Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[sandusky]

(continued from post 256)

Moving to V24, the prophet declares: "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness…."

Some among the elect may turn away from righteousness, but through repentance, granted by God, for it is God who protects and perseveres the elect (Php 1:6; 2:13; 1 Pet 1:5), they will return to righteousness.

As Calvin asks, and answers:Can a truly just person deflect from the right way? For he who is begotten of God is so free from the tyranny of sin that he devotes himself wholly to righteousness: and then if any do turn aside, they prove that they were always strangers to God. If they had been of us, says John, they would never have gone out from us. (1 John 2:19.) And regeneration is an incorruptible seed: so we must determine that the faithful who are truly regenerate never fall away from righteousness, but are retained by God’s unconquered power: for God’s calling in the elect is without repentance. (Romans 11:29.) Hence he continues the course of his grace even to the end.V24 continues:**…commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live?**Here again, Calvin expounds:For the Prophet separates those who desert God and rush into every wickedness from those who fall through infirmity or want of thought, and from those also who would fall headlong into ruin, unless God preserved them, yet do not utterly cast off his fear, and the desire of living piously and righteously. For example: every one is occasionally off his guard; and hence, in numberless ways, we offend God through error: and hence David exclaims, Who can understand his faults? (Psalm 19:12.) We fall of our own accord, since we are often conquered by temptations, even when our consciences accuse us; so that, although sanctified, we decline from the path of uprightness through ignorance, and depart from duty through infirmity. But what is far worse, the saints sometimes rush headlong, as though utterly desperate. For the example of David shows that the elect, although regenerated by God’s Spirit, not only sin to a small extent, but, as I have said, plunge into the very lowest abyss. David became a perfidious homicide, and a traitor to the army of God; then that wretched king fell into a series of crimes: yet he failed in only one thing, and showed that God’s grace was only suffocated within him, and not altogether extinguished. For as soon as Nathan reproves him, he confesses that he had sinned, and is prepared to undergo any punishment which God may inflict. Since, therefore, the saints sometimes fall, the Prophet here stretches forth his hand, lest they should despair, and bears witness that God does not reject them unless they turn aside from their righteousness and commit all the abominations which the impious do. By these words, as we see, he expresses a complete revolt, and he so mitigates the severity of the sentence, lest the minds of those who had only partially relapsed should despond. Now we see the meaning of this language: If he has done according to all the abominations of the wicked, shall he live? says he; all the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered, because he shall perish. **Here the Prophet shows that: a mere temporary righteousness will not profit us unless we persevere unto the end in the fear of God.**So then, v24 speaks of a complete failure of faith.

Just as God’s electing grace was at work in the OT, so too was the intercessory work of Christ for the elect in the form of His intercession and advocacy for them (Lk 22:31; Jn 10:28ff; Heb 7:25; 12:2).

The righteousness of the man who fails in this passage then, is an outward, or as Calvin calls it, "a mere temporary righteousness" that is of no profit to the man.

To claim that this man is elect to salvation begs the question, and it places the RC doctrine of election to grace and glory in the same dilemma.

 

[mikeledes]

You mean, In your opinion they do.

All of the elect are justified by the grace of God in eternity past Rom 8:30, and Ezekiel 33 which you cite is an echo of the prophets statements in chapter 18.

In context, Ezekiel defines righteousness and justice in chapter 18 as walking in the statutes and ordinances of the law:Ezekiel 18:9

if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord God.One must let the context of the passage define the meaning of the terms in the passage.

To claim that God is revealing His election of the man to final perseverance and glorification begs the question.

Ezekiel defines “righteousness” as walking in the statutes and ordinances of the law. However, that is not what makes the person righteous. In fact, Ezekiel describes the person as righteous first before going into his righteous conduct:

Ezekiel 18:5

5"But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness …

Rigteous conduct - which in the Old Covenant was observance of both the moral and ceremonial laws - flows from being righteous before God. This reminds me of Luke 1:6’s desciption of John the Baptist’s parents:

**6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. **

So by describing a person as righteous, Ezekiel is describing the person’s status before God and not merely the fact that they observed the commandments and statutes of the law. Their righteous conduct confirmed their righteousness before God, and hence the expression of divine pleasure “He shall surely live.”

Now let’s take a look at Ezekiel 18:24

**24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. **

and Ezekiel 33:13

**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. **

If I’m not mistaken in my understanding, Calvin believes that a total turning away from righteousness by a “righteous” person is evidence of a mere “temporary righteousness.” In other words, the person was a false professor or a hypocrite. Now I ask, why would Ezekiel describe such a person as “righteous” and why would God express divine pleasure - “He shall surely live” - in a hypocrite/ false professor who is spiritually dead and still in his sins? Is that person essentially different from the “wicked” person to whom God says “he shall surely die.” Isn’t this person’s hypocrisy a sin in itself? Man in the flesh cannot please God. Moroever, there is no evidence in the text that indicates that in some verses Ezekiel uses “righteous” to mean the genuinely justified while in other he uses “righteous” to mean only the “outwardly” righteous? Where does he make that distinction in the text? The only distinction he makes is between the righteous and the wicked.

The fact that there are justified persons that do not persevere does not in any way effect the Catholic belief that the number of those predestined to glory is immutable. We do not believe that the number of the justified is coextensive with the number of those predestined to glory:

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.

There are those who are “in Christ” who will fail to abide/persevere to the end, as the above passage clearly demonstrates. Consequently, those passages in Ezekiel serve to reinforce the truth expressed in the above passage, namely, that there will be those among the righteous who will not continue in God’s kindness, turn away from righteousness, be cut off/ thrown away and thrown into the eternal fire. He who perseveres to the end shall be saved.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[MaHeRsHaLaL]

Perhaps God elects all those who chose Christ?
If there were people who were incapable of salvation then God must have made them that way. Therefore he would be at fault for our guilt, this cannot be!!!

 

[Pax]

(continued from post 256)

Moving to V24, the prophet declares: "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness…."

Some among the elect may turn away from righteousness, but through repentance, granted by God, for it is God who protects and perseveres the elect (Php 1:6; 2:13; 1 Pet 1:5), they will return to righteousness.

As Calvin asks, and answers:

Can a truly just person deflect from the right way? For he who is begotten of God is so free from the tyranny of sin that he devotes himself wholly to righteousness: and then if any do turn aside, they prove that they were always strangers to God. If they had been of us, says John, they would never have gone out from us. (1 John 2:19.)

…
…
​

I really have to take exception with Calvin’s use of 1 John 2:19. OSAS believers have attempted to use this verse to prove the doctrine, but it was not intended to support the idea and a carefull look at the verse and surrounding passages show why it is a gross error to do so.

The verse was written by John for the express purpose of warning Christian believers about false teachers that have gone out in the spirit of anti-Christ. It simply does not support OSAS. If anything it denies it. Let’s look at the verse in context.

1 John 2:18-25
“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.”

This passage of scripture is telling us the following:

1. The anti-Christ is coming and is already working.
2. These anti-Christs are not to be listened to because they are false teachers.
3. They are recognized as false teachers because they have left the Church and its teachings. They even deny that Jesus is the Christ.
4. If they were not false teachers in the spirit of anti-Christ they would have continued in the fellowship of the church, but since they have left they are therefore easily recognized as false teachers.(Calvin should have looked inward on that one.)
5. The believers have already been given the truth and know the truth. There is no need for them to be taught something new.
6. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
7. The word abide means “remain(s)” and John says: "Let what you heard from the beginning abide[remain] in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides[remains] in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

This entire passage is a warning to believers concerning false teachers in the spirit of the anti-Christ. Moreover, the warning clearly indicates that the truth that these believers were taught from the beginning must “remain” in them for them to remain in the Father and the Son. If they remain faithful they will receive eternal life.

This passage is a denial of OSAS and in no way supports it.​

 

[mikeledes]

I really have to take exception with Calvin’s use of 1 John 2:19. OSAS believers have attempted to use this verse to prove the doctrine, but it was not intended to support the idea and a carefull look at the verse and surrounding passages show why it is a gross error to do so.

The verse was written by John for the express purpose of warning Christian believers about false teachers that have gone out in the spirit of anti-Christ. It simply does not support OSAS. If anything it denies it. Let’s look at the verse in context.

1 John 2:18-25
“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.”

This passage of scripture is telling us the following:

1. The anti-Christ is coming and is already working.
2. These anti-Christs are not to be listened to because they are false teachers.
3. They are recognized as false teachers because they have left the Church and its teachings. They even deny that Jesus is the Christ.
4. If they were not false teachers in the spirit of anti-Christ they would have continued in the fellowship of the church, but since they have left they are therefore easily recognized as false teachers.(Calvin should have looked inward on that one.)
5. The believers have already been given the truth and know the truth. There is no need for them to be taught something new.
6. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
7. The word abide means “remain(s)” and John says: "Let what you heard from the beginning abide[remain] in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides[remains] in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

This entire passage is a warning to believers concerning false teachers in the spirit of the anti-Christ. Moreover, the warning clearly indicates that the truth that these believers were taught from the beginning must “remain” in them for them to remain in the Father and the Son. If they remain faithful they will receive eternal life.

This passage is a denial of OSAS and in no way supports it.

This is the basic theme of 1 John. Throughout his letter, John warns about the coming of false teachers (ex. 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 7-11) into the Christian community and basically tells them how they can tell who the false teachers are by looking at their teaching and their conduct. The obvious reason false teachers enter Christian communities is to mislead. Therefore, their conduct will reflect their intent. That’s why Jesus warns in Matthew 7:15-16:

**15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16"You will know them by their fruits… **

As Pax stated above, John encourages Christians to allow the word they have heard to remain in their hearts and they in turn will remain in the Father and in the Son. He also tells them:

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.

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.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Ezekiel defines “righteousness” as walking in the statutes and ordinances of the law. However, that is not what makes the person righteous. In fact, Ezekiel describes the person as righteous first before going into his righteous conduct:

Ezekiel 18:5

5"But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness …

Rigteous conduct - which in the Old Covenant was observance of both the moral and ceremonial laws - flows from being righteous before God. This reminds me of Luke 1:6’s desciption of John the Baptist’s parents:

6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

So by describing a person as righteous, Ezekiel is describing the person’s status before God and not merely the fact that they observed the commandments and statutes of the law. Their righteous conduct confirmed their righteousness before God, and hence the expression of divine pleasure “He shall surely live.”

Now let’s take a look at Ezekiel 18:24

24"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

and Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

If I’m not mistaken in my understanding, Calvin believes that a total turning away from righteousness by a “righteous” person is evidence of a mere “temporary righteousness.” In other words, the person was a false professor or a hypocrite. Now I ask, why would Ezekiel describe such a person as “righteous” and why would God express divine pleasure - “He shall surely live” - in a hypocrite/ false professor who is spiritually dead and still in his sins? Is that person essentially different from the “wicked” person to whom God says “he shall surely die.” Isn’t this person’s hypocrisy a sin in itself? Man in the flesh cannot please God. Moroever, there is no evidence in the text that indicates that in some verses Ezekiel uses “righteous” to mean the genuinely justified while in other he uses “righteous” to mean only the “outwardly” righteous? Where does he make that distinction in the text? The only distinction he makes is between the righteous and the wicked.

The fact that there are justified persons that do not persevere does not in any way effect the Catholic belief that the number of those predestined to glory is immutable. We do not believe that the number of the justified is coextensive with the number of those predestined to glory:

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.

There are those who are “in Christ” who will fail to abide/persevere to the end, as the above passage clearly demonstrates. Consequently, those passages in Ezekiel serve to reinforce the truth expressed in the above passage, namely, that there will be those among the righteous who will not continue in God’s kindness, turn away from righteousness, be cut off/ thrown away and thrown into the eternal fire. He who perseveres to the end shall be saved.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

I will also like to add that the righteous in the above verses at one point practiced all the things that Ezekiel defines as the rigteous conduct of the righteous. Note that God says “they turned away from righteousness” and that their “righteous deeds will be remembered no more.” That’s why Ezekiel 33 desrcibes the person as turnining away after having received divine approval ("he shall surely live’).

Ezekiel 33:13

**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. **

The righteous person once practiced righteousness, recieved appoval from God, and then becomes presumptous and turns away from his righteous conduct, incurring God’s displeasure.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Ezekiel defines “righteousness” as walking in the statutes and ordinances of the law. However, that is not what makes the person righteous. In fact, Ezekiel describes the person as righteous first before going into his righteous conduct

I agree with you: walking in the statutes and ordinances ultimately does not make one righteous; righteousness comes about on the basis of God’s elective will; we both stated that earlier, and, I don’t see how the order of the declaration, or description of righteousness bears on the message of the passage at all?

At the time of this writing, Ezekiel was in Exile, along with thousands of other Jews whose belief it was that they were being punished for their father’s sins, but Ezekiel assures them that the punishment they were enduring was not for their father’s sins, but for their own sins!

The actions describing a righteous man are not arbitrary, but are carefully chosen; in fact, they are the very acts of which Israel was guilty!

So the righteousness of the law is once again brought to bear on the people, and they are reminded of their failure to keep the law, and exhorted to do so—keep the law, and I will bless you; break the law, and I will curse you—that is the old covenant.

mikeledes:

Righteous conduct - which in the Old Covenant was observance of both the moral and ceremonial laws - flows from being righteous before God. This reminds me of Luke 1:6’s description of John the Baptist’s parents

For the regenerate, yes; but there are those who outwardly keep the law perfectly, and yet, they are not regenerate.

As Paul says, he was blameless with respect to the righteousness that comes from the law, but when Christ got hold of him he shunned that righteousness, preferring instead the righteousness that comes through Christ by faith.

That’s what Israel didn’t get. So the righteousness of the law was put back before them, and they were reminded of the covenant of the law which their father’s agreed to keep, and they were told that they were being punished, not for their father’s failure to keep the law, but for their own failure to keep the law, and they were again admonished to keep the law, and promised that if they began to keep the law, they would live, but if they stopped from keeping the law, and turned away from it, they were promised that they would die—that’s law; that’s not grace and regeneration.

The people again saw that even a righteous man, who kept the law, could turn from that righteousness and die—and the people said “it’s hopeless” (Jer 18:12)—they didn’t get this
“new heart” business to which God was pointing them (Eze 18:30-32; cf 11:19; 36:26).

mikeledes:

So by describing a person as righteous, Ezekiel is describing the person’s status before God and not merely the fact that they observed the commandments and statutes of the law. Their righteous conduct confirmed their righteousness before God, and hence the expression of divine pleasure “He shall surely live.”

mikeledes postscript from post 262:

I will also like to add that the righteous in the above verses at one point practiced all the things that Ezekiel defines as the rigteous conduct of the righteous. Note that God says “they turned away from righteousness” and that their “righteous deeds will be remembered no more.” That’s why Ezekiel 33 desrcibes the person as turnining away after having received divine approval ("he shall surely live’).

The righteous person once practiced righteousness, recieved appoval from God, and then becomes presumptous and turns away from his righteous conduct, incurring God’s displeasure.

If he who shall live by keeping the law, surely dies when he turns from keeping the law, then his life did not come from being “born of imperishable seed” (1 Pet 1:23).

Imperishable seed is just that—Imperishable!

As the Lord says in Jn 5:24, the one who hears, and believes, has metabebāken ek tou thanatou,” “passed out of death” (a perfect, active verb), and eis tān zōān, “into ‘the’ life (eternal).” His death is eternally passed.

(He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world Eph 1:4—eternity past).

I understand that you want to prove that the justified can lose their justification, and their salvation. I believed that for awhile, but haven’t for a long time, and never will again.

 

[mikeledes]

So the righteousness of the law was put back before them, and they were reminded of the covenant of the law which their father’s agreed to keep, and they were told that they were being punished, not for their father’s failure to keep the law, but for their own failure to keep the law, and they were again admonished to keep the law, and promised that if they began to keep the law, they would live, but if they stopped from keeping the law, and turned away from it, they were promised that they would die—that’s law; that’s not grace and regeneration.

The people again saw that even a righteous man, who kept the law, could turn from that righteousness and die—and the people said “it’s hopeless” (Jer 18:12)—they didn’t get this
“new heart” business to which God was pointing them (Eze 18:30-32; cf 11:19; 36:26).

If he who shall live by keeping the law, surely dies when he turns from keeping the law, then his life did not come from being “born of imperishable seed” (1 Pet 1:23).

Imperishable seed is just that—Imperishable!

As the Lord says in Jn 5:24, the one who hears, and believes, has metabebāken ek tou thanatou,” “passed out of death” (a perfect, active verb), and eis tān zōān, “into 'the’ life (eternal).” His death is eternally passed.

The problem is this. That the righteous deeds of an unregenerate cannot please God. Isaiah refers to them as “filthy rags.” Moreover, the Bible states:

Hebrews 11:6

6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

A person who, purely by his own efforts, is blameless in following the law and yet unregenerate is in the same spiritual state as the unregenerate who does not follow the law. In Ezekiel, God establishes what He means by “He shall surely live.” We’ve already seen the in Ezekiel 18:5-6 that is an act of divine confimation that the person is righteous in His sight or it is an act of forgiveness/ justifcation in the case of those who turn away from their sins (Ezekiel 18:21-22). We also have the following example in Ezekiel 3:21 :

**21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." **

In other words, “he shall surely live” is an expression of divine approval or pleasure, something that God will not give to a person who is unregenerate and still in his sins. Thus when we have Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

In other words GOD HIMSELF has declared this person pleasing to Him by saying “he shall surely live.” Thus the righteous person that is the subject of this verse can only be a person righteous in God’s sight. Otherwise, He is giving his approval to the unregenerate simply because of this persons righteous deeds. The above verse clearly indicates that this person, after receiving divine approval, becomes presumptuous and turns away from righteousness. This reminds me of:

Romans 11:20-22

Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
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…

While we are dealing with the Old Covenant/ Law, the fundamental conduct of the righteous/ regenerate is supposed to be obedience to God, whether under the Mosaic Law or the Law of Christ. Some of the externals may have changes with the New Covenant (i.e. circumcision, kosher laws, purity laws, sacrificial system, etc), but fundamental obedience to the moral law of God is the constant between the Old and New Covenants. If you look at the righteous conduct described in Ezekiel 18:5-9, the emphasis is on the moral law of God. Therefore, the fact that a righteous person - described as such by GOD HIMSELF and confirmed by “he shall surely live” - turns away from righteousness (moral and ceremonial in this case), then it still poses a problem to Calvinist theology. That’s why Calvinists cannot accept that the person in these verses are righteous in God’s sight. In order to assert that this person is not righteous before God, then one would have to redefine “he shall surely live” in a way that contradicts the established use in the text. In other words, it is never used to refer to one who has not genuinely repented or is genuinely not pleasing in God’s eyes.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

The problem is this. That the righteous deeds of an unregenerate cannot please God. Isaiah refers to them as “filthy rags.” Moreover, the Bible states:

Hebrews 11:6

6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

A person who, purely by his own efforts, is blameless in following the law and yet unregenerate is in the same spiritual state as the unregenerate who does not follow the law. In Ezekiel, God establishes what He means by “He shall surely live.” We’ve already seen the in Ezekiel 18:5-6 that is an act of divine confimation that the person is righteous in His sight or it is an act of forgiveness/ justifcation in the case of those who turn away from their sins (Ezekiel 18:21-22). We also have the following example in Ezekiel 3:21 :

21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself."

In other words, “he shall surely live” is an expression of divine approval or pleasure, something that God will not give to a person who is unregenerate and still in his sins. Thus when we have Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

In other words GOD HIMSELF has declared this person pleasing to Him by saying “he shall surely live.” Thus the righteous person that is the subject of this verse can only be a person righteous in God’s sight. Otherwise, He is giving his approval to the unregenerate simply because of this persons righteous deeds. The above verse clearly indicates that this person, after receiving divine approval, becomes presumptuous and turns away from righteousness. This reminds me of:

Romans 11:20-22

Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
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…

While we are dealing with the Old Covenant/ Law, the fundamental conduct of the righteous/ regenerate is supposed to be obedience to God, whether under the Mosaic Law or the Law of Christ. Some of the externals may have changes with the New Covenant (i.e. circumcision, kosher laws, purity laws, sacrificial system, etc), but fundamental obedience to the moral law of God is the constant between the Old and New Covenants. If you look at the righteous conduct described in Ezekiel 18:5-9, the emphasis is on the moral law of God. Therefore, the fact that a righteous person - described as such by GOD HIMSELF and confirmed by “he shall surely live” - turns away from righteousness (moral and ceremonial in this case), then it still poses a problem to Calvinist theology. That’s why Calvinists cannot accept that the person in these verses are righteous in God’s sight. In order to assert that this person is not righteous before God, then one would have to redefine “he shall surely live” in a way that contradicts the established use in the text. In other words, it is never used to refer to one who has not genuinely repented or is genuinely not pleasing in God’s eyes.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

What is the point that you are trying to prove?

 

[mikeledes]

What is the point that you are trying to prove?

That a person righteous before God can become presumptuous - after receiving divine approval - and abandon righteous conduct for a sinful one and die in the latter state as punishment. If this is so, then this poses a problem for calvinist theology, hence the insistence among Calvinists, beginning with Calvin, that the person cannot be truly righteous, despite the fact that he is decribed as such by God himself and that he has received divine approval (i.e. “he shall surely live”). BTW, Calvinist John Piper has the following to say about the “imperishable seed.”

The second clue that God’s begetting is the cause of our believing is that God makes the word the instrument of the new birth in verse 23: “You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.” Some take the imperishable seed of verse 23 to be the Holy Spirit, and it may well be (see 1 John 3:9). But I’m inclined to take the “imperishable seed” to be “the word of God.” The seed is described as “imperishable.” And the word is described as “living and abiding.” Those are virtually the same. So I take “born . . . of imperishable seed” to be synonymous with “[born] through the living and abiding word.” This is confirmed by the fact that in verses 24-25 the entire focus is on the word, not the Spirit.
desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/2598/

While I certainly don’t agree with John Piper’s conclusion, I definitely believe that both the Holy Spirit and God’s word is imperishable.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

That a person righteous before God can become presumptuous - after receiving divine approval - and abandon righteous conduct for a sinful one and die in the latter state as punishment. If this is so, then this poses a problem for calvinist theology, hence the insistence among Calvinists, beginning with Calvin, that the person cannot be truly righteous, despite the fact that he is decribed as such by God himself and that he has received divine approval (i.e. “he shall surely live”). BTW, Calvinist John Piper has the following to say about the “imperishable seed.”

The second clue that God’s begetting is the cause of our believing is that God makes the word the instrument of the new birth in verse 23: “You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.” Some take the imperishable seed of verse 23 to be the Holy Spirit, and it may well be (see 1 John 3:9). But I’m inclined to take the “imperishable seed” to be “the word of God.” The seed is described as “imperishable.” And the word is described as “living and abiding.” Those are virtually the same. So I take “born . . . of imperishable seed” to be synonymous with “[born] through the living and abiding word.” This is confirmed by the fact that in verses 24-25 the entire focus is on the word, not the Spirit.

desiringgod.org/ResourceL…ate/2008/2598/

While I certainly don’t agree with John Piper’s conclusion, I definitely believe that both the Holy Spirit and God’s word is imperishable.

I don’t have any disagreement with Piper, or others who pose that question; nevertheless, the seed of which one is born is, “imperishable,” and that rebirth is caused by God v3.

What is Piper’s position with respect to the regenerate loosing their salvation?

mikeledes:

If this is so, then this poses a problem for calvinist theology, hence the insistence among Calvinists, beginning with Calvin, that the person cannot be truly righteous, despite the fact that he is decribed as such by God himself and that he has received divine approval (i.e. “he shall surely live”).

Any problem posed for Calvinist predestination poses a problem for RC “Thomist” predestination as well.

Catholics are to believe, de fide that there exists **three distinct groups of predestinated people.****1: **Those predestined to grace and glory.

**2: **Those predestined to grace only.

**3: **Those predestined to eternal rejection because of their foreseen sins.In reality, there are practically only two groups, and both from the same stock, as declared in Rom 9:21-23: those made for dishonorable use, and those made for honorable use.

Group two above, if they exist at all, is, for all practical purposes, group three; that is because the number in group one is immutably fixed, and unchangeable; therefore, those in group two,
if they exist at all, have no chance of moving to group 1, but they are, by default, predestined to group three—eternal rejection.

Furthermore, the “justification” of this second group, if they exist at all, is really nothing more than a “sham justification,” IMO, and God does not operate in shams, but in truth.

Those in group two are described by Ott as being, incompletely predestined,—a kind way of saying elect to eternal rejection on the basis of foreseen sins?

With respect to Thomist negative reprobation, which Ott says is conceived by Thomists as "non-election to eternal bliss"—a kind way of saying elect to eternal rejection on the basis of foreseen sins?—Ott recognizes the difficulty of that position. He says:**"However, it is difficult to find an intrinsic concordance between unconditioned non-election and the universality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. In practice, the unconditioned negative Reprobation of the Thomists involves the same result as the unconditioned positive Reprobation of the heretical Predestinarians, since outside Heaven and Hell there is no third final state.”**There is no “final third state;” therefore, there can be no group two.

In truth then, because there is no final third state, and there are are not three groups declared in scripture, but only two (Rom 8:21-23), that would, IMO, leave those predestined to “grace and glory,” ** as the only ones truly capable of losing their salvation.**

 

[mikeledes]

I don’t have any disagreement with Piper, or others who pose that question; nevertheless, the seed of which one is born is, “imperishable,” and that rebirth is caused by God v3.

What is Piper’s position with respect to the regenerate loosing their salvation?

The point is that “imperishable seed” refers to the Holy Spirit or the word of God. That does not necessarily leads to the conclusion you’re implying. Piper is obviously a Calvinist.

To be continued…

God bless,
Michael

 

[Jerry-Jet]

All of this discussion in one way means nothing.

All I have to know is mortally sin and go to Hell or die in a state of grace and go to Heaven.

What the names are of all the Elect is not for me to know.

Why God Elected some and not others i not for me to know.

God loves me and that is something great that I should know.

God wants me to go to Heaven and not Hell–in fact God wants everyone to go to Heaven–Jesus died for all–not only the Elect though yes He did die for the Elect.

So what are we arguing over–the mind of God?

Who can discern the mysterious ways of God? No one!

But can all of us lowly souls on earth discern that letting God work His grace in us–as opposed to opposing that grace–that that is the only question that ultimately we need to answer!

 

[fbl9]

hi jerry jet you are so right in many of the things you posted. the main thrust of this thread is God only gives grace to those who He picks to be in heaven. i have noticed sandusky has changed his claim that the elect can’t lose salvation.which means man must also co-operate with God if one is to obtain eternal salvation.

 

[mikeledes]

Okay, before going into your objections, let me just state the following. All Catholic theologians (Thomists, Molinists, etc.) must hold to the following fundamental principles:

(1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits.

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination4.php

All Catholics - whether Thomist or not - believe that there are those who are predestined to grace and those predestined to glory.

Any problem posed for Calvinist predestination poses a problem for RC “Thomist” predestination as well.

The passages that deal with righteous persons turning away, being cut off, etc. do not pose a problem to RC predestination because we believe that there are those who genuinely experience justification, but will definitively fall from grace. Since Calvinist predestination does not have such a “category”, then these passages are problematic, hence the necessity to assert that they’re not really righteous, they’re not really in Christ, they’re not really cast’ into the eternal fire, etc.

Catholics are to believe, de fide that there exists three distinct groups of predestinated people.**1: **Those predestined to grace and glory.

**2: **Those predestined to grace only.

**3: **Those predestined to eternal rejection because of their foreseen sins.In reality, there are practically only two groups, and both from the same stock, as declared in Rom 9:21-23: those made for dishonorable use, and those made for honorable use.

If we look at it from the perpective of their *final *destination, then we can correctly say that there are two basic groups.

Group two above, if they exist at all, is, for all practical purposes, group three; that is because the number in group one is immutably fixed, and unchangeable; therefore, those in group two,
if they exist at all, have no chance of moving to group 1, but they are, by default, predestined to group three—eternal rejection.

Furthermore, the “justification” of this second group, if they exist at all, is really nothing more than a “sham justification,” IMO, and God does not operate in shams, but in truth.

This is correct if you believe that justification is necessarily a permanent state, which is the basic premise of your line of reasoning. The testimony of Scripture says otherwise. You correctly stated that when one is initially saved, one passes from death into life. Passing from death into life means being spiritually united to Christ, being engrafted into the “True Vine” and becoming a “branch.” Just as the branch lives because of the vine, we spiritually live because of Christ. Just as the branch must remain attached to the vine in order to partake in the life of the Vine, we must remain spiritually attached to Christ to partake of the life in Him. If the vine dies, the branches die. Christ is eternal and thus those who are attached to Christ can never die. Hence, we see:

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. You can’t stay or remain in something you were never in in the first place. Note the order of events - thrown away, dries up, cast into the fire and burned. Just as a branch dies when it is cut off from the vine - it’s source of life - the person cut off from Christ spiritually “dries up” and is only good for being burned. “Dries up” means death and since this is talking about spiritual realities, it can only be talking about spiritual death. Only RC predestination takes Jesus at His word - when He means “in me” He means “in me” and when He says “cast into the fire” He means what He always means when He uses that phrase, eternal damnation. Calvinists present two contradictory interpretation of these verses. One group says that the branches were really not “in Christ” - contradicting the very words of Jesus and the established biblical definition of “in me”, “in him”, etc. - and the other group says that the branches are true Christians, but that the casting into the fire refers to something other than eternal damnation, contradicting the established use of that phrase as well and forgetting that the branch is described as dying before it is burned. If you combine the two, you end up with the Catholic position. But the Calvinist understanding of predestination makes that absolutely impossible, hence the equivocation among Calvinist commentators.

To be continued…

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Furthermore, the “justification” of this second group, if they exist at all, is really nothing more than a “sham justification,” IMO, and God does not operate in shams, but in truth.

Neither does God engage in vain warnings and empty threats based on impossibilities. That would be saying that God is using statements that are “untrue” - in other words “lies” - in order to inspire us to persevere. And yet He undercuts the purpose of these warnings since Christians are taught that these warnings can never be truly fulfilled. Where there is absolute certainty, there is no fear.

Just because something is not permanent does not make it a “sham.” Satan was created a good and perfect angel. Does his fall mean that that goodness he originally possessed was a “sham?” That God created him evil? Adam and Eve possessed original righteousness, spiritual life, and perfect fellowship with God. Was all of this a sham simply because they lost it through their sin. I’m simply questioning this idea that lack of permanence equal sham.

I have to go Sandusky, but I really appreciate your last couple of posts. May you have a very blessed evening.

To be continued…

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Okay, before going into your objections, let me just state the following. All Catholic theologians (Thomists, Molinists, etc.) must hold to the following fundamental principles:

(1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits.

thesumma.info/predestinat…stination4.php

All Catholics - whether Thomist or not - believe that there are those who are predestined to grace and those predestined to glory.

Ott makes a distinction, which to me, makes sense:**Only incomplete Predestination to grace is independent of every merit (ante praevisa merita), as the first grace cannot be merited. In the same way, complete Predestination to grace and glory conjointly is independent of every merit, as the first grace cannot be merited, and the consequent graces, as well as the merits acquired with these graces and their reward, depend like the links of a chain, on the first grace…**He speaks of “incomplete” and “complete” predestination, respectively.

mikeledes:

The passages that deal with righteous persons turning away, being cut off, etc. do not pose a problem to RC predestination because we believe that there are those who genuinely experience justification, but will definitively fall from grace. Since Calvinist predestination does not have such a “category”, then these passages are problematic, hence the necessity to assert that they’re not really righteous, they’re not really in Christ, they’re not really cast’ into the eternal fire, etc.

As pointed Sean Boyle pointed out earlier on this thread, and I agreed with him, Jn 15 deals with bearing fruit.

The passage is allegorical, and the Lord is not speaking about salvation, at all, but of the relationship His people must have with him to be spiritually fruitful. V 2 may refer to loss of physical life, due to divine chastisement (1 Cor 11:30-32; Pro 15:10; Heb 12:9). V 6 may concern the believer’s works being appraised by the Lord and the unacceptable ones being burned, or rejected (1 Cor 3:15; cf Jn 15:16).

Distancing oneself from Christ will result in barrenness, and perhaps a final cutting off as chastisement; nevertheless, the promises of the New Covenant cannot be made void by the failure of the creature—that’s grace, pure grace:**1 Corinthians 3:15

If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.**Thus Calvin’s words, “Hence He [God] continues the course of his grace even to the end.” That is the difference between the old and the new and better covenant—grace.

Most have a difficult time of that, believing that grace must still somehow have some sort of work and merit attached to it, but that’s not grace, it’s grace + work or merit attached to it.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #273)

**Proverbs 15:10

Grievous punishment is for him who forsakes the way; He who hates reproof will die.

Hebrews 12:9

Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?**Divine chastisement, one to the point of physical death (cf 1 Cor 11:30-32).

mikeledes:

This is correct if you believe that justification is necessarily a permanent state, which is the basic premise of your line of reasoning.

Justification is a permanent state, as Paul states in Eph 2:8:**Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;**”You have been saved,” sesōsmenoi, a perfect, passive, participle. As Wuest translates in his expanded translation: ” For by the grace have you been saved in time past completely, through faith, with the result that your salvation persists through present time…”

The same construction, and same claim made by Catholic apologists concerning Mary in Lk 1:28. Will you be consistent in that understanding of Lk 1:28, and apply it to Eph 2:8, or not?

mikeledes:

Neither does God engage in vain warnings and empty threats based on impossibilities. That would be saying that God is using statements that are “untrue” - in other words “lies” - in order to inspire us to persevere.

I don’t believe that God’s warnings are in vain; I believe that some are directed to the uncommitted, and some to the committed elect, who face chastisement should they not heed the warnings.

mikeledes:

And yet He undercuts the purpose of these warnings since Christians are taught that these warnings can never be truly fulfilled. Where there is absolute certainty, there is no fear.

Not so; fear is a ***provision of the New Covenant:*****Jeremiah 32:40

“I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts
so that they will not turn away from Me.**The elect will have a fear of God, and, they will not leave His hand (cf Jn 10:28-29).

mikeledes:

Just because something is not permanent does not make it a “sham.” Satan was created a good and perfect angel. Does his fall mean that that goodness he originally possessed was a “sham?” That God created him evil? Adam and Eve possessed original righteousness, spiritual life, and perfect fellowship with God. Was all of this a sham simply because they lost it through their sin. I’m simply questioning this idea that lack of permanence equal sham.

I think that’s apples to oranges.

At the time of their creation, Lucifer, and Adam and Eve, are never said to have been promised that they would “never perish.”

However, that promise is made to those re-created in Christ (Jn 10:28).

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

The point is that “imperishable seed” refers to the Holy Spirit or the word of God. That does not necessarily leads to the conclusion you’re implying. Piper is obviously a Calvinist.

One must take into account the complete testimony with respect to “have been born again
of imperishable seed,” a present, passive, participle—something being done “to” the believer by God (1 Pet 1:3: caused by God to be born again) and with “continuous result,” not something being done “by” the believer to himself.

Piper understands that.

 

[Pax]

Scripture is explicit in denying the Calivinist and OSAS positions about falling away.

Galatians 5:1-5 says:

FOR FREEDOM Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,** Christ will be of no advantage to you.** I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.

This passage, among others, contradicts OSAS.