Perseverance of the Saints must be rejeceted

[Syele]

hi all i thought calvinist’s beleived they were picked by God.like they had no choice in the matter God picked me to be His i didn’t have to choose and because of this(God’s choosing me) no matter what i do i am still saved.no matter how sincre one seeks God unless He picks you,you can’t be saved. not what ibeleive just what i thought calvinist’s beleived.predestined that is what it is.

right the 5th point (PErserverence of the Saints flows dieerectly from the ones before it The second point in Unconditional Election. If they are Calvinist, then to say you can lose Salvation would violate Unconditional Election by saying that God’s chose wrong.

Unconditional Election God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First of all, I would like to describe my understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints”. If my understanding is incorrect or lacking in some way, then please let me know. Here we go:The Perseverance of the Saints means that once somebody has been justified, they are also “saved” and cannot lose this salvation. If someone “falls away” from the faith, then they were never justified in the first place.Also in my understanding, the Catholic Church can agree with this but only with a very important caveat - that we can never lose our salvation once we have died, but we can however “lose our salvation” (that is, fall away from the faith) on Earth (via mortal sin which is another subject). This is why Catholics don’t really like to talk about who is “saved” and who is not; rather we talk about “being in the grace of God” or “possessing saving grace”.

The important point is that Catholics believe that this saving grace once gained can be lost and even regained. This is in contradistinction to the Calvinist view. The Calvinist says that saving grace can never be lost. It is the contention of this thread that this Calvinist doctrine must be rejected as it is clearly contradicted by the Bible. Namely, it is contradicted by the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) and by the Vine and the Branches analogy (John:15:1-17):

The Prodigal Son

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, a boy is living with his father (that is, God) in his father’s house. In other words, he is “saved” or possesses “saving grace”. Then, he leaves the father; that is, he leaves the faith. Then, in verse 32, the father explains to his other son:this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.
Now it seems to me that the only way that a Calvinist can accept this parable is to reject my interpretation that the son was originally “saved”. However, the fatal flaw of this explanation is when the father says the word “again”. That is, the son was dead but is now alive again. This means he was alive in the first place but then lost that life (that is, he lost his salvation). He then regained it. This is completely in-line with Catholic teaching but flatly contradicts the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

The Vine and the Branches

In this passage Jesus says:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned…"Being a branch indicates that you are connected to Jesus. That is, you are “saved” or posses “saving grace”. However, these branches can be cut off and thrown into the fire. The branches are then no longer “saved”. Jesus doesn’t say that the branches were never branches in the first place, but that the branches themselves are cut off. And so this too contradicts the Perseverance of the Saints.

I would be very interested in any rebuttals to these arguments.

1. To reject the perseverance of the saints is to call Christ a lying fantasist or a fool. Sorry, no can do.​

1. The post is totally irrelevant to the doctrine. I’ll get back to you

 

[Harpazo]

1. To reject the perseverance of the saints is to call Christ a lying fantasist or a fool. Sorry, no can do.​

1. The post is totally irrelevant to the doctrine. I’ll get back to you

Are you really Catholic? Because many of your posts tend to indicate otherwise, and this is no exception. I don’t mean to come off rude at all, but from reading several of your posts where you tend to attack Catholics instead of building me up makes me think you’re not Catholic.

The OP was addressing a form of Eternal Security, I believe. And that is in opposition to Christ. Sorry.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Atreyu]

1. To reject the perseverance of the saints is to call Christ a lying fantasist or a fool. Sorry, no can do.​

1. The post is totally irrelevant to the doctrine. I’ll get back to you

I am waiting! I am very curious to see what you have to say. I always enjoy reading your posts - I feel that you keep me (and others) honest, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I look forward to your explanation.

 

[Atreyu]

Well, excuse me…why don’t you be nice about it???

It would have taken two minutes to read through my post, and instead you “hit and run”. I find this happens quite a bit in these forums, and thought it deserved a rebuke. I didn’t want to be mean, but often a rebuke comes off that way.

 

[Righteousone]

Perseverance of the Saints Is the 5th point in the 5 points of Calvinism. The points flow logically from one to the next. The opposite of Calvinism is Arminianism.
You can read about about them both here: the-highway.com/compare.html

You’re kidding me right? I would never read anything from that man Calvin if my life depended on it.
Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
None are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino Effect). The “Sinners Prayer” is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It to is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was a Lutheran? Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves b/c they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed’s in addition to the bible.

 

[Syele]

You’re kidding me right? I would never read anything from that man Calvin if my life depended on it.
Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
None are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino Effect). The “Sinners Prayer” is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It to is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was a Lutheran? Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves b/c they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed’s in addition to the bible.

1. No I’m not kidding.
2. I’m not Calvinist. (And plese show proof “most Evangelical denominations” teach Calvinism, Last I heard it was around 50%)
3. I’m not Lutheran.
4. It is easier to refute things you have read yourself. Reading is not the same as believing.
5. The link I gave you was short and to the point.
6. Of course thay all have to be takes as a unit, where did I say they don’t?
7. The sinners prayer is not one of the 5 points of Calvinism. (I guess you wouldn’t know that since you never read what Calvin taught)

 

[Truthstalker]

First of alls
I would be very interested in any rebuttals to these arguments.

I’m not a Calvinist, only because that term no longer has any meaning. Calvin hated that term and never called himself a Calvinist, and would have disagreed with many things attributed to Calvinism. One does not need to subscribe to all 5 points of Calvinism to be a Calvinist - I know “3 point Calvinists” who agree with three of the five. I suppose there are somewhere zero point Calvinists. The points are a simplified representation of Calvinism and were developed in rebuttal to Arminianism. To some extent, all Christians are Calvinists (we all believe Jesus is Lord, for example, just like those dreaded Calvinists).

In rebuttal, Atreyu my old friend, I would say that if you reject perseverance of the faith you are rejecting what Catholics call the gift of final perseverance. The number of those God has predestined to heaven is fixed, as are their identities, and cannot be changed. If you persevere to the end, it is solely by the grace of God according to the Council of Trent, and by His election.

Regarding the prodigal son, God gave him the gift of repentance and brought him home. Regarding the vines cut away, they were not given the gift of repentence. Had they been elect, they would not have been cut away.

There is no contradiction to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in these passages. It is tautological to say that those who make it to heaven are those who will make it to heaven. No one else will make it to heaven. Those who wind up persevering are those who persevered.

“Presbyterianism” refers to a system of church government, not doctrine. Not all Calvinists are Presbyterians and not all Presbyterians are Calvinists, something like not all right handed people are Catholics and not all Catholics are right handed. Many “Calvinists” reject what Calvin wrote, others slavishly follow him. I suspect similarities to this exist in the Catholic church, with some disregarding, say, the pope and others carefully following encyclicals.

Justification and sanctification are intrinsically and intimately linked, so much so that they cannot really be separated except as a means to study the process of salvation. Justification is always followed by sanctification. Some can exhibit the grace of God, for His own reasons and glory, and yet not persevere.

I no longer have much time for these forums, so I may not reply. Look at ccel.org and browse for Calvin if you want to read his commentaries, some of which are good and some of which are less so. He also has a bad habit of unexpectedly lashing out at Catholics, or ignoring important arguments, or sneering. Not that these forums are free from lashing out, or ignoring, or sneering, despite the good moderation.

 

[Syele]

3 point Calvinists" who agree with three of the five.

I know many people who claim to be 3 point Calvinists or 4 point Calvinists but the thing is, if you mix the points uplike that, it ceases to make any sense And inadvertantly declares that God is unjust or worse.

 

[Righteousone]

I know many people who claim to be 3 point Calvinists or 4 point Calvinists but the thing is, if you mix the points uplike that, it ceases to make any sense And inadvertantly declares that God is unjust or worse.

2 points, 3 points, 5 points…500 points…really ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[Syele]

2 points, 3 points, 5 points…500 points…really ridiculous if you ask me.

Why are you posting about stuff you know nothing about?

 

[Atreyu]

I’m not a Calvinist, only because that term no longer has any meaning. Calvin hated that term and never called himself a Calvinist, and would have disagreed with many things attributed to Calvinism. One does not need to subscribe to all 5 points of Calvinism to be a Calvinist - I know “3 point Calvinists” who agree with three of the five. I suppose there are somewhere zero point Calvinists. The points are a simplified representation of Calvinism and were developed in rebuttal to Arminianism. To some extent, all Christians are Calvinists (we all believe Jesus is Lord, for example, just like those dreaded Calvinists).

In rebuttal, Atreyu my old friend, I would say that if you reject perseverance of the faith you are rejecting what Catholics call the gift of final perseverance. The number of those God has predestined to heaven is fixed, as are their identities, and cannot be changed. If you persevere to the end, it is solely by the grace of God according to the Council of Trent, and by His election.

Regarding the prodigal son, God gave him the gift of repentance and brought him home. Regarding the vines cut away, they were not given the gift of repentence. Had they been elect, they would not have been cut away.

There is no contradiction to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in these passages. It is tautological to say that those who make it to heaven are those who will make it to heaven. No one else will make it to heaven. Those who wind up persevering are those who persevered.

“Presbyterianism” refers to a system of church government, not doctrine. Not all Calvinists are Presbyterians and not all Presbyterians are Calvinists, something like not all right handed people are Catholics and not all Catholics are right handed. Many “Calvinists” reject what Calvin wrote, others slavishly follow him. I suspect similarities to this exist in the Catholic church, with some disregarding, say, the pope and others carefully following encyclicals.

Justification and sanctification are intrinsically and intimately linked, so much so that they cannot really be separated except as a means to study the process of salvation. Justification is always followed by sanctification. Some can exhibit the grace of God, for His own reasons and glory, and yet not persevere.

I no longer have much time for these forums, so I may not reply. Look at ccel.org and browse for Calvin if you want to read his commentaries, some of which are good and some of which are less so. He also has a bad habit of unexpectedly lashing out at Catholics, or ignoring important arguments, or sneering. Not that these forums are free from lashing out, or ignoring, or sneering, despite the good moderation.

Thank you for a typically good post, TS. My problem with it is that it reduces (my understanding of) Perseverance of the Saints to the exact Catholic teaching. My understanding of the difference between Catholic teaching and the Calvinist (if you will) teaching is that Calvinists deny the possibility of mortal sin. That is, if someone is justified then they cannot lose that justification.

In your post on the other hand, I find nothing to disagree with. Is this really the Calvinist understanding of Perseverance of the Saints?

 

[Atreyu]

You’re kidding me right? I would never read anything from that man Calvin if my life depended on it.
Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
None are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino Effect). The “Sinners Prayer” is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It to is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was a Lutheran? Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves b/c they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed’s in addition to the bible.

With all respect, your zeal would be better spent in other ways than apologetics.

 

[Righteousone]

With all respect, your zeal would be better spent in other ways than apologetics.

That is your opinion…I know what I am talking about…do you?

 

[Righteousone]

Why are you posting about stuff you know nothing about?

I know about Calvinism…don’t you?

 

[mikeledes]

The Bible says that those who persevere will be saved:

Galatians 6:7-8

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

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.

However, if all of the born again will persevere, then why does Paul state:

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.
**

If perseverance is assured to all of the born again, then why does Paul even mention the possibility of a disqualification? I doubt that would even come out of the mouth of a Calvinist. Moreover, the word translated “disqualified” is adokimos which means rejected or reprobate.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Thank you for a typically good post, TS. My problem with it is that it reduces (my understanding of) Perseverance of the Saints to the exact Catholic teaching. My understanding of the difference between Catholic teaching and the Calvinist (if you will) teaching is that Calvinists deny the possibility of mortal sin. That is, if someone is justified then they cannot lose that justification.

In your post on the other hand, I find nothing to disagree with. Is this really the Calvinist understanding of Perseverance of the Saints?

They also say that only those who persevere were genuinely born again.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Are you sure about this? I was going by the Wiki page. I know Wikipedia isn’t a bastion of intellectual precision, but I thought that such a well-travelled page would at least be named correctly.

Perseverance of the saints, as understood by Calvinists, is not just perseverance in salvation. It also means perseverance in sanctification, in righteous conduct. This distingusihes them from OSAS Arminians, who do not necessarily believe that the saved will persvere in righteous conduct. This is from the Wikipedia article you cited:

** (1) the traditional Calvinist doctrine found in the Reformed Christian confessions of faith, and (2) the non-traditional doctrine found in some Baptist and other evangelical churches. In a sense, both can describe Christian believers as “once saved, always saved”, but the two forms attach a different meaning to the word saved — namely, whether or not it necessarily involves sanctification, the process of becoming holy by rejecting sin and obeying God’s commands. Because of this difference, traditional Calvinist Christians tend to prefer the historical term “perseverance of the saints”, which is one of the five points of Calvinism, and advocates of the non-traditional doctrine usually prefer the less technical terms “eternal security”, “unconditional assurance”, and “once saved, always saved” to characterize their teaching.**

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atreyu]

That is your opinion…I know what I am talking about…do you?

Yes it is my opinion, and it was a suggestion only. However, I find it difficult to understand how a person could know anything about something while refusing to actually read about it. I would suggest that the apologist who wants to be successful would always be willing to read what the opposition writes. A refusal to learn about the opposition shows a complete lack of respect for the opposition. Even if you win the argument, if you do not show respect and charity then your arguments will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Righteousone]

Yes it is my opinion, and it was a suggestion only. However, I find it difficult to understand how a person could know anything about something while refusing to actually read about it. I would suggest that the apologist who wants to be successful would always be willing to read what the opposition writes. A refusal to learn about the opposition shows a complete lack of respect for the opposition. Even if you win the argument, if you do not show respect and charity then your arguments will fall on deaf ears.

So what you are saying is I wrote lies about Calvinism? I read what the ‘opposition’ had to say and I refuted it. Is there a problem here somewhere??