Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[fbl9]

hi sandusky in Ezecheil 18:19-24 it is not the mosaic law that is being written but the word of the Lord.His word is His law.

 

[goofyjim]

Can I interject something here w/o reading the whole thread? We don’t know who will and won’t be saved. It is not ours to know. We do not make the judgement. It is God alone who does and he may very well surprise some of us by allowing into heaven the very ones we thought couldn’t possibly make it there.

 

[sandusky]

fbl9:

hi sandusky in Ezecheil 18:19-24 it is not the mosaic law that is being written but the word of the Lord.His word is His law.

**Ezekiel 18:19

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.**As I said, practicing justice and righteousness is done by observing all of God’s statutes, which are just and righteous; correct?

As I further stated, that doesn’t mean that one is perfect, and sinless (Php 3:6ff; cf 1 Tim 1:15).

At that time, those statutes are found in the Mosaic law; correct?.

That is seen in Eze 33:12-20 as well. Note in that passage that justice and righteousness is again equated with keeping God’s statutes vv 15-16.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ezekiel 18:19

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.As I said, practicing justice and righteousness is done by observing all of God’s statutes, which are just and righteous; correct?

As I further stated, that doesn’t mean that one is perfect, and sinless (Php 3:6ff; cf 1 Tim 1:15).

At that time, those statutes are found in the Mosaic law; correct?.

That is seen in Eze 33:12-20 as well. Note in that passage that justice and righteousness is again equated with keeping God’s statutes vv 15-16.

But doesn’t the phrase “He shall live” mean salvation? The Mosaic Covenant couldn’t bring life, so Ezekiel could not be talking about the OT Law.

 

[Pax]

You are absolutely right. Obviously, many in the OT were saved. Their salvation was by way of anticipation of Jesus sacrifice on calvary. As Paul says, “For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

All those that are saved, are saved by Jesus and all must live accordingly. We must pick up our cross daily and follow the Lord. The OT Jews that turned from God are not saved, and the NT Christians that turn from God will not be saved either. Believers can fall away. They can choose things and themselves over God.

Obviously, the elect are those that wind up in heaven. Everything Sandusky claims is true about those in heaven. Sandusky refuses, however, to admit that those that are justified can lose their salvation. There is nothing in scripture, however, that precludes some from coming to faith and thus being justified, and then later being cut off.

The distinction is that some are justified and will be in heaven, while others are justified and later lose their salvation. The former are the elect, while the latter are not.

 

[sandusky]

NotWorthy:

But doesn’t the phrase “He shall live” mean salvation? The Mosaic Covenant couldn’t bring life, so Ezekiel could not be talking about the OT Law.

First of all, the thrust of the chapter is accountability—each person is accountable for his own sin. Ezekiel states the principle in v4. Ezekiel also counters the idea that salvation is a matter of storing up merit during a lifetime, and using that merit to balance out one’s iniquities (v 24).

If an evil man turns from evil to righteousness he will live; conversely, if the righteous man turns to evil, he will die.

It seems that Israel thought that unfair, but God says “it’s not unfair” (v29). God calls them to repentance (v30), and tells them to create in themselves a new heart, and a new spirit (regeneration), which is impossible for them to do, but it is what God will do in the new covenant (cf 11:19; 36:26).

You’re correct, no one lives by the law, as that was/is not the purpose of the law; all of the saints through all of history have been saved by grace, through faith, in God (alone).

IOW, they were justified on the basis of the then future covenant mediated by Christ, through his blood—the gospel preached to Abraham, and unilateral (Gen 12:3; ch 15; cf Gal 3:7-9).

Nevertheless, at Sinai, and mediated through Moses, God made a covenant with Israel based upon the laws given to them. That covenant was bilateral; IOW, God promised to bless Israel, if they kept His law, and He promised to curse them, if they didn’t.

Israel said, “We will keep your law,” and, they didn’t.

Be that as it may, justice and righteousness in the OT is equated with keeping the external law, and, as has been shown by Paul’s statement, one can do that and be blameless (Php 3:6ff), while still being the “foremost of all sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

It is important to make the distinction between the Old, and New Covenant—Paul does
(Rom 4:15, 16; 10:1-4). Those who died under the law, died by the law; those who lived under the law, lived by grace (cf Galatians).

 

[Pax]

I always find the following passage to be helpful in dealing with OSAS.

Matthew 24:21-24
“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”

The passage shows us the importance of perseverence. Likewise, it shows that not even one human being would be saved if the tribulation went unchecked. Even the elect would be lost, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. It so utterly clear that salvation can be lost, and it is clear that even the elect could lose their salvation if God did not intervene in this special way.

The confusion that OSAS people have is due to their understanding of justification. Moreover, the entire system fails when one believes in salvation by faith alone. Scripture tells us that Simon the Magician “believed.” He was even baptized and even received the Holy Spirit along with the other converts when the apostles laid hands on them. He, however, put his soul in jeopardy when he attempted to buy the power associated with the laying on of hands. When told that he must repent by Peter or else he would perish, Simon became fearful and even asked Peter to pray that this would not happen to him.

If one mistakenly believes that you are saved by faith alone, then it is impossible to believe that Simon the Magician was not saved. If Simon was saved because he “believed” then he would be by way of OSAS in no danger of perishing. Scripture, however, says otherwise. Simon was justified, but later did something that jeopardized his soul. Christians can potentially fall into the same pit as Simon the Magician even if they were once justified.

Justification puts us in the right relationship and friendship with God. Nevertheless, we must also be sanctified. Both sanctification and justification are spoken of in the past, present, and future tenses in scripture. Sanctification comes to us by God’s grace just as justification comes to us by way of God’s grace. We are God’s workmanship.

Romans 6:23 sums it up nicely when it says:

" For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Sin is what we do and it brings death----so avoid sin.

The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord----this is what God does.

So we must be joined to Christ Jesus our Lord, we must follow Jesus, we must be temples of the Holy Spirit, and we must be holy for it is written “you must be holy as you Father is holy.” Moreover, we must avoid sin and “pursue peace with all men and the holiness without which no one will see God.”

Salvation is the free gift of God.

Sin is our doing and brings condemnation. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”[Rom 6:22]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Please post more carefully…rants are not well received.

Since you believe in OSAS, please be advised that I have researched over sixty passages of scripture that deny the teaching. There have even been books written rebutting it by non-Catholics that also recognize it as a flawed doctrine.

Obviously, the elect are those that persevere. Not all that receive the grace of justification will necessarily persevere.

The elect are indeed washed, sanctified, justified, and glorified. There are those that are washed, sanctified, and justified that do not persevere and are not glorified. In the end they are not saved.

The apostle Peter makes this quite clear.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

I’m puzzled already .​

Regarding this: “…the elect are those that persevere…” - they can’t persevere if they do not receive grace, to which in turn they could not correspond without grace. One is assuming (wrongly ?) that they are operate in a linear sequence, like dominoes; the truth of the matter is probably far more complicated & far more interesting & dynamic. Election is in that way a bit like a guillotine - God does it, & only He, so the infinite regress is chopped off before it can begin. Unless one takes a Molinist position - & not all Catholics do - it’s not clear how one can avoid confessing that election is totally gratuitous, is totally of grace. As even the merits of the just have no foundation but grace, & are not strictly speaking meritorious, but are meritorious only in a diluted sense, ISTM that the difference between Catholics & Reformed is largely of emphasis.

Some problems: the Catholic doctrine seems to imply that God can be thwarted in His electing purpose. If even one elect person can be lost, doesn’t this imply that God is limited ? And if He cannot save all the elect, even though He wishes to, this implies either that His promises are unreliable, or that He is not sincere - the very objection so often made against the Reformed doctrine regarding His Will. TULIP (apart from the foreordination of the reprobate which IMHO is abstractly credible but seems to owe more to symmetry than to Christ & Scripture) seems to deal with these issues much better than we have - so far. (ISTM the argument based on 2 Peter passage is not irrefutable, so I’ll leave it.)

 

[Pax]

…
…
You’re correct, no one lives by the law, as that was/is not the purpose of the law; all of the saints through all of history have been saved by grace, through faith, in God (alone).

IOW, they were justified on the basis of the then future covenant mediated by Christ, through his blood—the gospel preached to Abraham, and unilateral (Gen 12:3; ch 15; cf Gal 3:7-9).

Nevertheless, at Sinai, and mediated through Moses, God made a covenant with Israel based upon the laws given to them. That covenant was bilateral; IOW, God promised to bless Israel, if they kept His law, and He promised to curse them, if they didn’t.

Israel said, “We will keep your law,” and, they didn’t.

Be that as it may, justice and righteousness in the OT is equated with keeping the external law, and, as has been shown by Paul’s statement, one can do that and be blameless (Php 3:6ff), while still being the “foremost of all sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

It is important to make the distinction between the Old, and New Covenant—Paul does
(Rom 4:15, 16; 10:1-4). Those who died under the law, died by the law; those who lived under the law, lived by grace (cf Galatians).

What you fail to grasp is that the New and Old Covenants have something in common. Both have requirements. The difference is that the OT Law had no intrinsic power to save. Paul even tells us why the Jews were unable to fulfill the Old Law. In Romans 9:32 Paul says that they failed, “Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone.” In other words they were not placing all of their trust in God and depending on God’s grace through faith.

The New Covenant has its requirements. We must have faith and we must not harden our hearts[Heb 3:8], we must let the peace of Christ rule in our hearts[Col 3:15]. Likewise, we must consider ourselves dead to sin[Rom 6:11], we must be subject to authority[Rom 13:5], we must not indulge in immorality or put the Lord to the test[1 Cor 10:8-9], we must no longer live as the gentiles do[Eph4:17], fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among us[Eph 5:3], we must forgive[Col 3:13], and on and on.

In other words, we are to live by the Spirit and put to death the deeds of the body and we will live[Rom 8:13]. We must abide in Christ and live according to the grace that God gives us. God’s grace empowers us. It is the great enabler. God’s grace is bestowed upon us through Christ and it empowers us. The OT Law was not empowering. It merely pointed out sin and could not make us alive in Christ. It did not make us a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works which the Father prepared in advance of our justification.

Both covenants have requirements. The difference between the two is the grace that we have access to in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Pax]

I’m puzzled already .​

Regarding this: “…the elect are those that persevere…” - they can’t persevere if they do not receive grace, to which in turn they could not correspond without grace. One is assuming (wrongly ?) that they are operate in a linear sequence, like dominoes; the truth of the matter is probably far more complicated & far more interesting & dynamic. Election is in that way a bit like a guillotine - God does it, & only He, so the infinite regress is chopped off before it can begin. Unless one takes a Molinist position - & not all Catholics do - it’s not clear how one can avoid confessing that election is totally gratuitous, is totally of grace. As even the merits of the just have no foundation but grace, & are not strictly speaking meritorious, but are meritorious only in a diluted sense, ISTM that the difference between Catholics & Reformed is largely of emphasis.

Some problems: the Catholic doctrine seems to imply that God can be thwarted in His electing purpose. If even one elect person can be lost, doesn’t this imply that God is limited ? And if He cannot save all the elect, even though He wishes to, this implies either that His promises are unreliable, or that He is not sincere - the very objection so often made against the Reformed doctrine regarding His Will. TULIP (apart from the foreordination of the reprobate which IMHO is abstractly credible but seems to owe more to symmetry than to Christ & Scripture) seems to deal with these issues much better than we have - so far. (ISTM the argument based on 2 Peter passage is not irrefutable, so I’ll leave it.)

I am not sure if we disagree or not. I would certainly agree that “the matter is probably far more complicated & far more interesting & dynamic” than we realize. Explaining things, however, is not always clear. Likewise, none of us can understand the mind of God beyond looking through a glass dimly.

I agree that everything is by grace, but one must never forget that grace does not abolish free will. OSAS thinkers frequently express thoughts that go in that direction or sometimes in the opposite direction. When the latter occurs, the OSAS believers even go so far as to suggest that sinning is immaterial because you’re simply saved. Pure Calvinism is more logical, nuanced, and sophisticated than modern day OSAS.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am not sure if we disagree or not. I would certainly agree that “the matter is probably far more complicated & far more interesting & dynamic” than we realize. Explaining things, however, is not always clear. Likewise, none of us can understand the mind of God beyond looking through a glass dimly.

Thanks for such a quick answer - I couldn’t agree more !​

I agree that everything is by grace, but one must never forget that grace does not abolish free will.

I was taking FW as not needing comment. ​

OSAS thinkers frequently express thoughts that go in that direction or sometimes in the opposite direction. When the latter occurs, the OSAS believers even go so far as to suggest that sinning is immaterial because you’re simply saved. Pure Calvinism is more logical, nuanced, and sophisticated than modern day OSAS.

One of the best books I’ve ever read is by a Puritan called Ralph Venning, who was very definitely a Calvinist; it’s called “The Sinfulness of Sin”, & it is simply superb; if any human book shows the gravity of sin, it does. How can a Christian - especially if Calvinist - possibly think that sin is trivial ? That sounds like fatalism - even though it may be a salvific variety; quite apart from the NT fact that the salvation of man is for God’s glorification through our obedience to His Son. A few web-sites - none Calvinist - excepted, I’ve never come across that fatalistic kind of OSAS. Hyper-Calvinism, sometimes; fatalistic OSAS among Calvinists, never. I don’t think even monergism.com - which is pretty big - has anything on it.​

 

[peary]

This sounds like an argument in Calvinist theology.

 

[mikeledes]

Now that I don’t have to worry about my posts getting distorted, let’s actually read the original post that caused someone to go ballistic:

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

My argument was not “Since Paul uses a “plural” you, he is exclusively talking about the Phillipians.” The actual argument was that Philippians 1:7 gives context to and explains verse 6 and this is further illustrated by other passages in Phillipians. He gives specific reasons why he was confident that God would complete the work he started *in them *. These specific reasons indicate that Paul was not trying to make a general statement about all true Christians because these reasons are unique to the Phillipians. Their persevering love for the Gospel, their support of Paul during his imprisonment, and their extraordinary generosity made Paul feel confident that at least in their case, God would complete the work He had begun. I brought up the “plural you” to point out the fact that he is not speaking to an individual Phillipian, but to the Phillipians in general. It was a minor point. But instead of responding to the main argument, my opponent latched on to this minor point - which was only one sentence in my post - distorted it and created a scenario that was favorable for him. That’s sad.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Some problems: the Catholic doctrine seems to imply that God can be thwarted in His electing purpose. If even one elect person can be lost, doesn’t this imply that God is limited ? And if He cannot save all the elect, even though He wishes to, this implies either that His promises are unreliable, or that He is not sincere - the very objection so often made against the Reformed doctrine regarding His Will.

Hi GottleofGeer! I just have to disagree with this point - and please correct me if I’m misunderstanding you. The Catholic Church teaches that the number of those predestined to glory is immutable, thus none can be added and none can be lost. Where we differ from the Reformed is that we do not believe that justifying grace is limited to those predestined to glory, an idea condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent, and that no one can has absolute assurance that they are among those predestined to glory, unless they’ve received a special revelation. We believe that there are those who are predestined to grace, but not to glory. Thus the fact that there will be genuine Christians who fall from grace in no way thwarts God’s electing purpose. The fact that they definitively fall from grace (i.e. cease to abide in Christ, thrown away, dries up, and cast in the fire and burned), indicates that they were not among those predestined to glory. Their fall from grace is no more a failure on the part of God then the fall of Satan, the Fall of Man, and the existence of sin.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I’m certain that you’ve been PMing certain of your fellows like crazy attempting to explain it away, and to complain that I’m being unfair, and what-not, but I’m not fooled by it; IMO, my critique of your methods is accurate, and it’s not the first time I’ve critiqued you in the same manner. IMO, your methods are dishonest, and deceitful, and my opinion of that has not changed. That’s why I’ve been ignoring your posts since October, and why I will continue that shortly.

I didn’t have the time to respond to this one yesterday. First of all, any “explaining” of my posts I do it in the thread, where it can be seen by everyone. What we think of others is often a projection of our own methods and way of thinking. Second of all, the above person completely took something I said out of its context and distorted it to the point that it was completely unrecognizable to me, creating a very convenient way of evading the real challenges. Third, this person has the habit of insulting his opponent’s intelligence, demonizing them, and thus attempting to destroy their credibility. Why? When you can’t attack an argument, attack the person. The more desperate you are, the more shrill you become, the Clinton campaign being a good example. That these tactics come from a person who claims to be a true Christian is ironic, particularly when you consider this person’s signature. Now this person has decided to return to his policy of ignoring me. As long as I have my relationship with God and I know what is true, the whole world can ignore me if they want to. That certainly won’t stop me from dispersing the darkness of error with the light of truth. Praise God!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Since certain passages in Ezekiel have surfaced in this thread, i would like to discuss them. These passages are about personal responsibility for one’s sins, but they also contradict the Calvinist notion of perseverance of the saints.

Ezekiel 18:24

**24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. **

Now the first objection some might raise is that this is Old Testament. However, was the way of becoming righteous before God different in the Old Covenant. Was man, prior to the New Covenant, not justified by the grace of God? It is clear from Hebrews 11 that God’s grace was at work in both the Old and New Covenants to make man righteous. The means of salvation were the same, though explicit knowledge of Jesus did not exist prior to His incarnation.

The other objection is that the “righteous” involved are not really righteous before God. They are merely righteous before men or “legally” righteous. However, it is God who identifies the person as righteous in this passage. Moreover, there is another passage in Ezekiel that completely contradicts this interpretation:

Ezekiel 33:13

**13When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. **

The key phrase “he shall surely live.” God only says that in Ezekiel exclusively when:

1. He justifies/ forgives the repentant sinner:

Ezekiel 33:14-16 (Ezekiel 18:21)

14Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
15If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
16None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

1. Or when he confirms that a person is righteous in His sight and is thus an expression of Divine pleasure.

Ezekiel 18:5-9

5But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
6And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
7And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
8He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
9Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

Therefore, in Ezekiel 33:13 must be righteous in God’s sight because the verse clearly states that at one point God said to that person “he shall surely live”, which is only used in the above two circumstances. God would never say that if that person were not righteous in His sight.

The problem these passages present to Calvinism is that it discusses a righteous (i.e. justified) person turning away/ abandoning righteous living for a sinful life and dying in that state as punishment. So much for perseverance and completion to the end. Why do you think so many Calvinists insist that these persons cannot be really righteous? Because they know that if they are righteous, then that contradicts perseverance of the saints and thus TULIP begins to lose its petals.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

2 Timothy 2:12

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

Revelation 2:26

26’He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;

Revelation 2:10

Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

**Romans 8:12-13

12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–
13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. **

**1 Corinthians 9:27

27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.**

All of these verses are about perseverance. If Saint Paul, who no one will argue was not saved, believed that all genuine Christians will be kept/completed to the end by God, then why does he raise the possibility of his own disqualification. Some Calvinists will object and say that he is only being disqualified from receiving a reward (i.e. imperishable crown). But what is the “reward” for? PERSEVERANCE! Loss of the crown means you have not persevered. The widely used CALVINIST Matthew Henry Commentary states the following:

Every racer, therefore, is at a great uncertainty whether he shall win it or no. But the Christian racer is at no such uncertainty. Every one may run here so as to obtain; but then he must run within the lines, he must keep to the path of duty prescribed, which, some think, is the meaning of running not as uncertainly, v. 26. He who keeps within the limits prescribed, and keeps on in his race, will never miss his crown, though others may get theirs before him. And would the Grecian racers keep within their bounds, and exert themselves to the very last, when one only could win, and all must be uncertain which that one would be? And shall not Christians be much more exact and vigorous when all are sure of a crown when they come to the end of their race? 3. He sets before himself and them the danger of yielding to fleshly inclinations, and pampering the body and its lusts and appetites: I keep my body under, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away (v. 27), rejected, disapproved, adokimos, one to whom the brabeutes—the judge or umpire of the race, will not decree the crown. The allusion to the games runs through the whole sentence. Note, A preacher of salvation may yet miss it. He may show others the way to heaven, and never get thither himself. To prevent this, Paul took so much pains in subduing and keeping under bodily inclinations, lest by any means he himself, who had preached to others, should yet miss the crown, be disapproved and rejected by his sovereign Judge. A holy fear of himself was necessary to preserve the fidelity of an apostle; and how much more necessary is it to our preservation? Note, Holy fear of ourselves, and not presumptuous confidence, is the best security against apostasy from God, and final rejection by him.

ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.vii.x.html

Calvinist Matthew Henry believes that “disqualified” means rejection from heaven, since all those who are Christians are assured of a crown. But then he contradicts himself. If “rejection” from heaven is never possible for a true Christian, then why is a “holy fear” necessary? And how can you have “holy fear” if you already know for certain that you will persevere. Where there is absolute certainty, there is no fear.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I will probably not be online tomorrow, so I wish you all a very blessed evening. Odell, thank you for your support!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ignatius]

This is to continue from the

How timely! We just had the Concecration of the Elect and the nomination of the catecumens last Sunday. However, I am sure the catecumens will be saved if they die before becoming the Elect.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Since certain passages in Ezekiel have surfaced in this thread, i would like to discuss them. These passages are about personal responsibility for one’s sins, but they also contradict the Calvinist notion of perseverance of the saints.

You mean, In your opinion they do.

mikeledes:

Now the first objection some might raise is that this is Old Testament. However, was the way of becoming righteous before God different in the Old Covenant. Was man, prior to the New Covenant, not justified by the grace of God? It is clear from Hebrews 11 that God’s grace was at work in both the Old and New Covenants to make man righteous. The means of salvation were the same, though explicit knowledge of Jesus did not exist prior to His incarnation.

The other objection is that the “righteous” involved are not really righteous before God. They are merely righteous before men or “legally” righteous. However, it is God who identifies the person as righteous in this passage. Moreover, there is another passage in Ezekiel that completely contradicts this interpretation

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, it puts the RC doctrine of election to grace and glory in the same dilemma.

Moving on, five legal areas are articulated in the passage that distinguish righteous acts from unrighteous acts.

First, the righteous man refrained from those acts stated in vv 5-6a; forbidden in Dt 12:2-4.

Second, the righteous man refused to engage in those acts stated in v 6b; stipulated in Ex 20:14; Lev 15:24; 18:19; 20:10, 18; Dt 22:22.

Third, the righteous man did not engage in the negative acts stated in v 7a; commanded in Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:6; Amos 2:8).

Fourth, the righteous man did not steal v 7b; forbidden in Ex 20:15; Lv 19:13, but fed and clothed the poor.

Fifth, the righteous man refused to take interest from fellow Israelites v 8a; forbidden 22:25; Dt 23:19-20; Ps 15:5; Isa 24:2), but he practices justice among them v8b; Lev 19:5-16, 35-36; Dt 25:13-16.

That’s the full definition of a “righteous, and just man” in context (vv5-9).

(continued below)