Phillippian church that heard this letter read to them were members of the elect?

Now, another inconsistency in your hermeneutic arises.

Heretofore, you have always insisted that the opening of the NT epistles demands that those being addressed are all members of the elect. Thus you could offer incontestable proof that believers could lose salvation.

But now, it seems that you are backing off of that position; are you? Why? Because it doesn’t help you in proving your point here, and now?

What is your position with respect to the opening of the NT epistles and the demand that those being addressed are the elect? Tell me, and clear up what I perceive to be another inconsistency in your thinking.

mikeledes:

Let me restate my point. Maybe someone will finally get it.

I said, I get your point: Php 1:6 doesn’t support your position without a severe twisting, IMO.

And, since your position is that the only “genuine, justified” believer who is secure is the one to whom the gift of final perseverance is given, and not the ordinary run-of-the-mill “genuine, justified” believer, who can have his salvation taken away, or who can himself walk away from his salvation, you are willing, IMHO, to twist the passage.

What about Col 1:23, ”if indeed you continue in the faith, firmly established, and steadfast…?”

Why do you maintain that that statement applies to all believers, when the you is plural?

You maintain that because it supports your position that genuine, justified believers can lose their salvation, IMHO, that’s why you insist that verse applies to all believers.

Please give a comprehensive list of the rules of your hermeneutic, and explain all of the exceptions to its rules.

 

[fbl9]

Sometimes, things are not what they seem.John 17:6-10

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

“Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

“I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the meaning of “world?” Above Jesus is not praying for “the world,” but only for those given to Him by the Father from out of “the world.” Specifically, the 11 apostles who are elect to salvation. That’s seen again in vv 20, 21, in which He prays as well, not for “the world,” but only for those who hear their words and believe.

and Jesus also said those that reject you reject me as well.one has to be able to hear the word first before they can reject it.in the OT Davis pleads for the HS not to be taken away from him. the prophet Ezecheil writes that a just man who turns to sin will be condemdned for the sins and the good he has done will not be remembered.not one jot of the old law will pass away.before you say the just man was not an elect,how was the man just for not on our own are we just but only through God we are just.

 

[mikeledes]

Of course it predates Calvin, the reformation was a rediscovery of the Gospel, IMO.

The reformation? You must mean Calvinism because Martin Luther did not believe in OSAS and neither does the Lutheran Church.

Sounds to me as though the RC position employs the same thoughts concerning irresistible grace; the Calvinist position posits that it ”ensures a free response to His grace,” as you have stated.

Like I said, the difference lies in how God distributes his grace and how He ensures that a grace will be efficacious.

I’ve not distorted anything you’ve said; I’ve used your hermeneutic, to the best of my understanding, and have asked you a couple of times to list all the rules of your hermeneutic so that I might be accurate in understanding your interpretations; I’m still waiting for your comprehensive articulation of your hermeneutic.

And I have given you that explanation. I have never said that every time Paul uses “you”, what he says exclusively applies to the recipients of the letter. In order to determine the scope of “you,” you have to read it within its immediate context, the context of the letter, and the general context of his teachings.

Again, the grammar does not allow for your interpretation.

Paul says, ”I am confident of this very thing, THAT He who began a good work in you will perfect it…”

The very thing in which Paul’s confidence resides is stated immediately subsequent to his statement of confidence; namely, “THAT He who began a good work…,” etc.

What is the antecedent of THAT?

And he also says why he believes God will do this to the Philippians:

6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until he day of Christ Jesus.
7FOR it is only right FOR ME TO FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT YOU ALL, BECAUSE I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

Paul gives in verse 7 the reason why he stated what he stated in verse 6.

Now, another inconsistency in your hermeneutic arises.

Heretofore, you have always insisted that the opening of the NT epistles demands that those being addressed are all members of the elect. Thus you could offer incontestable proof that believers could lose salvation.

But now, it seems that you are backing off of that position; are you? Why? Because it doesn’t help you in proving your point here, and now?

What is your position with respect to the opening of the NT epistles and the demand that those being addressed are the elect? Tell me, and clear up what I perceive to be another inconsistency in your thinking.

I have never said that the “opening of the NT epistles demands that those being addressed are all members of the elect. Thus you could offer incontestable proof that believers could lose salvation.” You add words to my posts in a way that’s very convenient for you. Actually, none of the key passages I have presented come from the introduction of letters and all of them clearly refer to genuine Christians.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I said, I get your point: Php 1:6 doesn’t support your position without a severe twisting, IMO.

And, since your position is that the only “genuine, justified” believer who is secure is the one to whom the gift of final perseverance is given, and not the ordinary run-of-the-mill “genuine, justified” believer, who can have his salvation taken away, or who can himself walk away from his salvation, you are willing, IMHO, to twist the passage.

What about Col 1:23, ”if indeed you continue in the faith, firmly established, and steadfast…?”

Why do you maintain that that statement applies to all believers, when the you is plural?

You maintain that because it supports your position that genuine, justified believers can lose their salvation, IMHO, that’s why you insist that verse applies to all believers.

Please give a comprehensive list of the rules of your hermeneutic, and explain all of the exceptions to its rules.

Severe twisting? This comes from the person who said:

I doubt that I can prove anything to you, Odell; however, I can explain to you that, while I believe that Jn 15 is talking about the saved Christian life, the “in Me” and “cut off” and “cast away into the fire” is not talking about a loss of salvation.

Please explain to us how “thrown away”, “dries up”, “cast into the fire and burned” does not refer to eternal damnation or a loss of salvation? Moreover, explain to us how “in Me” in verses 2 and 6 do not refer to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ while every other instance of “in me”, “in him”, “in the Son”, or “in Christ” in John and the rest of the Bible is an unambiguous and exclusive reference to a salvific union with Christ? If these branches are genuine Christians, then explain the fact that they are “thrown away” and “cast into the fire”, a phrase Jesus always uses as a reference to eternal damnation.

Explain how Paul tells the Gentile Christians to “fear” because if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare them either? Explain why, using the same kind of language found in John 15, Paul states:

Romans 11:22-23

**22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. **

If continuing in God’s kindness is assured - as you assume Paul is stating in Phillipians 1:3, then explain how any Christian can cease being in God kindness, be cut off, and be treated like the reprobated/unsaved Jews? And what was the purpose of Paul saying this? If this could never happen, then he has undercut whatever his purpose was. Moreover, if Paul has taught these genuine Christians that their perseverance is absolutely certain, then why does he ask them to “fear” something that can never occur?

To be continued…

God bless,
michael

 

[mikeledes]

2 Chronicles 15:1-2

**1Now the Spirit of God came on Azariah the son of Oded,
2and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you. **

1 Chronicles 22:9

**9"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever. **

2 Timothy 2:12

12If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

John 15:6

**6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

As I stated earlier, the Greek word for abide is “meno”, which means to stay, remain, continue, etc. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3306&version=kjv You can’t cease to continue in something you were never in.

The Greek word used for “endure” in 2 Timothy 2:12 is “hupomeno”, which is a variant of “meno” and means endure, remain, persevere, abide, etc. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5278&version=kjv This same word is also found in the following verse:

Matthew 10:22

22"You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured (hupomeno) to the end who will be saved.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Now let’s look at the Biblical evidence. First we have John 15:1-6, which has been cited often:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me **that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Now I have been accused of “parable squeezing.” I argue that Calvinists engage in parable steamrolling. Instead of imposing our own definitions based on our preconceived theological notions, why don’t we allow Christ to define His own terms. First of all, Calvinists want us to believe that when Christ says “every branch in Me”, he means “a person that is a member of My visible body (i.e. the Church) but that has not been spiritually united to Me.” Consequently, they make a distinction between being “in Christ” and being “in His visible body.” There are serious problems with this analysis. First of all, what does Jesus say “the Vine” represents? His visible body? No! He clearly states “I am the Vine.” In other words, the Vine represents the person of Christ. Branches are logically united to the vine and thus this metaphoric branch must be united to the person of Christ. That is the logical conclusion one draws without doing violence to the text. Otherwise, Jesus would not have referred to the person as a “branch,” since a branch – by definition – is an appendage of a plant (vine, tree, etc.).
Second of all, in every instance we find “in me” or a variant (i.e. “in him”, “in the Son”, etc.), it means a spiritual and salvific union with Christ.

1 John 2:24
**24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son **and in the Father.

1 John 2:28
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

1 John 3:24
24The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

See also John 6:56. Calvinists even admit that all the other uses of “in me” in John 15 (highlighted above in blue) refer to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. So then why do they suddenly break away from the standard definition and use – by Christ and John - of “in Me” when it comes to John 15:2, making it the only exception of this established rule? Because they realize that it will contradict their theology.
The third problem is that the “false professor” arguments contradicts Jesus’s own words. False professors can fool Christians, but they can never fool Christ. The “branch” in question is not the one identifying himself as being “in Christ” or having spiritual union with Christ. It is Christ Himself who identifies this person as being “in Me.” Christ knows those who are His and I would highly doubt He would identify a false professor as being “in Him,” a phrase that He and the Bible always uses as a reference to those who are genuinely saved.
Fourth of all, lets take another look at John 15:6:

6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The word “abide” - in Greek meno – means to remain, to stay, or to continue. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3306&version=kjv We find a variant of this same Greek word (epimeno) in Romans 11:22-23, which has a similar theme and clearly refers to true Christians:

**22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in **(epimeno) His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in (epimeno) their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

So in essence, what John 15:6 is saying is “If a man does not continue in me….” How can you continue in something that you were never a part of in the first place? Moreover, notice the order of events given by Jesus in this verse:
1)cast forth
2)withered
3)burned
The withering is a result of the casting off, not vice versa. This makes sense because once a branch is cut off from a vine, it withers because it no longer partakes of the life giving sap of the vine. Moroever, the fact that this person “withers” after being cut off means that it was once alive. Obviously, the “withering” does not refer to physical death, but spiritual death. The life in question is thus spiritual life and its origin is in the spiritual Vine (i.e. Christ). Therefore, this person once partook of the spiritual life that is found in Christ, but he was cut off and thus no longer partakes of this life and dies.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[mikeledes]

Here are mikeledes words:Note carefully what he’s saying—there is an election that is not to final salvation.

I expect a great deal of denial from Catholics, and from mikeledes when he returns; nevertheless, as I said, this all comes down to God’s choice, as stated above.

Did I ever say that the Catholic Church does not believe in predestination? My post that you cite is pretty clear on what the Catholic Church teaches on election and so is Ludwig Ott.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

The reformation? You must mean Calvinism because Martin Luther did not believe in OSAS and neither does the Lutheran Church.

A strawman; I don’t believe in antinomian OSAS, and you know that; what I confess is the perseverance of the (elect) saints— as the CC refers to it, but with an exception; only the elect saints will are justified.

But yes, the reformation.

mikeledes:

Like I said, the difference lies in how God distributes his grace and how He ensures that a grace will be efficacious.

What does that mean?

mikeledes:

And I have given you that explanation. I have never said that every time Paul uses “you”, what he says exclusively applies to the recipients of the letter. In order to determine the scope of “you,” you have to read it within its immediate context, the context of the letter, and the general context of his teachings.

”In order to determine the scope of ‘you?’ "

You’re trying to pull my leg.

The way in which you try to extricate yourself from this mess that you’ve brought on yourself with this literalist “you plural” nonsense is your business; I’m certain that you’ve been PMing certain of your fellows like crazy attempting to explain it away, and to complain that I’m being unfair, and what-not, but I’m not fooled by it; IMO, my critique of your methods is accurate, and it’s not the first time I’ve critiqued you in the same manner. IMO, your methods are dishonest, and deceitful, and my opinion of that has not changed. That’s why I’ve been ignoring your posts since October, and why I will continue that shortly.

The letter was written to the Philippians, and is for all who “hear the apostles words, and believe” (Jn 17).

Why use the ”plural you” argument at all. That statement is a truth that is applied to all of those elect “to final perseverance,” to use your phrase, and not just those elect who were among the Philippian church at that time, but it is for the elect of all time; surely you’d agree with that; wouldn’t you?

But what you must do is deal with those whose salvation, and inheritance, and “choseness” in CC predestination are nothing more than an illusion, and empty promises on God’s part; for when they mess up, He will cast them away; or, for whatever reason they choose to do so, they will up and leave; it is for the sake of your soteriology with respect to those that you play around with the “plural you” literalist nonsense, IMO.

mikeledes:

And he also says why he believes God will do this to the Philippians:

6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until he day of Christ Jesus.
7FOR it is only right FOR ME TO FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT YOU ALL, BECAUSE I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

Paul gives in verse 7 the reason why he stated what he stated in verse 6.

That is a truth applicable to ***all of the elect—***God begins, the work of salvation, and He completes it:**Hebrews 12:2

fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith…**Will you argue that applies only to those addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews?

mikeledes:

I have never said that the “opening of the NT epistles demands that those being addressed are all members of the elect. Thus you could offer incontestable proof that believers could lose salvation.” You add words to my posts in a way that’s very convenient for you. Actually, none of the key passages I have presented come from the introduction of letters and all of them clearly refer to genuine Christians.

Noted; and, as you asked concerning the Philippians and the elect, how do you know that everyone in the Philippian church is a “genuine believer”, and how do you know that Paul knew that everyone he was addressing was a “genuine believer?”

mikeledes:

Please explain to us how “thrown away”, “dries up”, “cast into the fire and burned” does not refer to eternal damnation or a loss of salvation?

Asked and answered, my post #152.

I’ll be returning to ignoring your posts now.

So you can continue with your empty complaints and challenges. :tiphat:

 

[mikeledes]

A strawman; I don’t believe in antinomian OSAS, and you know that; what I confess is the perseverance of the (elect) saints— as the CC refers to it, but with an exception; only the elect saints will are justified.

You go from bad to worse. Where have I stated that you believe in antinomian OSAS? I am sufficiently aware of where you stand.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You’re trying to pull my leg.

The way in which you try to extricate yourself from this mess that you’ve brought on yourself with this literalist “you plural” nonsense is your business; I’m certain that you’ve been PMing certain of your fellows like crazy attempting to explain it away, and to complain that I’m being unfair, and what-not, but I’m not fooled by it; IMO, my critique of your methods is accurate, and it’s not the first time I’ve critiqued you in the same manner. IMO, your methods are dishonest, and deceitful, and my opinion of that has not changed. That’s why I’ve been ignoring your posts since October, and why I will continue that shortly.

The letter was written to the Philippians, and is for all who “hear the apostles words, and believe” (Jn 17).

Why use the ”plural you” argument at all. That statement is a truth that is applied to all of those elect “to final perseverance,” to use your phrase, and not just those elect who were among the Philippian church at that time, but it is for the elect of all time; surely you’d agree with that; wouldn’t you?

But what you must do is deal with those whose salvation, and inheritance, and “choseness” in CC predestination are nothing more than an illusion, and empty promises on God’s part; for when they mess up, He will cast them away; or, for whatever reason they choose to do so, they will up and leave; it is for the sake of your soteriology with respect to those that you play around with the “plural you” literalist nonsense, IMO.

That is a truth applicable to ***all of the elect—***God begins, the work of salvation, and He completes it:Hebrews 12:2

fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith…Will you argue that applies only to those addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews?

Noted; and, as you asked concerning the Philippians and the elect, how do you know that everyone in the Philippian church is a “genuine believer”, and how do you know that Paul knew that everyone he was addressing was a “genuine believer?”

All of this is utter nonsense. The mess that you say I’m in is a convenient figment of your own imagination. It’s all a vain smoke screen. You have created this mess to evade answering John 15, Romans 11, Galatians 5, Revelation 22, etc.

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

Asked and answered, my post #152.

I’ll be returning to ignoring your posts now.

So you can continue with your empty complaints and challenges. :tiphat:

The problem with the above gentleman is that he has completely run out of steam. I challenge all readers to read post # 152 and point to me where he explains what “cast into the fire” means if the branches are a reference to genuine Christians. If they are not a reference to genuine Christians, then I ask you all to please point to me where he gives a viable alternative explanation for “in me” and “abide in me”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=218292&page=11

Don’t look too hard, 'cuz you ain’t gonna find it. Instead, he points to an argument I have already directly responded to several times. Read my reponses in posts 154, 161, 164, and 180. John 15 is the “iceberg” to his “titanic” and he evades it because he knows that his argument will sink faster than Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid.

If he ignores me, it makes no difference. What I write still stands and is available for all to read and make their own judgement. I will continue to post in this thread, regardless.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Odell]

The problem with the above gentleman is that he has completely run out of steam. I challenge all readers to read post # 152 and point to me where he explains what “cast into the fire” means if the branches are a reference to genuine Christians. If they are not a reference to genuine Christians, then I ask you all to please point to me where he gives a viable alternative explanation for “in me” and “abide in me”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=218292&page=11

Don’t look too hard, 'cuz you ain’t gonna find it. Instead, he points to an argument I have already directly responded to several times. Read my reponses in posts 154, 161, 164, and 180. John 15 is the “iceberg” to his “titanic” and he evades it because he knows that his argument will sink faster than Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid.

If he ignores me, it makes no difference. What I write still stands and is available for all to read and make their own judgement. I will continue to post in this thread, regardless.

God bless,
Michael

He has stated that they are genuine Christians in John 15.

Dont ask me what post

But I have been following along and funny thing is I have been ignoring sanduskys post

He has never stated what he believes about the casting into the fire

But I would like to ask another question

Rom 11:22-23 "God’s kindness toward you provided that you remain in His kindness; if you do not, you too will be cut off.”

What does it mean to be cut off could sandusky be cut off and still be saved?

I’ll be returning to ignoring your posts now sandusky

this is to much fun

hey mikeledes since sandusky is ignoring you and Im ignoring him maybe you can be the mediator and just tell me what cut off and thrown into the fire really means.

as far as he goes he has already sunk his titanic

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

and Jesus also said those that reject you reject me as well.one has to be able to hear the word first before they can reject it.

That’s right; but remember, the elect will not reject the message finally, just as Peter’s faith did not fail finally, because the Lord prayed that it would not, and the Father always answers the Son’s prayers.

The same premise is true in both biblical, and RC predestination—the elect may resist for a time, but they will not resist to a final rejection.

Several times in the Gospels, Jesus, while preaching, would stop and call out, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” A corollary to that is that not all have ears to hear, but only some, IMO, only the elect can hear with the understanding that saves.

fbl9:

in the OT Davis pleads for the HS not to be taken away from him. the prophet Ezecheil writes that a just man who turns to sin will be condemdned for the sins and the good he has done will not be remembered. not one jot of the old law will pass away.

The truths they expounded, and typified have not passed away, but the Mosaic laws of ceremony and ritual have been fulfilled by Christ, and are now obsolete (cf Col 2:16-17;
Heb 8:13).

fbl9:

before you say the just man was not an elect, how was the man just for not on our own are we just but only through God we are just.

Those are passages that pertain to the Old Covenant, or Mosaic, or ceremonial law, as stated above. One who kept the law outwardly was considered to be just; however, the New Covenant is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant which is a gracious covenant, and, it is a unilateral covenant as well (Gen 15:12-21); all of its promises will be fulfilled by God, and the promises cannot be made void by human failure; the requirement for the appropriation of its promises and blessings are faith alone (Gal 3:6-29).

Paul states that while he was a Pharisee, and an unbeliever in Christ, and a persecutor of the church he was with respect to the law ”righteous, and found blameless” (Php 3:6ff).

Therefore, it is easy to understand what ”righteous, blameless, just” means in the OT—those are terms used of those who kept the outward, ritual law—it doesn’t mean that they were sinless, as Paul calls himself, the “foremost of all sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).