OSAS

[paul_c]

one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it. and once receiving the gift the Holy Spirit begins to work within the believer. you guys are killing me softly with your words.

Jesus said, "28 Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

the burden that has been placed on most of you, come to the truth and you shall be free!

God bless.

Jerry,
How do you understand the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)? It is in fact a complete repudiation of the Faith Alone/ Once Saved Always saved argument, which of course are completely coupled. In the Sermon on the mount, Jesus lays out before us what it takes to be saved. He doesn’t say, " all you need is Faith alone and you will be saved, now , does he? No, he says: (vers 5: 19):
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

He then goes on to explain how the commandments are to be understood and fulfilled. His conclusion is as follows: (Matthew 7: 21-27)

21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not acton them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

Note, the focus on ACTION and the condemnation of simply stating that you believe (saying Lord, Lord). If Action is required, than Faith alone is debunked. and if Action is required, it is requried continuously, negating the concept of Once Saved, always saved.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Jerry,
How do you understand the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)? It is in fact a complete repudiation of the Faith Alone/ Once Saved Always saved argument, which of course are completely coupled. In the Sermon on the mount, Jesus lays out before us what it takes to be saved. He doesn’t say, " all you need is Faith alone and you will be saved, now , does he? No, he says: (vers 5: 19):
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

paul c:
Some of my Baptist colleagues try to get around the first citation by claiming that Christ is speaking only of the level of rewards in heaven and not to the question of OSAS. Clearly, I don’t hold to this belief, but based on that one verse I can see how they might (if left un-refuted) disavow the resultant argument regarding the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps we need to look at the “rewards” theology in order to get at OSAS?
Thanks!

 

[paul_c]

paul c:
Some of my Baptist colleagues try to get around the first citation by claiming that Christ is speaking only of the level of rewards in heaven and not to the question of OSAS. Clearly, I don’t hold to this belief, but based on that one verse I can see how they might (if left un-refuted) disavow the resultant argument regarding the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps we need to look at the “rewards” theology in order to get at OSAS?
Thanks!

How do they describe the Rewards Theology? What are these potential rewards and whr are they discussed in scripture? I know its not your theology, but I’ve asked this previously of evangelicals and they have never given me an answer. Perhaps they have told you…

 

[rinnie]

one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it. and once receiving the gift the Holy Spirit begins to work within the believer. you guys are killing me softly with your words.

Jesus said, "28 Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

the burden that has been placed on most of you, come to the truth and you shall be free!

God bless.

If that is true Jerry why then does Jesus tell us to follow the ten commandments? Tell me Jerry how does one receive a gift without possibly obeying the commands of Christ. I don’t expect you to answer me, for some reason you never do. But maybe someone else can explain it to me.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus didn’t say we’d be free from all burden- He just said His burden was light.

Exactly, but Jerry feels that we are free from it because we were Baptised?

 

[SteveGC]

paul c:
Some of my Baptist colleagues try to get around the first citation by claiming that Christ is speaking only of the level of rewards in heaven and not to the question of OSAS. Clearly, I don’t hold to this belief, but based on that one verse I can see how they might (if left un-refuted) disavow the resultant argument regarding the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps we need to look at the “rewards” theology in order to get at OSAS?
Thanks!

That’s right. My father and stepmother are Baptist, and they preach the same thing.

to paulc: you and I have been down this road before…trying to get to the bottom of this notion of rewards in heaven with folks like Jerry. It serves as their work-around on many cases to the notion of ‘losing salvation’. Of course, there is scripture which more clearly refutes the rewards in heaven concept (clearly identifying salvation lost), but there is enough out there that can be construed in support of rewards.

That being said, I do think perhaps there are varying levels of reward in heaven…and I don’t think the Church denies that. Each one will be given according to their work. I don’t know if that means that the joy of the beatific vision will be lesser for some, and greater for others, but perhaps there is something of the new heavens and earth wherein our eternal lives are structured in a manner where those with greater reward are placed “higher” than others?

Anyway, if that’s true, it certainly blurs the line for us to try to defend and protect the very real concept of a professed believer later losing salvation. I think it’s important, perhaps, to make distinctions between scripture which clearly points to that truth, and scripture which perhaps allows for the notion of varying rewards in heaven.

Lastly, speaking about ‘faith alone’, I think a protestant defense for that concept lies in the idea that “actions” (obedience) are indeed necessary, and they would not suggest otherwise, but the issue is one more in how those actions are fueled…for Catholics it’s a combination of the human will and the grace of God (full cooperative relationship). For the folks like Jerry, it’s fully and completely the power of God, no real “effort” on our part…the believer just will do the will of God, without really even thinking about it. So long as they had faith enough to once believe and accept Christ, that’s all that was needed to forever fuel their actions in accord with God. Sort of a divine auto-pilot?

 

[AwGusTeen]

How do they describe the Rewards Theology? What are these potential rewards and whr are they discussed in scripture? I know its not your theology, but I’ve asked this previously of evangelicals and they have never given me an answer. Perhaps they have told you…

I’ve gotten little on that topic either, though I must confess that they usually find an excuse to end the discussion before I can get into that question. Perhaps Jerry can help us with that.
Thanks!

 

[SteveGC]

Here’s some Catholic material on it…

---

Q How does the Church distinguish heaven, first heaven, third heaven…?

A: The term heaven is used in three senses in Scripture: to refer to the atmospheric realm where birds fly; to refer to the stellar realm where the sun, moon, and stars are; and to refer to the supernatural realm where God is.

When Paul refers to being in “the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:4), he may simply be referring to that third, supernatural realm where God manifests his presence or he may be referring to a “level” within this supernatural realm. Christian piety has often speculated on the existence of sub-realms within the supernatural heaven (e.g., “seventh heaven”). While it is clear that there are different degrees of reward in heaven (1 Cor. 3:12–15), it is not clear that there will be regions in heaven that practice reward-based segregation of the population.

---

Q: “My priest said there are different levels of heaven and hell. Where can I find Church documentation on this?”

A: The term “levels” of heaven and hell to describe the degrees of punishment or reward reflects the literary imagery of Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy more than the language of the Church. “Degrees” of perfection or punishment is the proper term. The degree of perfection of the beatific vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merits.

• The . . . Council of Florence (1439) declared the souls of the perfectly just clearly behold the Triune and One God as he is, but corresponding to the difference of their merits, the one more perfectly than the other. The Council of Trent defined that the justified person merits an increase of the heavenly glory by good works. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 479)*

Scriptural support may be found at: Matthew 16:27; 1 Corinthians 3:8; 2 Corinthians 9:6; 1 Corinthians 15:41. The punishment of the damned is proportioned to each one’s guilt.
*
The Union Councils of Lyons and of Florence declared that the souls of the damned are punished with unequal punishments . . . This is probably intended to assert not merely a specific difference in the punishment of original sin and of personal sins, but also a difference in the degree of punishment for personal sins [cf. Matt. 11:22; Luke 20:47]. . . . St. Augustine teaches “In their wretchedness the lot of some of the damned will be more tolerable than that of others. Justice demands that the punishment be commensurate with the guilt.” (Ott, Fundamentals, 482)*

---

It is also not clear that we will do nothing besides exclusively praising God every moment. Scripture and the Catechism both speak of us “reigning” with Christ (Rev. 22:5; CCC 1029). This suggests that we will have authority over and responsibility for things.
[my comment: * and perhaps the amount of our reward places us in varying degrees of authority and responsibility]

 

[paul_c]

That’s right. My father and stepmother are Baptist, and they preach the same thing.

to paulc: you and I have been down this road before…trying to get to the bottom of this notion of rewards in heaven with folks like Jerry. It serves as their work-around on many cases to the notion of ‘losing salvation’. Of course, there is scripture which more clearly refutes the rewards in heaven concept (clearly identifying salvation lost), but there is enough out there that can be construed in support of rewards.

That being said, I do think perhaps there are varying levels of reward in heaven…and I don’t think the Church denies that. Each one will be given according to their work. I don’t know if that means that the joy of the beatific vision will be lesser for some, and greater for others, but perhaps there is something of the new heavens and earth wherein our eternal lives are structured in a manner where those with greater reward are placed “higher” than others?

Anyway, if that’s true, it certainly blurs the line for us to try to defend and protect the very real concept of a professed believer later losing salvation. I think it’s important, perhaps, to make distinctions between scripture which clearly points to that truth, and scripture which perhaps allows for the notion of varying rewards in heaven.

Lastly, speaking about ‘faith alone’, I think a protestant defense for that concept lies in the idea that “actions” (obedience) are indeed necessary, and they would not suggest otherwise, but the issue is one more in how those actions are fueled…for Catholics it’s a combination of the human will and the grace of God (full cooperative relationship). For the folks like Jerry, it’s fully and completely the power of God, no real “effort” on our part…the believer just will do the will of God, without really even thinking about it. So long as they had faith enough to once believe and accept Christ, that’s all that was needed to forever fuel their actions in accord with God. Sort of a divine auto-pilot?

I agree that we’ve been around and around the rewards question. Frankly, we know nothing about heaven other than that we will experience the joy of being with God. We don’t know how that Joy will be imparted or how you can get more or less of it or whether everyone will be treated the same. I don’t know whether it matters, either. We will get what we deserve and anyone that attains to heaven will have learned to be satisfied with that.

The more fundamental question for us, is how do we attain heaven. The evangelicals and in fact, most Protestants believe that salvation is from Faith alone and that we owe nothing more to be saved. This heresy negates all moral teaching because acting in a moral way has no impact on salvation in their view. Now it is true that they will say that the elect will act morally out of love for Christ and of course that is true. But that is problematic for the Faith alone argument because if someone claims to have faith and then acts immorally, then there is an obvious conflict. You can’t be part of the elect, if you don’t act the part. This is typically answered in one of two ways.

The Free Grace group will say that we must have faith in God’s mercy and that he will take care of even if they sin, because they view sin as normal for humans.

The Lordship Theology group recognizes that the Free Grace group’s weakness include asking God to call sinners clean and that by sinning, men turn away from God. So they answer by saying that if someone sins, then they weren’t really part of the elect to begin with. This has two problems. First, it denies that some people can have faith and then apostacize. Second, and more fundamental is the point that if the elect will follow God’s word, you must demonstrate your faith through action. If you fail to do this, you are not part of the elect. And you must continue to demonstrate your faith through action until you die. This obliterates the Salvation by Faith alone argument because your faith isn’t real unless you demonstrate it. And OSAS is invalid because you will never know you are part of the elect until you die, because until that point, you could always apostacize. When you look at this, you recognize that it leads directly to the Catholic points that you must stay in the state of Grace until death and to do this, requires you to do the will of God, just as stated in Matt 7: 21

 

[SteveGC]

I agree that we’ve been around and around the rewards question. Frankly, we know nothing about heaven other than that we will experience the joy of being with God. We don’t know how that Joy will be imparted or how you can get more or less of it or whether everyone will be treated the same. I don’t know whether it matters, either. We will get what we deserve and anyone that attains to heaven will have learned to be satisfied with that.

The more fundamental question for us, is how do we attain heaven. The evangelicals and in fact, most Protestants believe that salvation is from Faith alone and that we owe nothing more to be saved. This heresy negates all moral teaching because acting in a moral way has no impact on salvation in their view. Now it is true that they will say that the elect will act morally out of love for Christ and of course that is true. But that is problematic for the Faith alone argument because if someone claims to have faith and then acts immorally, then there is an obvious conflict. You can’t be part of the elect, if you don’t act the part. This is typically answered in one of two ways.

The Free Grace group will say that we must have faith in God’s mercy and that he will take care of even if they sin, because they view sin as normal for humans.

The Lordship Theology group recognizes that the Free Grace group’s weakness include asking God to call sinners clean and that by sinning, men turn away from God. So they answer by saying that if someone sins, then they weren’t really part of the elect to begin with. This has two problems. First, it denies that some people can have faith and then apostacize. Second, and more fundamental is the point that if the elect will follow God’s word, you must demonstrate your faith through action. If you fail to do this, you are not part of the elect. And you must continue to demonstrate your faith through action until you die. This obliterates the Salvation by Faith alone argument because your faith isn’t real unless you demonstrate it. And OSAS is invalid because you will never know you are part of the elect until you die, because until that point, you could always apostacize. When you look at this, you recognize that it leads directly to the Catholic points that you must stay in the state of Grace until death and to do this, requires you to do the will of God, just as stated in Matt 7: 21

I think most, including Jerry, are of the Free Grace group. This allows the most leeway regarding future sin, and is therefore very easy to claim in the here and now. It still allows for the “divine autopilot” concept, although they either have to claim that God’s power is allowing them to sin, OR…their free will remains fully their own only in the sense that they can sin. Nevertheless, God’s grace will always pull them back. It’s a hard doctrine for us to argue with because it’s always talking in the future tense. Nothing has happened in the past or the present for us to argue about.

paul, did you catch my last post, regarding Church teaching on degrees of heaven?

 

[AwGusTeen]

I think most, including Jerry, are of the Free Grace group. This allows the most leeway regarding future sin, and is therefore very easy to claim in the here and now. It still allows for the “divine autopilot” concept, although they either have to claim that God’s power is allowing them to sin, OR…their free will remains fully their own only in the sense that they can sin. Nevertheless, God’s grace will always pull them back. It’s a hard doctrine for us to argue with because it’s always talking in the future tense. Nothing has happened in the past or the present for us to argue about.

paul, did you catch my last post, regarding Church teaching on degrees of heaven?

SteveGC:
I agree. That’s why I believe it’s imperative to show the fallacy of their rewards based theology. My opinion is that, if it’s not in scripture (using their own standard of Sola Scriptura) they should not be allowed to hold to it to begin with. However, as long as someone has such a fallback position, there exists no amount of logic that can dissuade.

Please don’t get me wrong – you’ve all presented superbly thought out counter arguments against OSAS; however, they will probably be meaningless unless we can topple the underlying issue.

Just my opinion…

 

[Cbailey2]

one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it. and once receiving the gift the Holy Spirit begins to work within the believer. you guys are killing me softly with your words.

Jesus said, "28 Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

the burden that has been placed on most of you, come to the truth and you shall be free!

God bless.

Again, Jerry this is your theology, not the Bible’s. Your main assertion (which you support with Matthew 11:28-30) is that “one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it”…please show me where in scripture you took the bolded quote from. I don’t recall ever hearing it before and I would love to see the context surrounding this idea.

If this quote is not from scripture and just from common experience, I’d say you are wrong. There are many things we can do with gifts. Here are at least three of them:

1. We can reject them. If someone tries to give us something we don’t want, we refuse it. Exhibit A would be someone proposing to their girlfriend with a diamond ring. The girl might not want the condition that comes with the beautiful ring (e.g., getting married) and will thus reject the gift. There is an obvious similarity with salvation: God is offering us a precious gift (salvation) with a condition (that we become His). Some people may not want the conditions involved in being His (e.g., loving God and loving one another) and may instead choose to reject the gift. There is a reason the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. It has accepted the gift and accepted the conditions with love and fidelity.
2. We can accept the gift with a smile, thank the giver and say it’s exactly what we wanted, and then promptly throw it into a pile in the corner. Exhibit B would be the brown sweater my mom got me several Christmases ago or any of the gifts that God has given us and we have not used fully. Consider the Parable of the Talents Jerry. If receiving a gift and using a gift were the same thing, how can there be a “wicked, lazy servant?” If God gives me intelligence or wisdom and I turn off my brain, how am I any different than the servant that buries his share in the ground?
3. We can accept a gift and use it as the giver intended.

The gulf that separates us Jerry is Free Will: you believe that it ceases once we accept Christ (e.g., we become Puppets for Christ) and I believe that it is essentially what makes us human.

 

[paul_c]

I think most, including Jerry, are of the Free Grace group. This allows the most leeway regarding future sin, and is therefore very easy to claim in the here and now. It still allows for the “divine autopilot” concept, although they either have to claim that God’s power is allowing them to sin, OR…their free will remains fully their own only in the sense that they can sin. Nevertheless, God’s grace will always pull them back. It’s a hard doctrine for us to argue with because it’s always talking in the future tense. Nothing has happened in the past or the present for us to argue about.

paul, did you catch my last post, regarding Church teaching on degrees of heaven?

I did catch your last post regarding Church teaching on degrees of heaven. It is interesting because it is an extension of the merit system that Evangelicals have a problem with. Think about it for a second, if men can merit different levels of heaven, why can’t they merit being in heaven itself. Its consistent with a Catholic viewpoint, but completely inconsistent with the view that we merit nothing and that heaven is given to us as a free gift. How can you argue heaven is a free gift but thta different levels of heaven
must be earned.

I personally think the free Grace argument is the easiest doctrine to argue against. Afterall, it eliminates completely the entire concept of sin. What more could Satan ask than an army of so called Christians who preach that sin (turning from God) has no impact on your salvation, once you confess that Jesus is Lord. After all, the demons Jesus exorcised freely admitted that Jesus was the Christ, yet no one seems to believe that their acknowledgement was sufficient for them to be saved. Why would Jesus preach that the way to salvation was by following the commandments, if he really meant the way to salvation was simply to acknowledge him as the son of God? And would someone who was really saved, act contrary to what Jesus’ wills?

Once you push on this point, most born-agains will suggest that someone who does evil after processing his loyalty to Christ wasn’t really sincere in his confession. This pushes them into the Lordship theology, where a true member of the elect will do God’s will. Once you have them there, the logic breaks down further, because if you have to do good works to demonstrate your faith, then you must continue to do so and you can no longer claim assurance of heaven until Death.

I think the suggestion that you earn different levels of reward in heaven, works against the free grace theology as well. Why would merit matter in attaining levels of heaven, if it doesn’t matter in getting to heaven itself?

 

[paul_c]

Again, Jerry this is your theology, not the Bible’s. Your main assertion (which you support with Matthew 11:28-30) is that “one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it”…please show me where in scripture you took the bolded quote from. I don’t recall ever hearing it before and I would love to see the context surrounding this idea.

If this quote is not from scripture and just from common experience, I’d say you are wrong. There are many things we can do with gifts. Here are at least three of them:

1. We can reject them. If someone tries to give us something we don’t want, we refuse it. Exhibit A would be someone proposing to their girlfriend with a diamond ring. The girl might not want the condition that comes with the beautiful ring (e.g., getting married) and will thus reject the gift. There is an obvious similarity with salvation: God is offering us a precious gift (salvation) with a condition (that we become His). Some people may not want the conditions involved in being His (e.g., loving God and loving one another) and may instead choose to reject the gift. There is a reason the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. It has accepted the gift and accepted the conditions with love and fidelity.
2. We can accept the gift with a smile, thank the giver and say it’s exactly what we wanted, and then promptly throw it into a pile in the corner. Exhibit B would be the brown sweater my mom got me several Christmases ago or any of the gifts that God has given us and we have not used fully. Consider the Parable of the Talents Jerry. If receiving a gift and using a gift were the same thing, how can there be a “wicked, lazy servant?” If God gives me intelligence or wisdom and I turn off my brain, how am I any different than the servant that buries his share in the ground?
3. We can accept a gift and use it as the giver intended.

The gulf that separates us Jerry is Free Will: you believe that it ceases once we accept Christ (e.g., we become Puppets for Christ) and I believe that it is essentially what makes us human.

These were excellent examples.

 

[SteveGC]

I did catch your last post regarding Church teaching on degrees of heaven. It is interesting because it is an extension of the merit system that Evangelicals have a problem with. Think about it for a second, if men can merit different levels of heaven, why can’t they merit being in heaven itself. Its consistent with a Catholic viewpoint, but completely inconsistent with the view that we merit nothing and that heaven is given to us as a free gift. How can you argue heaven is a free gift but thta different levels of heaven must be earned.

Of course, this is a good point you make. I would think their argument would be that what truly matters is heaven itself, as opposed to hell, and that this is the free gift. Talking about this now also helps me see how the theology falls apart, especially in light of free grace. For if they are “earning” rewards for heaven, even if they can argue that it’s heaven itself that’s the free gift, then it suggests they have to do something of their own free will to earn those rewards while on earth…but that flies in the face of God controlling their actions. I suppose they’d say that their rewards are somehow “predestined”, and so their part is to believe, then God essentially takes over and controls their life of good work, and whatever good work God gives a believer to do will also determine their reward in heaven…hence it’s still all God’s doing.
paul c:

I personally think the free Grace argument is the easiest doctrine to argue against. Afterall, it eliminates completely the entire concept of sin. What more could Satan ask than an army of so called Christians who preach that sin (turning from God) has no impact on your salvation, once you confess that Jesus is Lord. After all, the demons Jesus exorcised freely admitted that Jesus was the Christ, yet no one seems to believe that their acknowledgement was sufficient for them to be saved. Why would Jesus preach that the way to salvation was by following the commandments, if he really meant the way to salvation was simply to acknowledge him as the son of God? And would someone who was really saved, act contrary to what Jesus’ wills?

I think, paul, that the essence of their argument is not that sin is of no consequence, but rather that repentance of sin is assured. At least that’s how I understand Jerry and others like him. They don’t deny that sin is a turning from God. They even say that they will continue to sin, because their inherited nature never truly departs from them (even though they stress they are made new). Anyway, they hold themselves to be the prodigal sons and daughters…who WILL return. It’s inevitable for them to return, they say. God will see to it, because of their profession.

 

[SteveGC]

Again, Jerry this is your theology, not the Bible’s. Your main assertion (which you support with Matthew 11:28-30) is that “one can’t do anything in keeping a gift only receive it”…please show me where in scripture you took the bolded quote from. I don’t recall ever hearing it before and I would love to see the context surrounding this idea.

If this quote is not from scripture and just from common experience, I’d say you are wrong. There are many things we can do with gifts. Here are at least three of them:

1. We can reject them. If someone tries to give us something we don’t want, we refuse it. Exhibit A would be someone proposing to their girlfriend with a diamond ring. The girl might not want the condition that comes with the beautiful ring (e.g., getting married) and will thus reject the gift. There is an obvious similarity with salvation: God is offering us a precious gift (salvation) with a condition (that we become His). Some people may not want the conditions involved in being His (e.g., loving God and loving one another) and may instead choose to reject the gift. There is a reason the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ. It has accepted the gift and accepted the conditions with love and fidelity.
2. We can accept the gift with a smile, thank the giver and say it’s exactly what we wanted, and then promptly throw it into a pile in the corner. Exhibit B would be the brown sweater my mom got me several Christmases ago or any of the gifts that God has given us and we have not used fully. Consider the Parable of the Talents Jerry. If receiving a gift and using a gift were the same thing, how can there be a “wicked, lazy servant?” If God gives me intelligence or wisdom and I turn off my brain, how am I any different than the servant that buries his share in the ground?
3. We can accept a gift and use it as the giver intended.

The gulf that separates us Jerry is Free Will: you believe that it ceases once we accept Christ (e.g., we become Puppets for Christ) and I believe that it is essentially what makes us human.

I agree these were great examples.

Jerry’s version of it, however, is most likely that the free gift is a gift that keeps on giving…perpetually coming back to us even if we toss it in the corner occasionally (through sin). So it isn’t just a one-time free gift…it is a gift that won’t go away. God sees to it, once you initially accept it. Again, it’s all about God decreeing that repentance of the professed believer is a given. So, they can use their free will themselves to sin…but God automates their contrition for those sins. Quite silly.

 

[paul_c]

Of course, this is a good point you make. I would think their argument would be that what truly matters is heaven itself, as opposed to hell, and that this is the free gift. Talking about this now also helps me see how the theology falls apart, especially in light of free grace. For if they are “earning” rewards for heaven, even if they can argue that it’s heaven itself that’s the free gift, then it suggests they have to do something of their own free will to earn those rewards while on earth…but that flies in the face of God controlling their actions. I suppose they’d say that their rewards are somehow “predestined”, and so their part is to believe, then God essentially takes over and controls their life of good work, and whatever good work God gives a believer to do will also determine their reward in heaven…hence it’s still all God’s doing.

This is a very weak argument, if they choose to use it. Reason and free will are what separates man from all other creatures and makes us in the image of God. These are also God’s gift to humanity. Would anyone deny this? And why would God give us these gifts if we weren’t expected to use them toward the only thing that really matters: our salvation.

I think, paul, that the essence of their argument is not that sin is of no consequence, but rather that repentance of sin is assured. At least that’s how I understand Jerry and others like him. They don’t deny that sin is a turning from God. They even say that they will continue to sin, because their inherited nature never truly departs from them (even though they stress they are made new). Anyway, they hold themselves to be the prodigal sons and daughters…who WILL return. It’s inevitable for them to return, they say. God will see to it, because of their profession.

Even in your argument, sin has no conseqence. They can sin to their hearts content, knowing that somehow they will repent and be saved? This is a ridiculous argument. And remember, Martin Luther recommended others to " sin boldly" so that is the foundation.

Its a very, very weak theology. All you need to do is say " Jesus is Lord" and you go to heaven. No real commitment, no responsibility. Easy salvation. Except for the fact that its not true. Scripture denounces this clearly: Faith without works is dead (James 2:24),
I fI had Faith enought to move moutains but do not have love, I am nothing (1Corinthians 13). Follow the commandments if you want to have eternal life (Matthew 18:17) and many others.

 

[paul_c]

I agree these were great examples.

Jerry’s version of it, however, is most likely that the free gift is a gift that keeps on giving…perpetually coming back to us even if we toss it in the corner occasionally (through sin). So it isn’t just a one-time free gift…it is a gift that won’t go away. God sees to it, once you initially accept it. Again, it’s all about God decreeing that repentance of the professed believer is a given. So, they can use their free will themselves to sin…but God automates their contrition for those sins. Quite silly.

There is limited truth to everything the Evangelicals say:

Truth: Those that are predestined, will go to heaven
Evangelical misunderstandings:

1. That the predestined know that they are predestined.
   Actual fact: You will not know if you were predestined until you die. Even St. Paul recognized that his salvation wasn’t guaranteed until he died
2. That the predestined will not need to do god’s will to be saved, because salvation is a free gift
   Actual fact: While salvation is a free gift, we need to cooperate with it to be saved. The Elect will do God’s will freely.

 

[SteveGC]

For the sake of continuing to play devil’s advocate (which I’ve done before, but no other time do I really feel like I truly am playing that role than I do now )…

This is a very weak argument, if they choose to use it. Reason and free will are what separates man from all other creatures and makes us in the image of God. These are also God’s gift to humanity. Would anyone deny this? And why would God give us these gifts if we weren’t expected to use them toward the only thing that really matters: our salvation.

I agree, weak argument for you, me, Cb, AGT, rin, and all the other Catholics on here who understand things better. BUT…the Jerry camp will nonetheless argue…of course we are separate from all other creatures…of course we still have free will, but our free will adapts to our newly created humanness, when we accept Christ into our hearts and receive the Spirit, our entire being changes, including the gift of free will which is part of that nature. Our free will is simply aligned now with God. As you said in the other post paul, the Elect will do God’s will freely. They would agree wholeheartedly. It’s a brand new kind of free will.
paul c:

Even in your argument, sin has no conseqence. They can sin to their hearts content, knowing that somehow they will repent and be saved? This is a ridiculous argument. And remember, Martin Luther recommended others to " sin boldly" so that is the foundation. Its a very, very weak theology. All you need to do is say " Jesus is Lord" and you go to heaven. No real commitment, no responsibility. Easy salvation. Except for the fact that its not true. Scripture denounces this clearly.

Yes, except for one thing…as Jerry would argue…we would NOT sin to our heart’s content…being true believers, we would not only automatically repent of sin, we would do everything in our power NOT to sin in the first place. And we certainly wouldn’t commit grievous sins, like murder or adultery (I’ve heard them say this, and yet deny the Catholic teaching of venial vs. mortal sin).

I agree with you paul…you know that. I agree that in the essence of their theology, there is no real responsibility. I think there IS commitment, but not of the day-to-day, lifelong kind that devout Catholics understand. It certainly is “easy salvation”, and they don’t mind shouting that from the rooftops. Because to them, it’s a way of holding Christ in the highest regard, to acknowledge that it’s ALL Him, everything…He’s so wonderfully loving and powerful (as Catholics would also say), that our role is reduced to mere belief, repentance of past sins, and offering a personal invite for Him into our lives (as Catholics would refute as a dangerous reduction of our role). That’s it. Easy because Jesus took the full load. That, to them, is Christianity at it’s heart. I think it boils down to a misunderstanding of what the gift actually is. It’s not eternal life in heaven. It’s the opportunity for it, where once that opportunity was lost.

 

[paul_c]

For the sake of continuing to play devil’s advocate (which I’ve done before, but no other time do I really feel like I truly am playing that role than I do now )…

I agree, weak argument for you, me, Cb, AGT, rin, and all the other Catholics on here who understand things better. BUT…the Jerry camp will nonetheless argue…of course we are separate from all other creatures…of course we still have free will, but our free will adapts to our newly created humanness, when we accept Christ into our hearts and receive the Spirit, our entire being changes, including the gift of free will which is part of that nature. Our free will is simply aligned now with God. As you said in the other post paul, the Elect will do God’s will freely. They would agree wholeheartedly. It’s a brand new kind of free will.

Yes, except for one thing…as Jerry would argue…we would NOT sin to our heart’s content…being true believers, we would not only automatically repent of sin, we would do everything in our power NOT to sin in the first place. And we certainly wouldn’t commit grievous sins, like murder or adultery (I’ve heard them say this, and yet deny the Catholic teaching of venial vs. mortal sin).

I agree with you paul…you know that. I agree that in the essence of their theology, there is no real responsibility. I think there IS commitment, but not of the day-to-day, lifelong kind that devout Catholics understand. It certainly is “easy salvation”, and they don’t mind shouting that from the rooftops. Because to them, it’s a way of holding Christ in the highest regard, to acknowledge that it’s ALL Him, everything…He’s so wonderfully loving and powerful (as Catholics would also say), that our role is reduced to mere belief, repentance of past sins, and offering a personal invite for Him into our lives (as Catholics would refute as a dangerous reduction of our role). That’s it. Easy because Jesus took the full load. That, to them, is Christianity at it’s heart. I think it boils down to a misunderstanding of what the gift actually is. It’s not eternal life in heaven. It’s the opportunity for it, where once that opportunity was lost.

the danger of the Protestant theology is that it can lead to complacency. While we know we need to work on our sanctification every day and with every decision we make, they can get caught believing that there is nothing they need to do. In the worst case scenario, they can fell empowered to sin, because afterall, Jesus has their back.