Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[fbl9]

hi sandusky i noticed you haven’t mentioned about if St Peter did nothing wrong in his denying of Jesus why did he go and Weepped biterly.this not something one would do if it was a justified action.

 

[fbl9]

in reference to my post 148 page 10 “does this mean God makes bad souls??” this does not convey exactly what i mean. i should have put does this mean,in regards to predestination, that it is God’s positive will that man should sin everlasting.one can say of some one who is in a state of grace that they are predestined to heaven,but only if they stay in that state of grace. God does not cause one to sin. God does not lead us into temptation.it is written in the OT if a just man shall turn to sin all the good he has done will not be remembered but will be condemned by the sin he does. Jesus states in the NT not a jot of the old law will be removed.it is God’s law that repentance is accompanied by works of penance, sack cloth ashes etc.,that sacrifice should be offered to God for omission of sin OT,the perfect sacrifice of mass NT. the mass is not a recrucifixtion but is an offering of that sacrifice.

 

[NotWorthy]

God has many attributes, or, better, perfections.

Yes, God is Love (1 Jn 4:8; 4:16); however, one of God’s perfections is “hatred.”

God’s hatred is the quality of reacting against sin, and sinners. You do believe that God has a negative reaction toward sin, and sinners, don’t you (Ps 5:5)?

That quality of God gives Him an extreme dislike for and opposition toward sinners, and their sins (Ps 5:5; 11:5; Hos 9:15; Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:13).

Passively, that hatred is expressed as a hostile attitude toward sinners with a resolve to punish them (Rom 1:18; Jn 3:36). Actively, that hatred is expressed as destructive judgment or punishment (Rev 14:19; 15:1; 19:15).

God’s hatred is not the sinful, spiteful hatred that human beings possess toward those they dislike; that hatred is activated by the sin force, and lacks true justice, and it only desires ill toward the offender rather than seeking his well-being.

Furthermore, humans cannot rightly judge the motivations of the heart of those who’ve harmed them, nor the circumstances that led to the harm; therefore, humans are forbidden from avenging the wrong (Rom 12:17-21).

Because of their guilt and sin, God finds nothing in unsaved people that is acceptable to Him or that brings Him pleasure (Rom 3:9-18), but only that which is despicable to Him.

So, now you’ve applied a different form of hatred than we’re used to (a human hatred), for you’ve just described God hatred for the wicked man in a similar way as my Laura Schlesinger example - “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Am I right?

Nevertheless, God deliberately and graciously chose to love sinners and to provide for them the opportunity for salvation through Jesus Christ—alone.

This sounds more Catholic than Calvinistic.

Does God provide the opportunity for salvation?

Or does God choose those that are saved?

 

[mikeledes]

As I stated in my post 120The Father 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).**Furthermore, as stated in that same post: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 creature’s 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; 8:32ff; Jer 31:31-37).

My fellow Catholics and Protestants , all of this happens when you do not actually take the time to carefully read a person’s post. As I stated time and time again, God is in complete control of the process of salvation. He is the one who places you in Christ, who establishes the conditions, who empowers Christians, and the one who maintains Christians in Christ - by giving them the unmerited gift of perseverance to the end - or takes them away from Christ. There is a reason why Jesus chose to use the word “snatch” instead of words or phrases like “leave”, “always stay”, “take”,etc. The Greek word is harpazo, which means to take by force. No one can take anyone out of God’s hands by force. There is a big difference between being “snatched away” (John10:28-29) and being “thrown away” (John 15:6). The difference lies in who possesses the authority. In the “snatching” scenario, the snatcher has the authority because he was able to overpower the one he was snatching from. That’s the case we see in the following verse, where we find the word “harpazo” 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. **

In the case of the “throwing away” it is the one who does the throwing that has the authority, not the one being thrown. BTW, the Greek word used in John 15:6 for “cast” or “thrown” is “ballo”, the same word used in Matthew 3:10, Matthew 13:42, etc. Who does the casting in John15?

John 15:1-2,6

"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.
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.

To say that the Father’s cutting off and throwing out “branches” from Jesus “the Vine” is the equivalent of someone snatching that branch out of Jesus is a denial of evident fact. It’s like saying that Adam and Eve were snatched out of God’s hands by Satan. The fact that some will not remain in the Son’s and the Father’s hands is not a failure on the part of God, just as the the existence of Satan does not mean God has failed. If someone leaves, its because it was because God allowed him/her to leave, not that He was forced to do so. Again, 1 John 2:24-25

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.

Christians must abide in the Son’s and the Father’s hands and God, in turn, will ensure that they will never perish. God will never forsake those who are and abide in His hands. However, God also says:

2 Chronicles 15:1-2

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

And thus we see the following 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.

Galatians 5:2-3

**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. **

Romans 11:21-22

**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. **

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

That is the literalist position.

According to you, whenever the writer uses a plural you in his epistle, then what is said in the epistle is a statement regarding only those to whom the epistle is addressed, and not to Christians in general.

So when conditional ”IF” statements occur, they only apply to those to whom the ”IF” statement is addressed, as in the case of the Colossians ***”If indeed you ***[only the Colossians] continue in…

That’s an interesting position.

Once again, my argument is being misrepresented. What Paul says about the Phillipians can and will apply to other Christians. However, this does not mean that it will apply to all genuine Christians. He clearly states the basis of his confidence in the Phillipians:

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.

His confidence is based on their persevering spirit, the extraordinary love they have shown for the Gospel, and his deep affection for them. So the context reveals the intent of Paul’s words. He is not saying that all true Christians everywhere will persevere, though the truth he expressed about the Phillipians will also apply to other Christians. Moreover, when we compare this with what he says in his other letters and with what CHRIST says, we understand what was the intent and scope of his words.

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.

Galatians 5:4

**4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. **

That does not sound like completion and keeping until the end.

Romans 11:20-22

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.

If Paul really believed that all genuine Christians are absolutely assured “continuing in God’s kindness”, then why does he even raise the possibility of not being in God’s kindness and being cut off, thus given the same treatment as the reprobated/ unsaved Jews? Moreover, what is the purpose of this warning? If its purpose is to inspire a holy fear so as to prevent the Gentile Christians from becoming conceited - “Do not be conceited, but fear” (v. 20) - then he has severely undermined that purpose if he has taught that they are absolutely assured continuance in God’s kindness, that they can not do anything to prevent this inevitable result, and that God will spare them from suffering the same fate as the reprobated/unsaved Jews. That’s like warning “If you don’t take the final, you will fail the class” and then say “It is impossible for any of you to fail the class because I will make sure that doesn’t happen.” Then what was the purpose of the warning? So Paul is saying “fear being cut off for not continuing in God’s kindness, but you are absolutely assured of continuing in His kindness.” Now that’s having your cake and eating it too.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Now going back to the issue of subordination. I think we should allow Jesus to explain what He meant in John 11. Let’s read what Jesus clearly said again:

**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.

And compare it with two other clear passages dealing with ths same theme:

Romans 11:21-22

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.

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.

Christ unambiguously states that the “taken away” branches in question are “in me.” The phrase “in me” is exclusively and unambiguously used in the Bible as a reference to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. I challenge any Calvinist to cite any passage in the Bible where “in me” and its variants (“in Him”, “in the Son,” “in Christ”) are ever used as a reference to mere membership in His visible body? Moreover, I challenge them to explain how anyone can cease to continue - because that is what “meno” or “abide” means - in someone they were never a part of in the first place? I would also like them to explain how “taken away”, “thrown away”, “dries up”, “thrown in the fire and burned” does not refer to loss of salvation, especially when this terminology is always used as a reference to eternal damnation (Matthew 3:10, 12; 13:42, 50; 18:9, etc.). It is also significant the order of events in John 15:6 ( thrown away, dries up, burned). The drying up signifies death and it is the result of being cut off ans the end is being burned. This means that while that “branch” was in Christ the Vine, he enjoyed spiritual life. Once he was no longer a part of the Vine, he experienced a spiritual death (i.e. drying up) and is finally thrown into hell. Who does the cutting off? The Father (v. 2). Hence it is the Father that gives and it is the Father that takes away. No one forced Him to do anything and no force outside God did the cutting off.

John 15 is as clear as can be. Now let’s look at John 11. Does “never” always mean guaranteed and without conditions? I gave at least one example from the Bible where this is not the case (2 Chronicles 7:16-22). So there can be more than one understanding of never. Now can there be more than one understanding of “in Me”, “in Him”, “in the Son,” or “in Christ.” No! There is only one exclusive understanding of that phrase. So if we look at the order of subordination, its is John 11 that has to be subordinated to John 15 because the latter is unambiguous and clearer than the former. “In Me” has one
unambiguous meaning, while “never” has more than one.

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[mikeledes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[mikeledes]

I will not be online this weekend, so I wish everyone a very blessed weekend.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes says:

He [God] is the one who places you in Christ,…

What I hear most Catholics say, is not what you are saying.

I hear Catholics say the man chooses to be in Christ because of God’s prevenient grace; and, the one who is not in Christ, is not in Christ because of that one’s rejection of prevenient grace.

When I state that God, through his sovereign election places one in Christ; the usual Catholic response is that, if God does so, then man has no choice.

mikeledes continued:

…[God] who establishes the conditions, who empowers Christians, and the one who maintains Christians in Christ - by giving them the unmerited gift of perseverance to the end - or [God] takes them away from Christ.

There is a reason why Jesus chose to use the word “snatch” instead of words or phrases like “leave”, “always stay”, “take”,etc. The Greek word is harpazo, which means to take by force. No one can take anyone out of God’s hands by force. There is a big difference between being “snatched away” (John10:28-29) and being “thrown away” (John 15:6). The difference lies in who possesses the authority. In the “snatching” scenario, the snatcher has the authority because he was able to overpower the one he was snatching from. That’s the case we see in the following verse, where we find the word “harpazo” used:

So not only can the believer “leave” Christ, but also God can throw him away.

You’re favorite citation for that is Jn 15; however, in your earlier hermeneutic you stated that when the when the plural of “you” is used, the passage "is not making a statement regarding all Christians in all of the world and throughout history," but only to those addressed in the statement; you is in the plural there, so being thrown away only applies to the apostles; correct?

The same is true of 1 Jn 2:24ff.

What does your hermeneutic dictate when "you" is in the singular?

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes says:

Once again, my argument is being misrepresented.

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

The cost of watching mikeledes squirm: Priceless.

mikeledes continues:

What Paul says about the Phillipians can and will apply to other Christians. However, this does not mean that it will apply to all genuine Christians. He clearly states the basis of his confidence in the *Phillipians:*5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now.

6 For 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.

7 FOR 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.

His confidence is based on their persevering spirit, the extraordinary love they have shown for the Gospel, and his deep affection for them. So the context reveals the intent of Paul’s words. He is not saying that all true Christians everywhere will persevere, though the truth he expressed about the Phillipians will also apply to other Christians. Moreover, when we compare this with what he says in his other letters and with what CHRIST says, we understand what was the intent and scope of his words.

You have just provided one of the most memorable illustrations of an eisegetical interpretation of scripture that I have seen in a long time; I will save it, and share it with others; I’m certain they’ll be impressed.

Let me be sure I understand this correctly—what Paul says can/will apply to "other Christians," but what Paul says does not apply to "all Christians"—have your cake,
and eat it, too.

Be that as it may, I have neither the time, nor the interest in instructing you in the finer points of grammar; at your age, you should know them, IMHO.

In v6, Paul states his confidence in ”this very thing.” What very thing is Paul confident in? Paul’s confidence is stated in his immediately subsequent statement—”that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s confidence is not in the Philippians, but, his confidence is in God, the author, and perfecter of faith (Heb 12:2).

Simply put, your interpretation is opposed by the grammar, and by the scripture.

The rest of your post is based upon your same grammar-opposing-eisegetical-interpretation so there’s no point in my continuing.

Also, in J15, the you is in the plural, so it only affects the apostles, or maybe “other,” but not “all” Christians; correct?

BTW, will you please finish formulating the rules to this hermeneutical game that, ISTM, you are making up as you go along?

 

[sandusky]

Let’s go over this again. James White believes in Sola Scriptura. James Akin challenges him to cite a passage from Scripture to back up one of his claims. That is not a double standard. Akin is holding White to the standard White has established.

It’s claimed that all of the teachings of the Catholic Church are taught in the Bible; isn’t
that correct?

:coffeeread:

 

[sandusky]

hi sandusky i noticed you haven’t mentioned about if St Peter did nothing wrong in his denying of Jesus why did he go and Weepped biterly.this not something one would do if it was a justified action.

Peter was wrong.

 

[fbl9]

The proof is that Peter did it.

now you say St Peter was wrong in his denial of Christ. something that is justified is not wrong or is it?St Peter was in the wrong in who’s eyes ours or God’s or both?now that you say St Peter was wrong what happens to only the elect will be saved?

 

[sandusky]

NotWorthy:

So, now you’ve applied a different form of hatred than we’re used to (a human hatred), for you’ve just described God hatred for the wicked man in a similar way as my Laura Schlesinger example - “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. Am I right?

Not at all; God’s hatred is right; human hatred is not.

NotWorthy:

This sounds more Catholic than Calvinistic.

Because you’ve never taken the time to study and/or understand Calvinism.

NotWorthy:

Does God provide the opportunity for salvation?

In your theology he does; the biblical statement is that He does more than provide the opportunity—He saves.

 

[sandusky]

now you say St Peter was wrong in his denial of Christ. something that is justified is not wrong or is it?St Peter was in the wrong in who’s eyes ours or God’s or both?now that you say St Peter was wrong what happens to only the elect will be saved?

Do you think that Peter has not been saved?

 

[fbl9]

this thread is about only the elect ARE saved…so when St Peter was in denial of Christ he was still saved.this is kinda mind boogling one can be in denail of Christ yet still be saved Yes St Peter is saved in heaven. that is the true meaning of saved to be safe in heaven…let’s say you have a stash of money under your mattress,this money is saved…yet you can be tempted to spend though.(life on earth). you take the money to the bank (death in a state of grace)and put it in a trust fund, you can’t get the money out to spend it( in heaven now)…

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

this thread is about only the elect ARE saved…so when St Peter was in denial of Christ he was still saved.this is kinda mind boogling one can be in denail of Christ yet still be saved

Why would that be mind-boggling for you? I’m pretty sure that the RCC teaches that only the elect will be saved (but I’m not absolutely certain, as you have a choice as to which type of predestination you can believe); it also states, that along the way the elect can lose their salvation, regain it, lose it, regain it, in an ultimately ending cycle.

What cycle you wind up on is the hands of God; at least, that’s the understanding I have; correct me if I’m wrong.

The differing quality between RC predestination and biblical predestination, is that RC predestination is predicated upon the free-will of man.

fbl9:

Yes St Peter is saved in heaven.

I agree, and because of that, your church should teach that Peter was elect to salvation.

 

[fbl9]

Why would that be mind-boggling for you?<<<because Christ stated “he denies Me before men I will deny him before My Father”…>>> I’m pretty sure that the RCC teaches that only the elect will be saved (but I’m not absolutely certain, as you have a choice as to which type of predestination you can believe); it also states, that along the way the elect can lose their salvation, regain it, lose it, regain it, in an ultimately ending cycle.<<<<“he who lives in danger dies in danger”>>>

What cycle you wind up on is the hands of God; at least, that’s the understanding I have; correct me if I’m wrong.<>

The differing quality between RC predestination and biblical predestination, is that RC predestination is predicated upon the free-will of man.<>

I agree, and because of that, your church should teach that Peter was elect to salvation./QUOTE <<<why?>>note the words in <> are fbl9’s the rest are belong to sandusky, me not very computer savy i can’t figur out how divide up the posts in my replies so forgive me for the mess.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes says:

However, besides this broader election, there is a particular election that is not enjoyed by all true members of the Church Militant, and that is election to final salvation. These - and these alone - will receive the unmerited gift of final perseverance (i.e. perseverance to the end).

Calvinists will argue, “Where does the Bible make this distinction?” In the same chapter and verse where God clearly and explicitly makes a distinction between an “effectual” call and a “gospel” call. In other words, it is an inference drawn from Scripture. Just as Calvinists recognize that the Bible states that not all who are called are saved and thus infer that there has to be two distinct calls, Catholics believe that the Bible teaches that not all who are genuinely “in Christ” abide in Christ and thus infer that there are two types of election.

**General vs. Effectual calling.

During the lifetime of the elect, God acts towards them in a salvational way.**

God calls (Rom 8:30; Acts 2:39; 1 Tim 6:12). Defined, this is the act of God whereby He commands sinners to receive the gift of salvation in Jesus; this God does through the gospel.

(Beside God’s initial call to salvation, He issues other divine calls; those include a call to discipleship [Mk 1:17], fellowship [1 Cor 1:9], holiness [1 Thess 4:7], and service [2 Tim 1:9]. God also calls all of the elect to glory [2 Thess 2:14; 1 Pet 5:10] and to His kingdom [1 Thess 2:12]. All of those calls relate to salvation).

This divine calling has certain features: a general call, and an effectual call.

The general call is extended through the Gospel to the nonelect (Mt 22:14; cf 11:28; Mk 16:15; Is 45:22). It does not result in their salvation.

The effectual call extended to the elect, and it does result in their salvation (1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24; Rom 8:28-30; 1 Thess 2:12).

The “call” to the elect is more than the word implies; it is more of a “command,” or a “divine summons,” and it includes all of the presalvational work of God in bringing them to exercise salvational faith in Christ, including God’s divine activities:

1: God sweeps away satanic blindness (2 Cor 43-6) and gives understanding of the gospel (Acts 8:30; 16:14); 2 Cor 4:6).

2: God convicts the elect of their sins (Jn 16:8-11).

3: God imparts repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (2 Pet 1:1; Acts 3:16); He draws the person to Himself (Jn 6:37, 44).

Steps 1 and 2 apply to the nonelect as part of the general call.

In Hebrews 6:4-6, the one spoken of is portrayed as being at the threshold of salvational faith; he is warned not to fall away from trusting in Jesus and His atonement. Should the person fall away from that, restoration to that threshold of salvation is impossible.

OTOH, the good works of people who are saved bear witness to their salvation (vv9-10; Jas 2:14-26).The general call and the effectual call illustrated:

**1 Corinthians 1:18

For** the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,

BUT

to us who are being saved it is the power of God. To those who receive the general call, the Gospel of Christ’s cross is foolishness.

To those who receive the effectual call, the Gospel of Christ’s cross is the power of God.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes says:

All those who are genuine members of the Church Militant (i.e. the church on earth) are true members of the elect community.

How can that be? The promise to the elect is that they shall never, no not ever perish, and no one can remove them from the hand of Jesus, or from the hand of Father.

Furthermore, it is the explicit will of the Father for Jesus that, on the last day, He raise up those given Him by the Father.

IOW, the Father has entrusted to Jesus the safekeeping, and future resurrection of His people, whom He has given to the son.

As we shall see, the essence of this teaching of the RCC, as articulated by mikeledes, is that Jesus fails to do the will of the Father.

Of course, that will be denied; nevertheless, that is the essence of RC predestination.

mikeledes continues:

…they have been incorporated into Christ and enjoy its blessings - forgiveness of sins, new spiritual life, and reception of a claim to or share of an eternal inheritance (i.e. the tree of life, the holy city. Etc.) that they will possess in the future (Mark 10:30, Revelation 21:7, 22:19) – automatically makes them members of the chosen race.

Moreover, the fact that they are “in Christ” means that God has chosen them.

That’s dishonest, IMO; the following statement by mikeledes makes that crystal clear:

Catholics believe that the Bible teaches that not all who are genuinely “in Christ” abide in Christ and thus infer that there are two types of election.

That’s double predestination, and it must be believed by Catholics, de fide!

That is illustrated in this statement by mikeledes:

However,…there is a particular election that is not enjoyed by all true members of the Church Militant, and that is election to final salvation. These - and these alone - will receive the unmerited gift of final perseverance (i.e. perseverance to the end).

Double Predestination!

We see, then, that the difficulty attributed to Calvinism—God predestines some to salvation, and some to hell—arises in the RC system which teaches that God gives all men prevenient grace, thereby making man’s free will determinative in salvation, positively, or negatively.

What is the difference between the two?

One is based on the sovereignty of God, and His promises; promises which cannot be made void by the failure of the creature (biblical predestination).

The other is partim partim predestination, in which men can freely act and leave saving grace, and men’s free actions can and do void the promises of God causing Him to cast them away (RC predestination).

And, as stated earlier, the essence of that teaching is that Jesus fails to keep the will of the Father!

So the RC position, as articulated by mikeledes, is found to be impaled on the horns of the same dilemma on which RCs place Calvinists; namely, God could intervene by giving more grace thereby influencing one’s will away from his sin, but He doesn’t do that—He let’s them choose, by their own free will to fall away.

What is seen, then, is that no essential difference exists between the free-will system of RC predestination, and that of Calvinism with respect to double predestination. The charges leveled against Calvinism in that respect, are the same charges that must be leveled against RCism. :ehh:

Bummer!!