Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[mikeledes]

I reaffirm what I stated in my prior post regarding John 15. What I don’t understand is whether the Calvinists involved in this thread believe that the “branch in me” that does not bear fruit and is taken awayis a genuine Christian or merely a member of the visible body of Christ? Most of the Calvinists I have come across believe that the “taken away”, “cast forth”, and “burned” clearly refer to spiritual death and eternal damnation. Therefore, those branches cannotbe true Christians. Moreover, the key word is “dries up” or “withers.” In other words, the person in question no longer has life within them. The life being referred to here is spiritual life. Are Calvinists here willing to admit that a person can still be saved and enter eternal glory and not have spiritual life within them? I highly doubt that. Also, if the person has been taken away or cast forth from the “Vine”, which symbolizes the personof Christ, then how on earth can they be saved apart from Christ? If these branches are not true Christians, then the above post still stands.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

say one sees a person on the edge of a tall building.one thinks to ones self if that person falls they will be killed. now the person falls is the person going to die because one knows this fall would kill some one? God knows which souls He created will come to Him, does not mean that Him knowing this causes them to come to Him. why would He not make only the souls that would come to Him and not create the others that don’t? sandusky you seem to limit God’s love only for yourself since you are so perfect by His choosing you.don’t say your ar3e not perfect because you posted earlier only the perfect will get into heaven.ie the saved are the only ones worthy of heaven.

Here are some essays for you to read on the Doctrine of Predestination.

Here you’ll find Boettner’s book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, in its entirety.
(An excellent book, BTW).

They should give you a better understanding of the non-catholic view, rather than listening to, and then adopting the arguments of others against it.

All of the answers to the questions that you ask concerning the creation of souls, and why God creates and saves some men, and why He creates others, and does not save them, can be found in the scripture. Be a Berean; search for them.

 

[mikeledes]

Now many passages have been cited that talk about God “keeping us” or that we can “never perish.” First of all, whatever is God’s intended goal, he will complete it. Completion depends on what your goal is. If I intend to drive someone to a party and I fail to do so, then my mission is incomplete. If I only intended to drive that person to a friend’s house and that person wants the friend in question to complete the journey to the party, then my mission is completed and I have reached my goal. So if God’s intent is to bring a person to glorification, He will ensure that that person will reach that goal. Now let’s look at one of the passages in question in context:

Philipians 1:3-8

**3I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
4always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,
5in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.
6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me. **
8For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

On what does he base his confidence? On the absolute assurance that all believers will persevere and thus God will complete his work in them? No! First of all, he points out their persevering spirit in verse 5. That is always a good sign that one may be among those who are elect to glory. Secondly, he says in verse 7 that the reason he feels that way is because of the deep affection he has for them and the constant support they have given to him during his imprisonment and to the Gospel. He later says to the Philippians: (4:14-18)

**14Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.
15You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone;
16for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.
17Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.
18But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. **

The Phillipians have shared in Paul’s suffering and have shown extraordinary generosity in their support of Paul’s ministry and the gospel. Is there any wonder why Paul would be so confident in a church that has demonstrated such great love for the Gospel?

Moreover, the confidence he is expressing is regarding the Phillipians in general - the Greek word for “you” is pural. He is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Welcome back mikeledes

just to get you up to date no one as of yet has responded to your post

Thank you! I’m glad to be back - at least for today. I’ve had a surge of things to do at work and in my personal life over the past few weeks that I’ve barely been able to post. Fortunately, I managed to find some time.

It’s not surprising that no one has responded. A “response” is often a long list of verses - sometimes with little or no explanation - that seem to say something different. This reminds me of debates with Jehovah’s witnesses. There are more verses in the Bible that discuss the humanity of Christ and his being distinct from the Father than there are verses that explicitly discuss His divinity. The JWs tend to give you an exhaustive list of the former and then expect that they will automatically explain away the latter verses. It doesn’t work that way. The other kind of “reponse” is that they simply ignore certain verses and hope that they will be erased from your memory. It doesn’t work that way either.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

That’s true; however, this parabolic teaching cuts to the chase, if you will, and teaches that the tares were sown by the evil one as tares, and were harvested as tares; whereas, the wheat was sown by the Son of Man, and harvested as wheat. Again we see the teaching that the greater reason for these things is the predetermined will of God.I’m not going to argue with you; what I’ve been saying is mostly for the benefit of Cling2Cross.

So you believe there are two sowers of seed? God and someone else. Interesting, wrong but interesting.

Remember that wheat is not usable as wheat until it is no longer phyically alive. It’s bounty or usefullness can’t be measured while alive. While alive there is alway hope of a wonderful bounty, but the bounty can never be declared until the death of the wheat. That shoots the man made theology of once saved always saved down. See parables are useful.

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

So you believe there are two sowers of seed? God and someone else. Interesting, wrong but interesting.

**Matthew 13:37-40

37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man

38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.**Who sows the good Seed? (v 37).

Who sows the tares? (v 39).

Who are the good seed? (v 38).

Who are the tares? (v 38).

Two sowers, two “seeds.”
Sean Boyle:

See parables are useful.

Yes they are; this one teaches that there are two sowers; will you learn from that?

 

[mikeledes]

I would like to tackle two verses that are often used to support OSAS:

Romans 8:1

**1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. **

John 11:27-29

27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Calvinists assume that the means that no true Christians will ever perish and thus passages like John 15 must be interpreted in light of “clear” verses like these. However, do these verses actually mean what Calvinists say they mean? If I were to say the following:

There is now no dying of hypothermia for those who are in Hawaii

or…

Those who are inhabitants of Hawaii will never die of hypothermia

Does this really mean that the inhabitants can never die of hypothermia under anycondition? Obviously not! The assumed precondition is that they remain in Hawaii. What if they decide to leave Hawaii and move to Maine, Alaska, or Greenland? Obvioulsy, they no longer enjoy the special protection from hypothermia that the climate of Hawaii provided. In these cases, you can not say never!

So going back to Romans 8 and John 10, the promises of no condenmation, having eternal life, never perishing is not merely to those who are in Christ, but also to those who remain in Christ. That’s why 1 John 2:24-25 states:

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

The promise of eternal life is assured to those who abide or persevere in Christ. That’s why the Bible says he who perseveres to the end will be saved and also:

Galatians 6:7-9

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

Those who do not abide in Christ will suffer a different fate:

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.

Once again I want to emphasize that the “dries up” occurs after the branch has been cut off from the Vine. If something dries up, it means that it once had life. Since the “dries up” refers to the person cut off, it can only be referring to the spiritual death that is the result of being removed from the source of spiritual life, namely, Christ. The phrase “cast into the fire” is always a reference to eternal damnation.

But the Calvinist will respond, “doesn’t Jesus say that no one can snatch them out of His or the Father’s hand!” Yes, that is absolutely true, but notin the Calvinist sense. The word “snatch” - in Greek “harpazo” bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=726&version=kjv - means being taken by force and sometimes can involve the element of surprise. We find the same word used in the following passage:

Matthew 12:29

29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

No one can forcefully take true Christians out of God’s hands. He alone establishes the conditions by which we enter His hands and also by which we stay in His hands. One of these conditions for the latter is found in 1 John 2:24-25. Those who leave His hands is because God has allowed them to leave. God is not forced to do anything. Moreover, note that the source of the snatching is outside of God’s hands.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Now I would like to touch the parable of the wheat and the tares. The point of the passage is that evil will coexist with good in the world -even within Christian congregatons - until His second coming. However, when Jesus talks about the “tares”, whodoes He have in mind? Does he have in mind that “false” professor who joins a church merely because he liked its positive message and tries to practice it, but then leaves? Or is he talking about that Christian that receives the “word with joy” and “believes for a while” and then falls away in time of persecution? These do little or no direct harm to fellow Christians or the Church. However, the “tares” are sown by Satan and his clear intent is to do damage, for Satan can only bring destruction. His intent is to sabotage the kingdom of God by sowing the “tares” among God’s “wheat.” Tares, in fact, damage wheat production. The following website discusses the adverse affect weeds/tares have on wheat: Effects of Weeds on Wheat

Regarding certain kinds of tares, Wikipedia says the following:

Some species, particularly L. temulentum, are weeds which can have a severe impact on the production of wheat and other crops.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryegrass

Is there any indication of the “tares” having an adverse effect on the “wheat” in Jesus’s explanation of the parable. Let’s look at Matthew 13:40-41:

**40"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.
41"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, **

A “stumbling block” is something or someone that causes a person to stumble/sin. In other words, these tares are sown by Satan with the intent of causing Christians to sin, just as tares have an adverse affect on wheat production. Now Protestants rightfully point out that tares outwardly resemble wheat. That sounds like something Jesus said earlier in Matthew 7:15, 20-23:

**15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ **

So the tares that Christ have in mind are not those who superficially commit themselves to Christ because of a message they liked, their spouse or family made them do it, or because that was the church they were raised in. Rather, he is referring to those who enter Christian congregations with the intent of being stumbling blocks and leading genuine Christians astray - the same way tares have an adverse effect on wheat production- and are wolves in sheep’s clothing, the same way tares outwardly resemble wheat. That’s why Paul warneed the Ephesian church in Acts 20:28-30:

**28"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. **

We also have Jesus saying in Revelation 2:20:

**20’But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. **

We will know false prophets by their works because if their intent is to cause a person to sin or to be lead astray. In other words, their motive will be evident in their actions, because what they do or say will not be in accordance with Christian doctrine. So the point is that Protestants apply this parable when speaking of false professors in general, but Jesus is really speaking of a certain kind of false professor, the false prophet. Unlike any other false professor, the false prophet enters the Christian community with the intent to mislead and cause Christians to stumble. Moreover, as in agriculture, these “tares” can do real spiritual damage to “wheat”, that’s why Satan sowed them.

Gofd Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I would like to generally address passages that use words like “never” or “forever.” As I stated in post #143, “never” or “forever” does not necessarily mean without conditions or preconditions. Take for example the following passage, which is what God says regarding the temple Solomon built:

2 Chronicles 7:15-16

15"Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place.
16"For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.

So God promised that His name would be in Solomon’s temple forever and that "His eyes and heart will be there perpetuallyfail to fulfill his promise, particularly since he used words like “forever” or “perpetually.” No, because He later said:

19"But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them,
20then I will uproot you from My land which I have given you, and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
21"As for this house, which was exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?’
22"And they will say, ‘Because they forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers who brought them from the land of Egypt, and they adopted other gods and worshiped them and served them; therefore He has brought all this adversity on them.’"

So the “forever” and “perpetually” was conditioned on true worship of and fidelity to God. The Israelites forsook God, and thus God forsook Solomon’s temple, allowing it to be destroyed. My point is that a promise or statement that involves the word “forever” or “never” does not necessarily mean that the subject of that promise is absolutely guaranteed to *enjoy * that promise forever. And like I said earlier, i can say …

A person in Hawaii will never die of hypothermia.

or…

A person in Hawaii are forever protected from hypothermia.

… but that is obviously condition of remaining in Hawaii.

If ceasing to abide in Christ is something that can never happen, then why does Christ raise the possibility in John 15:6? Why does Paul say in Romans 11:20-22

**20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. 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. **

Or why did Paul say in Galatians 5:2-4

**2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. **

A result of genuine Christians having turned away from the true Gospel for a false one (Galatians 1:6), the clear effect of “tares” sown by Satan among the “wheat” of God with the intent of causing spiritual damage.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I have to go. I didn’t cover everything that I wanted to cover today, but I thank God in Christ that I was able to post today. i may or may not be able to post tomorrow, so I wish all of you a very blessed evening.

And remember, God does not make vain warnings:

Revelation 22:19

19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

You can’t receive a part in the inheritance if you are not an heir, you cannot be an heir unless you are really a child of God, and you cannot have a part taken away if you never had a share to begin with. This reaffirms what CHRIST HIMSELF stated in John 15:6. And if this warning could never occur, then what was it’s purpose? It’s like telling a class “If you don’t take the final exam, you will fail the class.” And then say “I’m never going to fail you!” Then what was the purpose of the warning in the first place? By saying the latter, I have completely undermined the purpose of the former.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[fbl9]

Here are some essays for you to read on the Doctrine of Predestination.

Here you’ll find Boettner’s book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, in its entirety.
(An excellent book, BTW).

They should give you a better understanding of the non-catholic view, rather than listening to, and then adopting the arguments of others against it.

All of the answers to the questions that you ask concerning the creation of souls, and why God creates and saves some men, and why He creates others, and does not save them, can be found in the scripture. Be a Berean; search for them.

the doctrine of predestination simply put;there is no use in preaching the gospel to any one because if they are to be saved they will be.no need to call people out of darkness cause they will come into the light against their will. sandusky you seem to forget every one has this gift called free will.when one is baptised the soul is enlightened so if that so falls into sin even for a long period it will groan against the flesh. we can choose to ingore this interal strife unto death if we choose to do so.or we can listen to the voice of the eternal Shepard calling us back.but He will not force us against our will. Jesus gently calls men unto Himself. God has created all souls equal with exceptions to the Son’s mother.all that is good comes from Him who is good, this doctrine of predestination tells me that God makes bad souls???

 

[Pax]

Yes, the choosing of Judas for the apostolate, is described as “election;” however, in what sense is Judas, “elect?”

Is Judas’ election an election to salvation, or an election to something else?

In the NT, election to salvation is uniformly ascribed to the Father, while the electing work of the Son is to service; read the passages you’ve cited Pax.

Jn 6:70 illustrates this:John 6:70

Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”Jesus chose the 12 as apostles, and one of those He chose knowing that one “is a devil.”

(Jesus chose that devil, Judas, in order that the scripture would be fulfilled).

Within that group of 12, are those chosen by the Father for salvation, and given to the Son for safekeeping:John 17:6

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.Those given by the Father to Christ for salvation have “kept the Father’s word.”

Explain how Judas kept the Father’s word.John 17:12

“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished BUT the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.”BUT” (Gk ei mā), is an adversative conjunction; it separates Judas into another class from the class in which “not one perished.”

IOW, Judas was never among the group that did not perish—they were sons by adoption—but Judas was THE son of Perdition, and he was that, so that, the scripture would be fulfilled.

Here are a few more verses with adversative conjunctions:Matthew 12:4

how he [King David] entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?

(David was not in the class of priests)**

Acts 27:22**

“Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.

(The ship is not in the class that will not be lost)**

Revelation 21:27**

and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

(Those whose names are written in the Lambs book of Life are not among the class of unclean, abominable liars who will never enter the kingdom)

If you still doubt what I’m saying, this should remove that doubt:John 18:6-9

So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,”

to fulfill the word which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.”John is referring to 17:12.

Of those given by the Father to the Son for salvation, “not one was lost.”

Judas was not elect to salvation.

I am grateful for your thoughtful response, but I respectfully disagree and stand by my former posts. All of the twelve were given to Jesus by the Father. Judas was given to Jesus by the Father. Jesus also chose the twelve.

 

[sandusky]

I am grateful for your thoughtful response, but I respectfully disagree and stand by my former posts. All of the twelve were given to Jesus by the Father. Judas was given to Jesus by the Father. Jesus also chose the twelve.

:tiphat:

 

[sandusky]

the doctrine of predestination simply put;there is no use in preaching the gospel to any one because if they are to be saved they will be.no need to call people out of darkness cause they will come into the light against their will. sandusky you seem to forget every one has this gift called free will.when one is baptised the soul is enlightened so if that so falls into sin even for a long period it will groan against the flesh. we can choose to ingore this interal strife unto death if we choose to do so.or we can listen to the voice of the eternal Shepard calling us back.but He will not force us against our will. Jesus gently calls men unto Himself. God has created all souls equal with exceptions to the Son’s mother.all that is good comes from Him who is good, this doctrine of predestination tells me that God makes bad souls???

That’s an interesting post; thanks.

 

[sandusky]

For the elect only?

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (John 10:27-29 KJV)

Yes, for the elect only.

In v28, when Jesus says, ”they shall never perish,” that negation is in the emphatic, and, it is a double negative, in fact, it is the strongest double negative in the Greek: ou mā—No, not ever shall they perish.

That superlative double negative is immediately followed by Jesus stating the certainty of the impossibility of removal from His hand, which is immediately followed by Jesus stating the certainty of the impossibility of removal from the Father’s hand.

The Lord is telling us something very significant here. extrahappy

Catholics always ignore v28, falsely believing that v29 is the final say; the main reason for their denial, is that salvation must remain in man’s hands, or it’s somehow not a good, or true salvation, but rather, if God does the saving alone, without the “aid” of man, then that saving is oppressive, and forcing man to be saved against his will.

What v29 does, however, is sum up, and conclude the double negative statement of the Lord in v28 in the strongest terms.

V28, 29, nail down the impossibility of Christ’s sheep ever perishing—no matter what
(cf Rom 8:32ff).

Those two verses are one of the anchoring points of a true biblical soteriology, in which God is the savior, and needs no help from men, and, it is a greater statement to which all seemingly contradictory statements must be subordinated.

 

[sandusky]

In case you missed this, Odell:

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

First, God wills to keep His people. This is the Father’s will (Jn 6:39-40), and that of Jesus’ (17:11-12, 24). The Father has never denied Jesus’ petitions. Jesus clearly states that He has kept the will of the Father, and lost none of those given to Him, but the son of Perdition. Judas was not a a son of/by adoption,” but, ei mā, (an adversative which shows two different classes: the others given to the Son to be raised up in the last day (class 1), and Judas, the son of Perdition given to the Son to betray Him (class 2); (cf Mt 12:4; Acts 27:22; Rev 21:27). Scriptures show that Judas was never saved (Jn 6:70-71; 13:10-11).

Second, not only does God will to keep His people, God is able to keep His people. God is omnipotent, and therefore, able to bring His purposes to fulfillment, and to finish His work in those He saves (2 Tim 1:12; Jude 24; Jn 10:28-29; Phil 1:6). Nothing in the creatures power can cause God to fail (Is 46:10). Salvation is wholly of God, and human failure cannot void God’s promises given in the New Covenant; neither can their failures jeopardize their salvation (Rom 3:3-4; Jer 31:31-37).

Third, not only does God will to keep His people, and not only is He able to keep His people, God is also free to keep them. The debt of all our sins—past, present, future—has been paid (Col 2:13ff); therefore, those whom God has chosen to save can never incur condemnation for sinning (Rom 8:1a; 32-34).

God also has provided for His people’s safekeeping by giving them an advocate (1 Jn 2:1); by giving them an intercessor (Heb 7:25) who represents them before the Father, all the while looking after their well-being on earth (Heb 4:14-16; Jn 17:9-24; Lk 22:21-32)—IOW He is able to “perfectly” keep those given to Him, thus fulfilling the Father’s will that of those given to Him, He will raise them up on the last day, and lose none.

Furthermore, with respect to safekeeping, He corrects those who are sinning (1 Cor 11:31-32).

Also, He seals the believer with the HS (Eph 4:30); the HS is an earnest, or down-payment for the final glorification of the saint. In a human operation, the operation is vulnerable until it is completed; however, with God’s operation of salvation, the Spirit keeps the believer secure until the salvation work is finished (Php 1:6).

Lastly, the promise of eternal life given in the gospel is based upon the promises of the New Covenant, which is a better Covenant than the old because Israel broke the Old by disobedience; the new cannot be broken by human failure; the New promises everlasting life to its recipients (cf Jn 10:28-29).

That’s because the New Covenant is mediated by Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf Heb 8:6-12; Jer 31:31-34; Lk 22:20). The New is gracious, and everlasting (Jer 31:35-37; Heb 13:20; Rom 4:25), and again, it cannot be broken by human failure.

So in order for one to understand Jn 15 to be speaking about the loss of salvation for an elect believer, one would have to throw out the verses above (which verses are not exhaustive with respect to the subject, but speak unambiguously to it).

When Jesus says that His sheep (the elect), will never perish, and that no one can take the sheep out of the Father’s hand, that’s what He means; and, that is a comprehensive statement: no one means no one.

Also, when Paul says that the Father will complete the good work that He has begun in the believer (that of justification/salvation), then that’s what Paul means; the Father begins, and completes the justification/salvation of the believer (Php 1:6; 2:13).

 

[mikeledes]

Odell, if there are two seemingly contradictory verses, obviously one must be subordinated to the other. However, on what basis? On the basis of a dearly held theological position? Obviously not. It must be an objective basis. The less clear verse should always be subordinated to the verse with the clearest meaning. Now let’s look at one of the verses in question again:

27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

The Calvinist will point out that the strongest double negative is used in this verse. Why is the strongest double negative used? Because there is absolutely no possibility of perishing if one is in the Son’s and the Father’s hands. As long as we’re in His hands, we are absolutely secure and we have spiritual life.

Now Jesus then goes on to say that no one can snatch them out of His or the Father’s hand. As I pointed out earlier, the Greek word for “snatch” is harpazo, which means to take by force. I cited the following verse in which this word is used:

Matthew 12:29

29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Why does does he emphasize the “snatching?” In order to emphasize the absolute security the Christian has while he or she is in God’s hands. In God’s hands, the believer is absolutely assured of spiritual life and is absolutely assured that no one will be able to force them out.

Now Calvinists love to bring up the “straw man” that Catholics believe that salvation depend on man, apparently forgetting that the Catholic Church teaches predestination - though not the Calvinist version - and that they often cite a Catholic council (i.e. the Council of Orange) and even make reference to the works of Catholic theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas in an attempt to give their teaching historical credibility. And yet they ignore the fact that none of the early Church Fathers taught Calvinist predestination, that Saint Augustine, who was a great influence on Calvin and is often cited in his works, did not believe in OSAS and that Martin Luther - who had a high view of predestination - did not believe in OSAS either.

We believe that while predestination involves the human will, it does not depend on the human will. Therefore, going back to John 11, no one can take a Christian out of Jesus’s or the Father’s hands, except God. It was God the Father who placed us in His Son’s hands (1 Corinthians 1:30) and only He can take us out. We see that clearly illustrated in John 15:

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

Those who are “in Christ” are there because they have been given to the Son by the Father. And it is the Father, in His role of “vinedresser”, that takes them away. Does the cause of this taking away involve human cooperation? Yes! But somehow Calvinists believe that this is a denigration of divine sovereignty. And yet they believe that the Fall of Man was decreed by God and that it’s execution clearly involves human cooperation, without denigrating divine sovereignty. Adam and Eve were created with original righteousness, had spiritual life, and an intimate relationship with God. Were they forced out of God’s hands when they chose to sin? Since most Christians believe that God does not cause - at least directly - anyone to sin, then the answer would be that He allowed them to chose to abandon the relationship they had with Him and sin. His “allowing” in no way denigrated His sovereignty.

Similarly, Catholics believe that those who leave God’s hands were allowed to do so by God, thus affirming that God is completely sovereign. No creature can force Him to do anything.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Tom]

I’m so very glad, I now know only the elect have any chance for salvation. You see, I’m not one of the elect, I sin. In fact I sin quite often. I have always been under the impression God would forgive my sin, but since I’m not of the elect I now know there is no chance of that. I can now go and enjoy my sins. Thanks, that takes a lot of pressure off. After all it is all God’s will. Actually, there really isn’t any sin, if God predestined me to hell, He surely doesn’t expect me to try right? Watch out ladies I’m free!

 

[Odell]

In case you missed this, Odell:

Oh no I havent forgoten I just thought you would have read what mikeledes had to say about it. You must of accedently skipped the post again

I reaffirm what I stated in my prior post regarding John 15. What I don’t understand is whether the Calvinists involved in this thread believe that the “branch in me” that does not bear fruit and is taken awayis a genuine Christian or merely a member of the visible body of Christ? Most of the Calvinists I have come across believe that the “taken away”, “cast forth”, and “burned” clearly refer to spiritual death and eternal damnation. Therefore, those branches cannotbe true Christians. Moreover, the key word is **“dries up” **or "withers." In other words, the person in question no longer **has life **within them. The life being referred to here is spiritual life. Are Calvinists here willing to admit that a person can still be saved and enter eternal glory and not have spiritual life within them?

I would like to know that last quesiton myself

mikeledes I highly doubt that. Also, if the person has been taken away or cast forth from the “Vine”, which symbolizes the personof Christ, then how on earth can they be saved apart from Christ? If these branches are not true Christians, then the above post still stands.

God Bless,
Michael

See how we have a direct response to that particular verse you have no explination other thatn quoting other passages

We as Catholic tak escripture as a whole

Did you miss the part where mikeledes said this is like JW’s quoting passages about Jesus humanity therefore not able to answer the passages to do with his devinity?

Well your dong the same thing you have yet to explain this passage you just quote other passages and think they trump this passage.

mikeledes also help you out on your interpritations of passages that talk about keeping us or never perishing

Here it is

Now many passages have been cited that talk about God “keeping us” or that we can “never perish.” First of all, whatever is God’s intended goal, he will complete it. Completion depends on what your goal is. If I intend to drive someone to a party and I fail to do so, then my mission is incomplete. If I only intended to drive that person to a friend’s house and that person wants the friend in question to complete the journey to the party, then my mission is completed and I have reached my goal. So if God’s intent is to bring a person to glorification, He will ensure that that person will reach that goal. Now let’s look at one of the passages in question in context:

Philipians 1:3-8

3I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
4always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all,
5in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.
6For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.
8For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

On what does he base his confidence? On the absolute assurance that all believers will persevere and thus God will complete his work in them? No! First of all, he points out their persevering spirit in verse 5. That is always a good sign that one may be among those who are elect to glory. Secondly, he says in verse 7 that the reason he feels that way is because of the deep affection he has for them and the constant support they have given to him during his imprisonment and to the Gospel. He later says to the Philippians: (4:14-18)

14Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.
15You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone;
16for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.
17Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.
18But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.

The Phillipians have shared in Paul’s suffering and have shown extraordinary generosity in their support of Paul’s ministry and the gospel. Is there any wonder why Paul would be so confident in a church that has demonstrated such great love for the Gospel?

Moreover, the confidence he is expressing is regarding the Phillipians in general - the Greek word for “you” is pural. He is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

to be continued…