Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[mikeledes]

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)

Certainly, the Vine and the Branches is about fruit bearing, but it is not purely about bearing fruit. It also discusses the importance of abiding in Christ. Now there is such a thing as divine chastisement, as the Scripture you pointed out indicates, but this chastisement in Calvinist theology never involves being cut off from Christ. You are in Christ and you will always be in Christ. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting Calvinism in this point. The “branch” in question, is cut off from the Vine. Which means that this person is no longer attached to Christ, which results in a “drying up.” The “drying up” is not the equivalent of bearing no fruit. Rather, it is the result of being cut off. The Matthew Henry Commentary says the following regarding the “casting into the fire:”

[4.] They cast them into the fire, that is, they are cast into the fire; and those who seduce them and draw them to sin do in effect cast them there; for they make them children of hell. Fire is the fittest place for withered branches, for they are good for nothing else, Ezek. xv. 2-4. [5.] They are burned; this follows of course, but it is here added very emphatically, and makes the threatening very terrible. They will not be consumed in a moment, like thorns under a pot (Eccl. vii. 6), but kaietai, they are burning for ever in a fire, which not only cannot be quenched, but will never spend itself

Many Calvinists understand that “fire” to be a reference to hell, and that’s understandable cause the language used here is always used in the Gospels as a reference to eternal damnation. Note that its is “men” that gather them and throw them in the fire. These are angels that do that.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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.

Interesting!

Either your beliefs and understanding of scripture are infallable or you can be wrong about some of them. Right?

When you come to “All Truth”, you will refuse to believe some of it, if it is contrary to your beliefs from your earthly life? Is that correct? Never again, means never again, right?

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Certainly, the Vine and the Branches is about fruit bearing, but it is not purely about bearing fruit. It also discusses the importance of abiding in Christ. Now there is such a thing as divine chastisement, as the Scripture you pointed out indicates, but this chastisement in Calvinist theology never involves being cut off from Christ. You are in Christ and you will always be in Christ. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting Calvinism in this point. The “branch” in question, is cut off from the Vine. Which means that this person is no longer attached to Christ, which results in a “drying up.” The “drying up” is not the equivalent of bearing no fruit. Rather, it is the result of being cut off. The Matthew Henry Commentary says the following regarding the “casting into the fire:”

Many Calvinists understand that “fire” to be a reference to hell, and that’s understandable cause the language used here is always used in the Gospels as a reference to eternal damnation. Note that its is “men” that gather them and throw them in the fire. These are angels that do that.

I understand the difficulty you have with this, and am thankful for the opportunity to continue pondering the passage.

In Jn 15:2, Jesus says that, every branch in me that does not bear fruit, the correct “tensing” would be, not bearing fruit. IOW, it is not said that it never bore fruit, or that it never will again, but that it is presently not bearing fruit.

He continues, He takes away. Who is “He?” “He” is the Father; therefore, it cannot mean taken away as in a loss of salvation, or as in a judgment, because the Father does not judge, but He has committed all judgment to the Son:**John 5:22

“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son…**Knowing that the Father doesn’t judge, then, the translation of the Gk verb airō as “takes away,” doesn’t make any sense; it reflects neither the love of the Father, nor the love of the Son for those who are His; therefore, in keeping with the understanding of the Father’s “non-judgment status,” and the rest of the testimony of Scripture concerning the security of the elect, the verb is better translated “lifts up,” or, ***”bears up.”*****John 15:2

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He lifts up”…**Lifts or bears up from trailing on the ground (cf Mt 4:6):**Matthew 4:6

and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ”**Same verb, and more in keeping with the Father as husbandman caring for the vine. (cf Lk 17:13; Acts 4:24 in which “take away” makes no sense).

I continue to observe and listen to the emphasis placed upon “abiding in Christ.”

Being “in Christ,” and “abiding in Christ,” are not identical.

One is “in Christ” by the elective will of the Father, as you yourself stated a number of posts back in this thread; however, “abiding in Christ” is a responsibility put upon the elect, and which is met by Christ.

The one “in Christ” can never be lost, because that one is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; cf Eph 2:10: created in Christ Jesus), and as such, his status is forever changed—he will not perish, he’s guaranteed an inheritance, he’s ”sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession…” (Eph 1:13-15).

As I stated a few posts back, failure to “abide in Christ” will result in barrenness, and obviously, a lack of bearing fruit, and that, for a time, I would add; however, it never results in complete rejection.

With respect to v6, it is a “man,” singular who is thrown away, "as a branch" and then the number of the pronouns change; IOW, the man is thrown away as a branch, and "they gather them, and cast them into the fire." Those are the works of the man/branch that are gathered and thrown away, not the man/branch itself, IMO (cf 1 Cor 3:15).

(This exercise has increased my understanding of the passage, and strengthened my belief that it speaks not to salvation, but only to bearing fruit.)

 

[sandusky]

Never again, means never again, right?

Correct!

 

[sandusky]

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.

If circumcision kills, I’m dead.

You?

 

[mikeledes]

I understand the difficulty you have with this, and am thankful for the opportunity to continue pondering the passage.

In Jn 15:2, Jesus says that, every branch in me that does not bear fruit, the correct “tensing” would be, not bearing fruit. IOW, it is not said that it never bore fruit, or that it never will again, but that it is presently not bearing fruit.

He continues, He takes away. Who is “He?” “He” is the Father; therefore, it cannot mean taken away as in a loss of salvation, or as in a judgment, because the Father does not judge, but He has committed all judgment to the Son:John 5:22

“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son…Knowing that the Father doesn’t judge, then, the translation of the Gk verb airō as “takes away,” doesn’t make any sense; it reflects neither the love of the Father, nor the love of the Son for those who are His; therefore, in keeping with the understanding of the Father’s “non-judgment status,” and the rest of the testimony of Scripture concerning the security of the elect, the verb is better translated “lifts up,” or, ***”bears up.”***John 15:2

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He lifts up”…Lifts or bears up from trailing on the ground (cf Mt 4:6):Matthew 4:6

and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ”Same verb, and more in keeping with the Father as husbandman caring for the vine. (cf Lk 17:13; Acts 4:24 in which “take away” makes no sense).

While this is a possible translation of this verse, we also have examples of “airo” being used in the sense of “taken away”, such as in Matthew 13:12 and Matthew 21:43. The fact that all major translations translate this verse as “taken away” or “cut off” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NAB, etc.) says a lot. Though I will not discount the possibility. However, I don’t think the argument that the Father has a “non-judgement” role necessarily precludes the possibility of the Father cutting someone off during a person’s lifetime and before they are finally judged by His Son. In fact, that verse from John 5:22 is specifically talking about the Last Judgement:

John 5:26-29

**26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
30"I can do nothing on My own initiative As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. **

The Father judges through the Son:

Acts 17:31

**31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." **

The judgement in John 5 and Acts 17:31 has in view primarily deals with one’s final destination (Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:5-8), and normally occurs after death, unless you’re still alive at His coming:

Hebrews 9:27

**27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, **

Consequently, John 5:22 does not preclude the Father’s role as the one who cuts off before the person dies and is judged. Moreover, it makes sense since, in His role as vinedresser, it is the Father who engrafts branches into the true vine (1 Corinthians 1:30) and it us He who takes away. Remember, that one of the functions of a vindresser is to remove branches as well.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I continue to observe and listen to the emphasis placed upon “abiding in Christ.”

Being “in Christ,” and “abiding in Christ,” are not identical.

One is “in Christ” by the elective will of the Father, as you yourself stated a number of posts back in this thread; however, “abiding in Christ” is a responsibility put upon the elect, and which is met by Christ.

The one “in Christ” can never be lost, because that one is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; cf Eph 2:10: created in Christ Jesus), and as such, his status is forever changed—he will not perish, he’s guaranteed an inheritance, he’s ”sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession…” (Eph 1:13-15).

As I stated a few posts back, failure to “abide in Christ” will result in barrenness, and obviously, a lack of bearing fruit, and that, for a time, I would add; however, it never results in complete rejection.

With respect to v6, it is a “man,” singular who is thrown away, "as a branch" and then the number of the pronouns change; IOW, the man is thrown away as a branch, and "they gather them, and cast them into the fire." Those are the works of the man/branch that are gathered and thrown away, not the man/branch itself, IMO (cf 1 Cor 3:15).

(This exercise has increased my understanding of the passage, and strengthened my belief that it speaks not to salvation, but only to bearing fruit.)

As I’ve stated before, the Greek word for “abide” is “meno”, which means to remain, stay, continue, etc. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3306&version=nas

Being in my house and remaining in my house basically means the same thing. Both mean that I am in the house. If Christ is saying “remain” or “continue” in me, he is basically saying “You are already in me, so stay in me.” This is the basic meaning of the word “meno.”

Now you say that the cast into the fire is a reference to the person’s works and not the person. First of all, that contradicts the metaphor Jesus is using. In the viniculture of Jesus’s day, branches that were cut off were left to dry and were used for fuel. The metaphor makes a clear distinction between the branch and the fruit it bears. If “works” are represented by “fruits”, then it makes no sense burning the fruit. So logically if the subject of John 15:6 is a person (i.e. branch), than what is thrown away and burned is the person (i.e. branch) and not the works (i.e. fruits). Gramatically speaking, the “them” can only be a reference to the person/branch since that is the only subject of the sentence.

Secondly, the word the NASB translates as “anyone” is a generic “autos”, not the more specific “anthropos” (i.e. man). bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=846&version=nas Thus the intent is not to refer to a specific person, but to any person in general, thus the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate “anyone” and hence the use of the plural towards the end. Moreover who are the “they” that do the gathering? In fact, Jesus’s description exactly corresponds to other references to eternal damnation:

John 15:6 (NASB)

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.

Compare with Matthew 13:49-50

**49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **

This reaffirms that the ones gathered and thrown into the fire by the “they” are the branches/persons and not the works/fruits. Both passages use the same Greek word for “throw/cast.”

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

If circumcision kills, I’m dead.

You?

Please read scripture as it pertains to circumcision and then think about it. You have nothing to fear. Even after all of his teachings against circumcision, Paul had Timothy circumcised.[see Acts 16:3]

The issues and arguments about circumcision are apparently a little more complex than what you are allowing for.

 

[mikeledes]

If circumcision kills, I’m dead.

You?

This falls under TMI (i.e. too much information)! The act of circumcision represented more to Paul than just a hygenic procedure.

I have to go. I still have things I would like to cover, but I don’t have the time now. I hope you and everyone here has a very blessed weekend. I will not be online.

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

While this is a possible translation of this verse, we also have examples of “airo” being used in the sense of “taken away”, such as in Matthew 13:12 and Matthew 21:43. The fact that all major translations translate this verse as “taken away” or “cut off” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NAB, etc.) says a lot. Though I will not discount the possibility. However, I don’t think the argument that the Father has a “non-judgement” role necessarily precludes the possibility of the Father cutting someone off during a person’s lifetime and before they are finally judged by His Son. In fact, that verse from John 5:22 is specifically talking about the Last Judgement:

John 5:26-29

26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
30"I can do nothing on My own initiative As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

That’s certainly true.

And, the Father predestines through Christ, and chooses in Christ, to the praise of His glory according to the counsel of His will.

Further, The Father gives those who are His to Christ, and gives Christ the responsibility of keeping those given to Him, and He gives Christ charge to raise them up in the day.

More importantly, the elect do not come into judgment (Jn 5:24; cf 3:18).

I should have stated that in my last post.

The Father has already judged the elect at the cross, and He has forgiven them all of their transgressions:**Colossians 2:13-14

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He **[The Father] **made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.**Thus, having been justified, the elect have peace with God through their Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1). To be sure, the elect will give account for their works, and words; however, the judgment against them has already been pronounced; namely, not guilty, by reason of the righteousness of Christ.

mikeledes:

The Father judges through the Son:

Acts 17:31

31because He has fixed a day in which **He will judge the world ** in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

As the “blue” shows, that’s the judgment of the world; the believer was judged at the cross, and so, he does not come into condemnation, as the world; furthermore, the believer is *not [even] * of the world”:**1 Corinthians 11:32

But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that
we will not be condemned along with the world.**

**John 17:16

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.**

Therefore, neither does Christ intercede by prayer to the Father for the world, but only for those given to Him by the Father:**John 17:9

“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**

mikeledes:

The judgement in John 5 and Acts 17:31 has in view primarily deals with one’s final destination (Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:5-8), and normally occurs after death, unless you’re still alive at His coming:

Hebrews 9:27

27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

Consequently, John 5:22 does not preclude the Father’s role as the one who cuts off before the person dies and is judged. Moreover, it makes sense since, in His role as vinedresser, it is the Father who engrafts branches into the true vine (1 Corinthians 1:30) and it us He who takes away. Remember, that one of the functions of a vindresser is to remove branches as well.

I’ve covered this in all that precedes it.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Being in my house and remaining in my house basically means the same thing. Both mean that I am in the house. If Christ is saying “remain” or “continue” in me, he is basically saying “You are already in me, so stay in me.” This is the basic meaning of the word “meno.”

He is certainly teaching the necessity of remaining in Him to bear fruit—the point of the passage.

mikeledes:

Now you say that the cast into the fire is a reference to the person’s works and not the person. First of all, that contradicts the metaphor Jesus is using. In the viniculture of Jesus’s day, branches that were cut off were left to dry and were used for fuel. The metaphor makes a clear distinction between the branch and the fruit it bears. If “works” are represented by “fruits”, then it makes no sense burning the fruit. So logically if the subject of John 15:6 is a person (i.e. branch), than what is thrown away and burned is the person (i.e. branch) and not the works (i.e. fruits). Gramatically speaking, the “them” can only be a reference to the person/branch since that is the only subject of the sentence.

An over analysis which shows your inconsistency.

For example, it is said that the Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary. That conclusion is arrived at by taking an historical account, allegorizing it simply, and saying, “see, she’s the Ark of the New Covenant.”

Where are the minute details that the Ark endured, that Mary did not?

Where was Mary on a cart that began to fall and the one who reached to steady her was killed for doing so?

Where was Mary taken captive by an enemy of Israel?

Where was Mary put before a stone idol, and where did she topple the idol?

Where are all of the other details concerning the adventures of the Ark applied to Mary?

Almost none of the adventures of the Ark are applied to Mary; a simple allegorizing is all that Catholic’s require to prove that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

OTHO, you are dissecting this allegory of the Lord down to the atomic level.

You are requiring a much higher, and much more rigorous standard of proof from me with respect to what I believe, than you require of yourself with respect to what you believe.

Yesterday, you said:

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

To which I replied:

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?

You’ve not answered that question; certainly you read it?

I’d like an answer to that question.

Will you be consistent in that understanding of Lk 1:28, and apply it to Eph 2:8?

A simple question requiring a simple yes, or no answer.

If “yes,” then this discussion is over; you are a Calvinist, and should repent. :ehh:

If “no,” or “no, with qualifications,” then you prove my point, and we can continue with your questions keeping your inconsistency in view.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Being in my house and remaining in my house basically means the same thing. Both mean that I am in the house. If Christ is saying “remain” or “continue” in me, he is basically saying “You are already in me, so stay in me.” This is the basic meaning of the word “meno.”

The elect were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world, and when they believe, they are placed “in Christ” by grace through faith. Being in Christ never changes as it is the position that the elect hold—that’s strict doctrinal theology.

But, there is also a “practical” side to that strict doctrinal theology.

The elect will have fellowship/communion with the Lord—they will abide in Him.

Ideally, the intensity of that relationship will be high, and constant (filled with the Spirit); however, the elect, although regenerate, still struggle with the principle of sin, and evil that is presently within them.

That brings us to the practical application of doctrine, the outworking of it. Practically, that fellowship with Christ will ebb, and flow; it will wax, and wane; it may cause one to give up for a season; nevertheless, even though the elect may give up, they will never be cast off, cast out, cast away, or anything else fully and finally; that’s the promise of both the Father and the Son (Jn 10:28-30). Nothing, not even a lack of fruit will separate the elect from the Son (Rom 8:35-40). The Son is charged with keeping the elect secure forever.

mikeledes:

Now you say that the cast into the fire is a reference to the person’s works and not the person. First of all, that contradicts the metaphor Jesus is using. In the viniculture of Jesus’s day, branches that were cut off were left to dry and were used for fuel. The metaphor makes a clear distinction between the branch and the fruit it bears. If “works” are represented by “fruits”, then it makes no sense burning the fruit. So logically if the subject of John 15:6 is a person (i.e. branch), than what is thrown away and burned is the person (i.e. branch) and not the works (i.e. fruits). Gramatically speaking, the “them” can only be a reference to the person/branch since that is the only subject of the sentence.

Secondly, the word the NASB translates as “anyone” is a generic “autos”, not the more specific “anthropos” (i.e. man). bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/…46&version=nas Thus the intent is not to refer to a specific person, but to any person in general, thus the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate “anyone” and hence the use of the plural towards the end. Moreover who are the “they” that do the gathering? In fact, Jesus’s description exactly corresponds to other references to eternal damnation

It’s a simile, not a metaphor, and the elect are not cast into the fire; even you confess that; correct?

As I’ve said before, the greater strength of the testimony to the security of the believer requires that those verses that seemingly contradict the greater statements be made subordinate to them.

Compare 15:6 to 1 Cor 3:15, as I’ve done. This is similar to the “salt losing its savor,” (Mt 5:13); it is analogous to 2 Jn 8: **"Watch yourselves that you do not lose what we’ve accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward."

The only thing the elect are ever in danger of losing is a full reward—not their position in Christ, nor their salvation.**

Jn 15 is not about salvation, but about bearing fruit, and the necessity of abiding in Christ to do so; the abundance of fruit produced, or lack of abundance will vary from person to person to person; that’s practical theology, and thankfully, God is kindly disposed toward those whom He has chosen in Christ:**Psalm 103:8-14

The Lord is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.

He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever.

He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.

As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him.

For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.**He’s mindful that even though I am His, chosen and placed forever in Christ, my frame is
“but dust.”

A practical application of doctrine keeps one from cold, harsh, rigid, ritual religion.

 

[peary]

What exactly is the discussion in here? I am totally and completely lost reading these posts!

 

[mikeledes]

He is certainly teaching the necessity of remaining in Him to bear fruit—the point of the passage.

An over analysis which shows your inconsistency.

For example, it is said that the Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary. That conclusion is arrived at by taking an historical account, allegorizing it simply, and saying, “see, she’s the Ark of the New Covenant.”

Where are the minute details that the Ark endured, that Mary did not?

Where was Mary on a cart that began to fall and the one who reached to steady her was killed for doing so?

Where was Mary taken captive by an enemy of Israel?

Where was Mary put before a stone idol, and where did she topple the idol?

Where are all of the other details concerning the adventures of the Ark applied to Mary?

Almost none of the adventures of the Ark are applied to Mary; a simple allegorizing is all that Catholic’s require to prove that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

OTHO, you are dissecting this allegory of the Lord down to the atomic level.

You are requiring a much higher, and much more rigorous standard of proof from me with respect to what I believe, than you require of yourself with respect to what you believe.

Yesterday, you said:To which I replied:You’ve not answered that question; certainly you read it?

I’d like an answer to that question.

Will you be consistent in that understanding of Lk 1:28, and apply it to Eph 2:8?

A simple question requiring a simple yes, or no answer.

If “yes,” then this discussion is over; you are a Calvinist, and should repent. :ehh:

If “no,” or “no, with qualifications,” then you prove my point, and we can continue with your questions keeping your inconsistency in view.

Regarding you argument from Ephesians 2:8, a perfect passive participle in Greek indicates an action completed in the past that continues in the present. While it can refer to something permanent, it does not always refer to something permanent. For example, an Eternal Security website defines a perfect passive participle as follows:

ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT. In certain contexts the results are PERMANENT.

preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm

Thus admitting that the use of the perfect passive participle per se does not guarantee permanence, because permanence depends on context. It means that something was done in the past that continues in the present. A perfect passive participle does not guarantee that the act will continue in the future. Regarding the Luke 1, the argument is far more complex than “a perfect paasive participle is used and thus this proves…”

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html

Since Mary is not the topic of this discussion, then I will move on with the original topic.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[peary]

And who are the ‘elect’, anyway? Those who, at the end, cry “Lord, Lord”? The Bible specifically points out that the first shall be last and the last first. Those who are so sure of their election aren’t the elect at all.

 

[sandusky]

And who are the ‘elect’, anyway? Those who, at the end, cry “Lord, Lord”? The Bible specifically points out that the first shall be last and the last first. Those who are so sure of their election aren’t the elect at all.

Anyone can make up that kind of an axiom of the opposite; the question is, can you prove your axiom; the answer: no you can’t.

Do you subscribe to the corollary of your axiom:**Those who aren’t so sure of their election are the elect.**Do you believe that?

How about these:**Those who are so sure they have the charism of infallibility don’t have the charism of infallibility.

Those who are so sure they’re in the one true church aren’t in the one true church.**Do you believe those two axioms of mine? :ehh:

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Regarding you argument from Ephesians 2:8, a perfect passive participle in Greek indicates an action completed in the past that continues in the present. While it can refer to something permanent, it does not always refer to something permanent. For example, an Eternal Security website defines a perfect passive participle as follows

I know what a PPP is, and I know what it means.

For the Catholic, it means one thing in one instance, and a different thing in another instance.

In the first instance, the instance in which you accept what the PPP indicates, the verb used to describe the action is different from the verb upon which the doctrine is built.

In the second instance, the instance in which you don’t accept what the PPP indicates, the verb used to describe the action is the very same verb upon which the doctrine is built.

The former is inconsistent; the latter is not.

Using your statement:**ONE:

ACTION COMPLETED:
Mary has been highly favored.**

at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST:
No specific point of time is mentioned in the text.

with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT:
She is “being” (continuously) highly favored (or “graced”), with no diminishing, ever, of that favor.

TWO:

ACTION COMPLETED:
The elect have been saved

at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST:
The specific point of time is,
“before the foundation of the world,” (Eph 1:4)

with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT:
The elect are “being” (continuously) saved,
with no diminishing, ever, of that salvation.This demonstrates that the Catholic is willing to apply one standard to himself and his doctrine, in order to remain aligned with Church teaching, and, that the Catholic is willing to apply another standard to others, in order to point out where they are not aligned with Church teaching—ultimately, the RC cannot deviate from the teaching of the Church, even if the scripture teaches to the contrary.

That inconsistency is accurately summed up in this quote from Ignatius of Loyola:**“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides”**I’ll continue pointing that out as necessary.

 

[fbl9]

we should always be desposed to believe that,that which appears to be white is really black,if the hieracrchy of the Church so decides.St. Ignatious of Loyola…this saint knew better than what you are impliying sandusky.He is not refering to infallably defined doctrine.rather disciplines,miracles and even people who are believed to be saints.how could this saint believe the one true Church defined errorness beliefs as doctrines. if he were to believe that to be true he certainly never trusted Jesus saying and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,in regards to the Church.

 

[fbl9]

It is the Father’s will the sinner not die…It is the Son’s will the sinner repent…election:/ the choosing of a person by God.God will keep said person.This person can not sin and if said person does sin ,which leadeth to death, said person was and is not an elected person.Hoever if anyone keep my word they shall not see death…or …however if I keep anyone in my word he shall not see death.in the gospel writen by St.John we read of Jesus praying for those who are set aside to be one with those who by word be as one…if only the elect are and will be saved: those who believe by their word are not elected so they are to be condemned??

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

we should always be desposed to believe that,that which appears to be white is really black,if the hieracrchy of the Church so decides.

St. Ignatious of Loyola…this saint knew better than what you are impliying sandusky.

He is not refering to infallably defined doctrine. rather disciplines, miracles and even people who are believed to be saints. how could this saint believe the one true Church defined errorness beliefs as doctrines. if he were to believe that to be true he certainly never trusted Jesus saying and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, in regards to the Church.

Ignatius’ statement is an axiom, or maxim, an accepted truth among Catholics; it applies to all things which must believed by Catholics, including infallibly defined doctrine.

fbl9:

It is the Father’s will the sinner not die.

It is the Son’s will the sinner repent…**election:/ the choosing of a person by God.God will keep said person.This person can not sin and if said person does sin ,which leadeth to death, said person was and is not an elected person.

Hoever if anyone keep my word they shall not see death…or …however if I keep anyone in my word he shall not see death.in the gospel writen by St.John we read of Jesus praying for those who are set aside to be one with those who by word be as one…if only the elect are and will be saved: those who believe by their word are not elected so they are to be condemned**??True.

As I stated in my post #267 on this thread:

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.”

Ott
​

​