OSAS and ephesians 4:30

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those who possess full salvation are those who have died and will be risen in Christ.

Death is the final act of consummation of one’s life. To die for God in Christ is the greatest testiment to love for God one makes. No one has salvation who has not first followed Christ in His way through death. Those who, in their free will live in faith, have not seen God as those who are in heaven have. It is they who are in heaven, seeing God in the beatific vision, whose wills will not change.
 
40.png
christcnection1:
Because God gave us the gift of free will, we can stop loving Him at any time.
Where does scripture say, “God gave us the gift of free will?”

christcnection said:
Our Lord is not a divine rapist, forcing us to love Him.

Will you provide names of churches, or websites from churches, or protestant believers where anyone claims that God is a divine rapist, other than in an attack against a theological position?

You are just another one of many who say this against people who have a strong biblical theology, but I’ve never heard anyone preach that God is a divine rapist. I’ll be waiting for names, and, or, links to websites belonging to anyone who preaches that as doctrine. :coffeeread:
 
It doesn’t make that point.

Obviously you are not accustomed to doing any work, but prefer instead to rely on
“canned e-pologetic arguments.” :tsktsk:

I suggest you stop entrusting yourself to the sources you have been relying on in this thread, and invest some of your own effort into verifying whether or not what those sources are telling you is true, rather than just accepting that it is true, simply because they are Catholic sources. 🙂

Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 18, “Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation:I don’t have time at the moment to get to the rest of your post in which your above misstatements appeared; however, I will get to it by tomorrow.
Well Sandusky, I am just anamored by your original and fresh approach to e-pologetics. You are shining beacon in the world of inter-faith dialogue. :rolleyes:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with “canned e-pologetics.” The reason I do it is because it is worth preserving. (Non-Catholic Christians are the best at it.) I would happily acknowledge any proper use of your “e-pologetics” from you or anyone else. There is no sense in rebuilding a bridge that’s already well-constructed. That would be a waste of time.

In case you thought otherwise, my questions were not intended to get in your face. They were sincere inquiries, and you answered the first part sincerely.

Now, regarding your argument, let me just add that although I gave you the link, I failed to provide more to the article than I posted. As a result, this first paragraph was minconstrued, when that was not really his point. At least the point you thought I was making, was not actually the point.

This is continued from the first paragraph…

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204fea2.asp
It must be admitted that this is a logical possibility. It is possible that an experience could be of such a nature that the experience itself conveys the surety of its truth. The problem is that this reduces faith to subjectivity. A fellow on my commuter train is a lecturer in eastern religions and an expert on meditation. After he explained his religious philosophy to me, I asked him how he knew these things were so. He told me “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” that his mystical experiences were of such a character that they had self-vindicating authority.
I told him that, in my opinion, subjective experiences are good to a point, but they need objective correlation. For example, he claimed that he had had out-of-body experiences and was able to travel around in the spirit. I offered to help him test the objective validity of his experience. I was willing to give him directions to my house, and I’d wait patiently while he left his body and went to see what color the carpet was in my living room. He declined.
I have no doubt this man has these experiences, but I don’t believe they are anything more than mental exercises he has trained his mind to perform. Such experiences persuade me to look for objective confirmation of the data of subjective experience. It is too easy for the human mind to be convinced by subjective criteria. My commuter friend has an unshakable “assurance” of the validity of his beliefs based on the “self-vindicating authority” of the experiences. Since he has denied the validity of any objective confirmation of his subjective experience, he has totally insulated himself from contrary evidence; he has painted himself into an epistemological corner.
The Evangelical’s assurance that his faith is true, based on his subjective experience of the witness of the Holy Spirit, is of the same not-inherently-reliable nature. The internal witness of the Spirit must be tempered by objective, sensible evidence.
You see, there is no contradiction here! 🙂

It’s not a matter of saying your passages of the Westminster Confession are false; rather, it’s just saying it’s a subjective reality they are conveying. The assurance itself is not a concrete, objective reality. (…even though it might be true.)

Let me also add, I don’t think the WC here is unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. I have “absolute assurance” in my heart, that if Jesus is truly the Son of God and died for my sins, I will ultimately go to heaven. I have no doubt about it. That being said, my belief is a subjective reality.

A more accurate way of describing this reality is to say I have profound faith and hope that I will go to heaven. I actually think this “assurance” is usually right; however, I also believe that it could, in far fewer circumstances, be a form of self-deception.

Based on what I see here…

Absolute Assurance = Subjective Reality (…that’s usually based in truth, but rarely not.)

I see no contradiction within my Catholic views, and I’m also meeting you far more than half way to acknowledge yours.
 
Where does scripture say, “God gave us the gift of free will?”

You are just another one of many who say this against people who have a strong biblical theology, but I’ve never heard anyone preach that God is a divine rapist. I’ll be waiting for names, and, or, links to websites belonging to anyone who preaches that as doctrine. :coffeeread:
You are making an assumption that the Bible is the final and sole rule of faith. The Bible never says that. If the Bible said, “scripture is the final and sole rule of faith,” I certainly not be Catholic.
Will you provide names of churches, or websites from churches, or protestant believers where anyone claims that God is a divine rapist, other than in an attack against a theological position?
No one… absolutely no one believes that! (…at least I hope not!)

I never claimed or suggested that you did. However, if God has forced us to love Him, yes, that would make Him a Divine Rapist. If God wills that others go to hell solely by His decree, what does that say about God? Isn’t this the same God that wills that no one perishes, but that all come to repentance? Does God desire all to come to Christ, and no one to go to hell? I would think that’s what you believe.

Well, somehow I assumed that you would agree with me. God is not a Divine Rapist. I hope you believe that. I was not name calling Sandusky. We disagree, but I respect you.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that you’re one of these people that makes false assumptions about others. I hope I’m wrong.

“Forced freedom is not freedom at all. Since God is love, he cannot force himself on anyone against their will. Forced love is not love; it is rape. And God is not a divine rapist.” --Norm Geisler

www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1199W3.htm

I think it’s a very reasonable quote. Forced freedom is an oxymoron. There is nothing free about it.

Finally, you mentioned that you have strong Biblical theology. I’m not saying that you don’t, but I do believe you’re wrong in many areas.

The vast majority of those who profess Christ as Lord and Savior believe that the Catholic Church is more Biblical. I’m not saying Catholics are right; I’m just stating a fact. Your perception is subjective, just as ours is. One day we’ll all find out.

Another fact worth mentioning is that hundreds of former Protestant ministers and pastors have come to the Catholic faith within the last few years. Many are former Fundamentalists. All of them now believe the Catholic Church is more Biblical. I’m not saying they are right; I’m just stating a fact.

www.chnetwork.org

Finally, I just want to mention that I love you very much. Truly, I’m not being disingenuous in any way.

I strongly disagree with some of your views, but I see you as a dear sibling in Christ. I hope we can see eye to eye on that. What do you say??
 
I must state the obvious:

If you want to have a dialogue with someone, before you go on to argue for any of your own beliefs, you have to do something else first. You have to put yourself in the position of the other person and try to understand how and what he/she says he thinks. You have to do your best to find what drives him/her. Asking him is one good way! You have to ask what is valuable to him/her. And you must never say anything accusitory.

As much as I disagree with Sandusky, I can’t help but feel that no one is dialoguing with him/her well. Thus, almost everything that’s been said to counter him has proven futile. That’s just what I happen to see. I would love to see some real dialogue going on here with genuine empathy.

For those who are defending OSAS, I don’t think it fair to reduce their belief to subjectivity. It is an article of faith to them as much as one part of the creed might be. Who here will go about searching for the “objectivity” of the creed? Is not the creed a matter of faith? Don’t its contents point to Reality, however “subjectively” they are believed?

Sandusky believes that to believe in OSAS is to put his trust in the promises of God Himself. Yes, there is a subjective part to that, but he believes his foundation to be Christ, the Truth. And obviously, he is blind to any “objective” evidence in his life that runs counter to that trust. He sees all through this lense of his, and everything is interpreted accordingly.

God is forever doing his part in this conversation in offering us the road to salvation through it. Let us continue to do our work in cooperating with Him and conducting ourselves as Christians! (I’m sure He would say that we aren’t finished yet.)

Now, is there someone who can gently explain how it is more loving for God to allow the traitor to kiss Him (while still showering him with graces to amend) than to give validity to doctrinal shortcuts as we live out the full process of Christ’s gift of Redemption?
 
Unfortunately it’s been my experience that a sure way to get someone talking with you for a good long time is to challenge them with an insult. How different it is when it comes to listening and responding to still small voices.
 
Those who have “not soiled their garments, and conquer” are the elect.
Going back to Rom 8:33, Paul names those mentioned in the preceding passages as “the elect,” and he lists things that cannot separate the elect from God; in v37 he says of the elect, ”we overwhelmingly conquer,” literally “more than conquerors,” and that “through Him who loved us.” This is all true of the elect…i.e. those that ultimately arrive in heaven, but not of those that fall away.

Christ further says, “…I will not blot his name out of the book of life.” It is usually assumed by the one who offers this verse, that it proves that a name, previously written in the book of life, can be erased from the book of life, IOW, a loss of salvation. Those that conquer are not blotted out, but those that do not will be blotted out. If this were not the case there would be no reason for the verse.

That is an assumption. Some argue, with varying intensity, that the verse doesn’t preclude the possibility of a loss of salvation, others argue that it implies that possibility, and some take from it a simple inference.

I argue that the description of the elect given in the new testament should remove all doubt that any of the above-mentioned assumptions are possible at all, and that this is a further assurance to the elect of their safety in Christ (cf Mt 10:32). (Non-catholics use the same argument as Catholics with respect to the “blotting out,” but the N-Cs who have raised this with me have the same “one kind of election,” understanding. I believe the RCC teaches at least “two kinds of election,” and so, I think the differences between you and me, in defining the elect, preclude our ever agreeing on the meaning of this passage).). We do not have two forms of election. Someone can be initially justified and in relationship with the Lord. They can break that relationship temporarily or permanently. Someone that is initially justified but then falls away is not one of the elect. Only the “elect” actually enjoy eternity with God.

“I will not…” in the passage is an emphatic double negative: ou mā; it says literally, “I will no no, or not not. Because of the emphatic nature of the double negative, no not [ever], is an accurate understanding.I agree that the “elect” will not be blotted out but many believers within the seven churches were being warned that this could happen to them if they did not repent.

Another thing that helps to emphasize the importance of endurance and perseverance is the following verse taken from Jesus’ little Apocalypse where he says: “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.”[Matt 24:22] This is significant because it shows that the situation will become so severe that not even the elect would persevere. Clearly, some “believers” will fall away and that even those that persevere could lose their salvation if God did not shorten the days of trial. This statement of Jesus is preceded and reinforced by Jesus statement in Matthew 24:9-13 which says, "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” Some believers will endure and persevere and some will not. They are all believers and initially justified by faith, but only the former are the elect. The others fall away.

…
 
You are out of line scripturally with your comments and there really is no point in continuing to converse with you since you are regularly twisting things to your own satisfaction…now, I leave you the podium to accuse me of the same thing. What a viscious circle.

🤷
I’m sorry you feel that way. I presented a view point and understanding of scripture that differs from yours. If you find fault with the analysis then so be it.
 
Free will is inferred in the Bible every time God makes a covenant with His people. As you would agree, God never breaks his promises. And God will not break the covenant between you and Him when you accept his help to save you. But as Isreal fell through use of her freedom, so can we fall through the use of ours dispite the New Covenant. And God always has consequences for those who break His covenants… many times punishment for the purpose of reform, as with Isreal, other times in being cast out of the Kingdom as in the preachings of Jesus. With this free will, one should always be watchful, for you know not the day nor the hour.
 
I take back what I said. Evidently there is some real dialogue going on here.
 
40.png
Pax:
This is all true of the elect…i.e. those that ultimately arrive in heaven, but not of those that fall away.
Pax, one is not elect because he arrives in heaven; one is elect by God to ensure he arrives in heaven. Those who appear to fall away are not the elect. Scripture is clear Pax, God intends to save some people; those that God intends to save are called the elect; the reason that those who don’t get saved, don’t get saved, is not because they “fell away;” they don’t get saved because God never intended to save them. They were appointed to be disobedient—to be not saved1 Peter 2:8

and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Jude 4


For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.I know that’s not tradition,, but it is God’s testimony, through your first pope, so-called, and through Jude, Jesus brother.

And as the non-elect are marked out for wrath (Rom 9:22), the elect are not so marked out
(1 Thess 5:9).
40.png
Pax:
Those that conquer are not blotted out, but those that do not will be blotted out. If this were not the case there would be no reason for the verse.
Pax, there are different “books of life,” mentioned in the scripture; run them down. In many of these “books of life,” are many names found to have been not written (Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27).

In order for you to demonstrate that the non-conquerors of Rev 3:5 will have their names blotted out from the book, you must first demonstrate that their names were in the book in the first place. I wish you well in that endeavor. 🙂
40.png
Pax:
We do not have two forms of election. Someone can be initially justified and in relationship with the Lord. They can break that relationship temporarily or permanently. Someone that is initially justified but then falls away is not one of the elect. Only the “elect” actually enjoy eternity with God.
Eya, I haven’t been able to verify the two kinds of election; I heard J. Akins say that on a bible-answer-man show, in fact I have it on my i-pod, but can’t verify it.

With respect to one who is initially justified falling away, that doesn’t make any sense.Philippians 1:6

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.**I posed this question earlier in this thread with respect to one losing justification.

Justification is a good work begun by God, and God says that He will perfect that good work—justification—to the day of Christ; that being so, how can one lose their final justification, if it is God who is perfecting it?
40.png
Pax:
Another thing that helps to emphasize the importance of endurance and perseverance is the following verse taken from Jesus’ little Apocalypse where he says: “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.”[Matt 24:22] This is significant because it shows that the situation will become so severe that not even the elect would persevere. Clearly, some “believers” will fall away and that even those that persevere could lose their salvation if God did not shorten the days of trial.
Hyperbole, Pax; the elect will never perish. Jesus also says if your right hand sins, you should cut it off and throw it away; I assume He would want you to do the same with your left hand, should it sin.

You are sinner, Pax, correct? And I’m sure both of your hands have caused you to sin, correct? And yet you are still banging away on the keyboard at CAF.

The elect will never perish—Jesus has spoken; the case is closed. 🙂
 
(Watch how you treat others your WHOLE life. Else someone might come in at the end-- say, page 8 😊 — and say you haven’t been loving at all!)
 
PAX…the elect cannot be lost because God keeps them…You leave God completely out of the picture. Notice God does everything to keep them.

Also…nobody can come to the son unless the Father effectually draws them - and he WILL raise them up at the last day!

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

The idea that the non-elect can be saved but will not persevere is not scriptural. The non-elect that are caught up in the church are bad fish that got caught up in the dragnet…

Mt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind;
48 and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away.
49 "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

They were never justified…they were only there by association.

The elect are good fish caught up in the dragnet…only good because God made them good…

Mt 13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
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.

🙂
 
Where does scripture say, “God gave us the gift of free will?”
St. Thomas says:
In this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 12) that the image implies "an intelligent being, endowed with free-will and self-movement
src

And God said, through the Sacred Writer (just like He still speaks through His Church, a concept foreign to you)
Gen 1:26
Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
 
That,s the point, deb1. God will not lose any part of his inheritance because of what you do because you can never lose your salvation.
Suppose that you lived you whole life like sixty years faithful to God and then one day you sinned real bad ( the kind of sin that Catholic beleive would cause you to lose your salvation) and minutes later you were killed. Do you think that God would take away your salvation for one bad act?
I am curious to hear your understanding of apostacy as defined in Hebrews 6 :

Heb 6:4-8
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. "

Also I have a question about this passage:
Heb 3:12-15

12 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,"

Why does the writer address them as “brethren”, and speak to them as if “we share in Christ” if they are not really saved?

If they are already saved, then why does he say that we will only share in Christ if we hold fast to the end? Doesn;t that imply that one who does not hold fast will have no share in Christ?
 
I am curious to hear your understanding of apostacy as defined in Hebrews 6 :

Heb 6:4-8
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. "

Also I have a question about this passage:
Heb 3:12-15

12 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,"

Why does the writer address them as “brethren”, and speak to them as if “we share in Christ” if they are not really saved?

If they are already saved, then why does he say that we will only share in Christ if we hold fast to the end? Doesn;t that imply that one who does not hold fast will have no share in Christ?
You cannot seek to use words like “brethren” to your advantage. He is speaking to those among us. Do you think everyone in every church is saved? No, ofcourse not…but do you really think that the Pastor will continually call out - Okay brethren and all of you apostates…No, we all treat eachother as brethren - BUT - is we see someone falling, it is our duty to go and attempt to bring them back.

Also…

Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.

Those that utterly fall away without repentance never were…falling away is not something that accompanies salvation.

1Jo 5:18 We know that no one who is born of God sins *(mortally as he is describing in Hebrews 6:4-6); *but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
 
God, who can certainly understand my heart, would take into account my intent to get absolution.

I have to wonder why someone who spent sixty years struggling to be a good Christian would suddenly and knowingly commit a mortal sin. It seems unlikely, doesn’t it?
Such a person has probably been gradually sliding away from grace for some time, but it was not evident.
 
[Sigh…………….ahh]

First, in the passages you cite from Revelation, Jesus does not say, as you interpret Him saying, ”if we do not conquer…we are lost.”

Rather, what Jesus says is, ”To him who conquers, I will, shall, make, grant, give to him…” whatever He will, shall, make, grant, give to him.

In those passages, Jesus affirms what Paul says in Rom 8:32:He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, ***how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?***You say, He will not if we don’t conquer…”

But what does Paul say in Rom 8:37?:But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer…Literally in the Greek, ”We are more than conquerors.”

And, all what things—what is Paul talking about ”in all these things?”

Why, it’s all of things he’s listed in vv33-39

VV 35–39 celebrates the love of God in Christ for us.

It is as impossible to separate us from that love, Paul says, as it is to bring a charge against us. No earthly peril or disaster can do so (35b–36).

Though such suffering can be expected, as Paul reminds us with his quotation of Ps. 44:22, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Nor can any spiritual power separate us from God’s love (angels, demons and powers in v 38).

Indeed, there is nothing in all creation that can remove us from the new regime in which God’s love in Christ reigns over us.

:extrahappy:
Nothing outside ourselves, certainly. However, one can choose, on the inside to be separated from God. One can do this at any time in life, and if one persistes in doing so, it will not be possible to restore that person again to repentance.
 
40.png
guanophore:
Nothing outside ourselves, certainly. However, one can choose, on the inside to be separated from God. One can do this at any time in life, and if one persistes in doing so, it will not be possible to restore that person again to repentance.
Romans 8:39

nor height, nor depth, ** nor any other created thing,** will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.In the verses preceding v39, Paul lists some created things that are powerless to separate the elect from God, and to make certain, that his readers are left with no doubt as to the powerlessness of created things to separate the elect from God, Paul rounds up the whole of creation in this negative statement: nor any other created thing will be able to…

Are you a created thing, guanophore?

It never ceases to amaze me, how sinful men kick against the word of God, in order to hang onto an autonomy that they do not possess. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top