Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Again, that’s not the point at issue. The third sentence raises the question of what it means for Jesus to draw all or for God to show mercy to all or for the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin. If you mean by this that God shows mercy to all in exactly the same way and to the same degree, so that differences in the final destinies of human beings are purely due to their actions, then I see the appeal of this position and would not categorically disagree with it (I’m more of an “agnostic” on the subject given its complexity and mystery), but you have a lot of work to do in reconciling it with a number of Scriptural texts which appear to teach the opposite, of which our Calvinist friends will be happy to remind you.

I believe that our eternal destiny is determined by our response or lack of response to God’s grace. I believe that each of us has been given sufficient grace for salvation. I don’t claim that this sufficient grace is the same for each person.

The scriptures I posted support my position, as does Church teaching.

You can’t just quote some rather general prooftexts and sit back comfortably–that’s what the Calvinists and OSAS folks do with regards to perseverance.

Au contraire! I can do exactly that, and have done so many times!

As I keep trying to remind people, Molinism in some ways makes the situation worse, because it posits a way in which God could treat people differently (by putting some in circumstances which He knew by middle knowledge would lead to their salvation, and others in circumstances under which He knew they would be damned) while still genuinely offering mercy to all.

Molinism as I understand it does address this issue. I believe it was you who pointed out that originally Molina proposed something different than what is held by contemporary Molinists. I thank you for that. I haven’t really looked into it in any detail but I take your word for it.

My view is that God’s knowledge of counter-factuals enabled him to create a completely just and merciful world whereby every person was given sufficient grace for salvation in the circumstances that exist in the actualized world. In other words, we get what we deserve.

When you say things like that you reveal how completely you misunderstand the issue. The elect (those who are elected to eternal life) will not be unsaved. The elect, as I said, will fulfill the conditions and be saved. What is so hard to understand about that? Salvation is still conditional on certain things.

My comment was in regard to a poster who claimed election did not necessarily mean salvation. I was not posting my opinion on the matter.

In the Augustinian Catholic tradition (and also for Luther) there’s a distinction between predestination to grace and predestination to eternal life, since it’s possible to receive grace and lose it. But election in the primary sense refers to predestination to eternal life, and that’s the sense in which I’ve been using it.

I believe this is a bogus distinction. I believe that God’s grace is given to all of us.

I’m not really interested in defending Calvinists here, since I find their doctrine of the perseverance of the regenerate one of the more obviously mistaken parts of their theology. But in the Augustinian Catholic position it is indeed possible to shipwreck our faith. This doesn’t mean that grace is inefficacious (what you or I would mean by “resistable”–i.e., God’s decision to give it may not coincide with a human decision to receive it). Rather, it means that God has chosen to give people regenerating grace but not the gift of final perseverance.

Again, why bother? I don’t find any compelling reason for this in scripture or through rational analysis. Endurance and perseverance must be our roles, OR, God is merely drawing names out of a hat and putting us into two different piles.

It’s hard to discuss this with you because you repeatedly dismiss the nuances of the issue as “semantics.” You very badly want this to be simpler than it is. I have problems with Augustine and Aquinas too, but I respect them too much to dismiss so contemptuously the issues they raise.

I understand your point. However, I think the opposite is also true. Many want these issues to be more complicated than they really are.

I believe that God created us with the ability to love him. He reaches out to us with his grace. We accept or reject this grace.

I believe that heaven is complete submission to God’s will.

 

[RickHolland]

I understand the position of the Church perfectly. We can’t seek God without his grace. We need his gift of grace in order to be able to follow his will. Where you differ from Church teaching is that you believe God withholds his grace from some people.

We are speaking of salvific grace, just to be absolutely clear. This is the grace that opens the heart to hear and believe; this is only given to the elect. General grace is given to all people. If you believe the Bible teaches otherwise, then you will have to explain why only the elect are able to respond to God.

God’s will is that we use our freedom to choose to follow and love him. His grace is offered to each of us as an undeserved gift. God cannot simultaneously want us to love him and then force us to do it. That’s not love by definition.

Yet in a sense that is exactly as it is; beyond our comprehension because we are looking through sin-stained glasses. You stopped short of saying that God would be unfair and from the human perspective, that is exactly how it appears, but one walks by faith and not by our own understanding. I don’t know how God accomplishes it, but I personally do not feel I was coerced; yet if God had not moved in me; I would have continued to reject him.

You believe in a God without justice or mercy. Thankfully, this God does not exist.

Well here you just said why you cannot accept the truth and the reality. Above I said you stopped short of saying God was “unfair”; now you have implied it if what I said is true and it is true and is a paradox that a believer accepts by faith. If you cannot accept what God has said, then you lack the necessary faith; which would explain why you put more faith in a church than you do a savior. You can see it all over your writings.

I am thankful that I moved past this a long time ago; it is a stumbling block to many who profess a love for God.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Well here you just said why you cannot accept the truth and the reality. Above I said you stopped short of saying God was “unfair”; now you have implied it if what I said is true and it is true and is a paradox that a believer accepts by faith. If you cannot accept what God has said, then you lack the necessary faith; which would explain why you put more faith in a church than you do a savior. You can see it all over your writings.

I am thankful that I moved past this a long time ago; it is a stumbling block to many who profess a love for God.

So you have moved past biblical teaching?

Tell me, given your theology, how could there be a stumbling block to the elect?

FYI:

1 Tim 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Even you and I!!!

 

[RickHolland]

I understand that Calvinists cannot accept scripture as written, but must instead redefine common words so that they can conform the word of God to their dogma.

You mean like when Jesus said “I will build my church” and “The words I speak are spirit; the flesh profits nothing” and “feed my sheep and tend my lambs” and “do this in remembrance of me”

Then when you see the word “all” or “world”, then it can only mean “every sigle person that ever lived”? You would be foolish to think that way. If so, you are very far from the truth.

He wanted them to turn, but he didn’t force them to. That is free will in action. Love cannot be forced.
Catholic Theology explains this passage perfectly. Calvinism does not.

The human mind cannot explain the paradoxes of the Bible perfectly as you state your church is able. We are limited by our sin nature and cannot fully comprehend God as a result. However; the ones that will be glorified will see Him as He is and then we will know, but not before that. Therefore whether Catholic or Calvin; no one can fully grasp the paradoxes such as who wrote the Bible, the Trinity, who works our santification, God or man - both and many more.

I know that my tone sounds a bit harsh, but I don’t mean for this to be personal.

I think Calvinism is wrong and dangerous.

You don’t sound harsh; that would be in the form of name calling, which you have not done. I hope I have not done or resort to as well. I could disagree with you all day long and not get offended by you expressing your views and as to why you hold such views as long as you don’t start calling names and insulting intelligence or lack there of. This is the way dialogue is suppose to be in these forums isn’t it? You can even tell me I may be on my way to hell because of this or that; in the right context and intention of the heart would be acceptable as I see it. Many people can not take that because they get too emotional and take it too personally. Even if I disagree i can still learn if by no other reason it forces me to look more deeply into Scripture and that is always a blessing to me.

God bless you Chesterton

 

[RickHolland]

No evidence for that.

Too strong. The burden of proof is on you to show that it means something more restrictive, such as “some from every kind” or whatever. It’s clearly a term describing human beings as a whole, which no matter the numbers involved goes against the whole idea of a “massa perditionis” from whom some are chosen.

If salvation means a state of regeneration

Unconvincing prooftexting, making the passage mean far more than it reasonably means in context. The claim that regeneration cannot be lost goes against both the plain sense of Scripture and the consensus of Christian tradition.

A point I also made.

Which leads to “departing from the living God.” It is strained special pleading to claim that the use of the word “unbelief” means that the person never was a believer.

Standing here clearly refers to a stable spiritual condition.

Your theology compels you to interpret it that way.

No, it does not follow. Augustine and Aquinas thought that people could receive regenerating grace but not the gift of final perseverance. You have given no reason why they are wrong.

Edwin

You appear to have intellectual philophies skewing your abilities to understand and divide the word of God. For example, the use of the word “all”; in light the reality of what we know to be true and what is written tells us that “all” does not encompass each and every single person in a majority of instances in Scripture. Particularly concerning salvation. this is try in our everyday speech when we use the term “all”, but in you intellectual humam philosophical appraoch to things you miss the message as I see it from your posting.

When I spoke of not everyone who says to Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom" He is speaking of non-believers; who else will not enter? However; I stated speaking “to” nonbelievers, which technically is probably correct, but most likely he was speaking to both believers and nonbelievers.

 

[Contarini]

You appear to have intellectual philophies skewing your abilities to understand and divide the word of God.

Translation: I disagree with you about Scripture. Has this never happened to you before?

For example, the use of the word “all”; in light the reality of what we know to be true and what is written tells us that “all” does not encompass each and every single person in a majority of instances in Scripture.

I didn’t say that it did. I said that the burden of proof is on the one who says that it doesn’t mean human beings as a whole but only certain persons chosen by name from the “mass of perdition.”

Particularly concerning salvation. this is try in our everyday speech when we use the term “all”, but in you intellectual humam philosophical appraoch to things you miss the message as I see it from your posting.

This is rather weird. I am the one maintaining the more normal, common-sense meaning of “all.” Normally these silly accusations of having a “human” approach (sure I do–so do you, unless you are an alien or something, which I suppose is possible) are directed toward the person maintaining a *more *nuanced and less obvious interpretation. But here you are using it in defense of a somewhat strained and certainly not common-sense interpretation of the passages in quesiton.

When I spoke of not everyone who says to Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom" He is speaking of non-believers; who else will not enter? However; I stated speaking “to” nonbelievers, which technically is probably correct, but most likely he was speaking to both believers and nonbelievers.

Well, we can’t discuss the subject until you make up your mind. If you have reason for thinking that Jesus was speaking only to nonbelievers, please share it. I see no reason for taking such a view. Of course the people who say “Lord, Lord” lack saving faith at the point being spoken of (the Judgment). But that is irrelevant to the question of whether they once had it.

Edwin

 

[RickHolland]

So you have moved past biblical teaching?

Tell me, given your theology, how could there be a stumbling block to the elect?

FYI:

1 Tim 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Even you and I!!!

I have not moved past Biblical teaching; the paradoxes are in the Bible are they not?
There is no stumbling block to the elect i hope I don’t leave that impression, the stumbling block I referred to is the belief some hold that some how God would be unfair to choose some by effectually overridding their natural nature, which is to reject God. Unless God moved into that persons heart they would not be able to choose God, nor would they. In other words the sovereign will of God overrides our limited free-will. Let to ourselves we would never chose God as the Scripture teaches.

 

[RickHolland]

Translation: I disagree with you about Scripture. Has this never happened to you before?

I didn’t say that it did. I said that the burden of proof is on the one who says that it doesn’t mean human beings as a whole but only certain persons chosen by name from the “mass of perdition.”

Why would there be a burden if you agree with the statement? If you do not, then I will need to bring forth the proof…correct?

This is rather weird. I am the one maintaining the more normal, common-sense meaning of “all.” Normally these silly accusations of having a “human” approach (sure I do–so do you, unless you are an alien or something, which I suppose is possible) are directed toward the person maintaining a *more *nuanced and less obvious interpretation. But here you are using it in defense of a somewhat strained and certainly not common-sense interpretation of the passages in quesiton.

What is the “more normal and common sense” meaning in light of Scripture?

Well, we can’t discuss the subject until you make up your mind. If you have reason for thinking that Jesus was speaking only to nonbelievers, please share it. I see no reason for taking such a view. Of course the people who say “Lord, Lord” lack saving faith at the point being spoken of (the Judgment). But that is irrelevant to the question of whether they once had it.

Edwin

You are correct I mistakenly contradicted my self while trying to clarify, so i will try once more and hope I am actually clear. Jesus was most likely speaking to both believers and nonbelievers, but the actual passage is in reference to nonbelievers.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I have not moved past Biblical teaching; the paradoxes are in the Bible are they not?
There is no stumbling block to the elect i hope I don’t leave that impression, the stumbling block I referred to is the belief some hold that some how God would be unfair to choose some by effectually overridding their natural nature, which is to reject God. Unless God moved into that persons heart they would not be able to choose God, nor would they. In other words the sovereign will of God overrides our limited free-will. Let to ourselves we would never chose God as the Scripture teaches.

If God’s grace is irresistible, as you claim to believe, then there is no such thing as a stumbling block.

However, since we know that the bible teaches this concept as well as other potential pitfalls for Christians, then we can conclude that grace is resistible and that not all followers of Jesus will persevere.

We both agree that God’s grace is necessary in order for us to turn to God.

Where we disagree is the universal call of God’s grace. You deny it.

You believe God judges men in an injust and unmerciful way, choosing some men for hell before they were even born for merely following the natures he gave them.

 

[RickHolland]

If God’s grace is irresistible, as you claim to believe, then there is no such thing as a stumbling block.

However, since we know that the bible teaches this concept as well as other potential pitfalls for Christians, then we can conclude that grace is resistible and that not all followers of Jesus will persevere.

We both agree that God’s grace is necessary in order for us to turn to God.

Where we disagree is the universal call of God’s grace. You deny it.

You believe God judges men in an injust and unmerciful way, choosing some men for hell before they were even born for merely following the natures he gave them.

In the salvation sense of the word. You believe the Scripture teaches someone can actually be saved, then unsaved, yet you acknowledge that it is by God’s grace that one is saved. This means you must also believe that one can chose to remove themselves from His hand; this is contrary to what God has already said. “No one can snatch them from the Fathers hand except for the believer himself”; is that what it says?

“Who will separate us from the love of Christ ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? Except the believer himself” Is that what it says?

No do not believe God judges in an unfair manner; you are the one to imply that, not me.

Here is another way to look at it. There is a great river, and we will call it the river of death. On one side of the river you have all the sinners that ever lived. How many exceptions would there be? The God-man Jesus. On the other side, you have all who have met God’s perfect standard of Holiness and are deserving of heaven. How many are there, none but Jesus. If God, at this point, were to allow the river of death to separate all those on the sin side from Himself, would He be just in doing so? Yes or no.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In the salvation sense of the word. You believe the Scripture teaches someone can actually be saved, then unsaved, yet you acknowledge that it is by God’s grace that one is saved. This means you must also believe that one can chose to remove themselves from His hand; this is contrary to what God has already said. "No one can snatch them from the Fathers hand except for the believer himself

 

[2nd_Adam]

Even the Apostle James teaches that we are in Christ because of the will of God, and not by our own free will.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. [4] 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. - James 1

In addition, the Apostle John teaches the exact same thing.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, [2] and his own people [3] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1

And we all know what the Apostle Paul taught in regards to predestination.

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Rom 9

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’m not really interested in defending Calvinists here, since I find their doctrine of the perseverance of the regenerate one of the more obviously mistaken parts of their theology. But in the Augustinian Catholic position it is indeed possible to shipwreck our faith. This doesn’t mean that grace is inefficacious (what you or I would mean by “resistable”–i.e., God’s decision to give it may not coincide with a human decision to receive it). Rather, it means that God has chosen to give people regenerating grace but not the gift of final perseverance.

Edwin

I once heard from a very solid Catholic that Catholic doctrine does teach that certain sinners recieve the gift of final perserverance - grace and others do not (those who apostate). He implied that if God did not do this, then salvation is really of works and not of grace. I hope someone out there can validate my posting according to official Catholic sources.

 

[RickHolland]

I acknowledge that we can’t be saved without God’s grace. Scripture is quite clear that our salvation can be lost through our own rebellion against God. God won’t leave us, but we can leave him.

No it does not, what kind of God do you serve that says no one can snatch one out of His hand or separate from His love, then say but you can? A changing god is who you appear to follow if you believe God teaches us that. You are unable to distinquish when the writers are speaking of believers or nonbelievers; you will never see the Bible speak of true believers, the one’s God actually dwells in as turning away; He says it is not possible. Who can snatch them from the Fathers hand? Implied answer is NO ONE.

It doesn’t say that in this verse, but it doesn’t rule it out. Others verses do say that we can leave God:

2 Chronicles 15:2 “If you search for him, he will let himself be found by you; but if you leave him, he will leave you”.

Hebrews 3:12-14 “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, **lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. **For we have become partakers of Christ **if **we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.”

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “**They were made free from the evil in the world **by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have ***never known the right way ***than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But** he who endures **to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But **he who endures **to the end shall be saved.

Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant** by which they were sanctified**, and outraged the Spirit?”

“received the knowledge”, “never known the right way”, “we deny Him”, “an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” - Do you read what you post? Head knowledge, head knowledge, can a believer truly deny Him (think of Peter), an evil heart of unbelief is in reference to a believer? The rest are the characteristics of the true child of God, perseverance and who is that enables 100% that perseverance? God.

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. - 2Th 2:13 When? For what prupose? through whom?

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” - 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 By whos doing? All of salvation is from God; why? SO NO ONE MAY BOAST EXCEPT IN GOD.

If you still diagree that God only gives salvific grace to the elect, then tell me what you see and understand in just these two passages other than what I have been saying?

God created us.

If he created us for the express purpose of eternal torment for merely following the natures we were born with, then he would not be merciful or just.

God is merciful and just, however, so he calls out to all men with grace. We have the choice to respond to or reject this gift of grace.

Do you believe you have accepted it? Is it because you are part of the Catholic Church?

You avoided the simple yes or no question, so I will ask it again. If God left all the sinners on that side of the Reiver of Death; would He be justified in doing so? Yes or No

 

[RickHolland]

I once heard from a very solid Catholic that Catholic doctrine does teach that certain sinners recieve the gift of final perserverance - grace and others do not (those who apostate). He implied that if God did not do this, then salvation is really of works and not of grace. I hope someone out there can validate my posting according to official Catholic sources.

Enjoy all the double speaking and sort through this; it is not too painful. It is not exactly what you are looking for but it is quite interesting especially at the beginning when it says this does not say "evidently falls short of the obvious meaning of the above phrase’ speaking of Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”

Here is a good line: “Between the temporary continuance or imperfect perseverance and the lifelong continuance or most perfect perseverance there is room for final perseverance as commonly understood” - makes perfect sense doesn’t it???

I have seen what you are talking about and has something to do with Trent as all things Catholic seem to, if I come across it again I will forward to you.

God bless!
rick

 

[Contarini]

I once heard from a very solid Catholic that Catholic doctrine does teach that certain sinners recieve the gift of final perserverance - grace and others do not (those who apostate). He implied that if God did not do this, then salvation is really of works and not of grace. I hope someone out there can validate my posting according to official Catholic sources.

Again, that is not the point at issue. What Catholics (and everyone not a Calvinist or watered-down Calvinist spinoff) deny is that *all the regenerate *receive the grace of final perseverance.

Of course the Augustinian tradition teaches that perseverance, like regenerating grace, is a gift of God. But some may receive the gift of regeneration (through baptism) who do not receive the gift of perseverance. The Reformed tradition put these two things together, seriously changing (I would say perverting) the Augustinian tradition and breaking radically with historic Christianity.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Even the Apostle James teaches that we are in Christ because of the will of God, and not by our own free will.

16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. [4] 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. - James 1

God created us by the word of truth. The Jews are the firstfruits. This has nothing to do with Calvinist dogma.

In addition, the Apostle John teaches the exact same thing.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, [2] and his own people [3] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1

His own people is the Jews. Who will become the children of God? Those that receive him and believe in his name.

This doesn’t support Calvinist dogma.

And we all know what the Apostle Paul taught in regards to predestination.

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 **What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? **Rom 9

This passage is probably the strongest passage for Calvinist dogma in the bible. However, it is not dogmatic teaching, it is rhetorical.

Note t the bolded passage above. Paul is asking a rhetorical question, thus the question mark. This is not a dogmatic proclamation. His point is simple. God can do whatever he wants. No Christian denies this. However, we must read the rest of the bible to learn what it is that God wants.

God does have mercy on whomever he wills. So who does he have mercy on?

Keep reading in Romans

Romans 11
32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I once heard from a very solid Catholic that Catholic doctrine does teach that certain sinners recieve the gift of final perserverance - grace and others do not (those who apostate). He implied that if God did not do this, then salvation is really of works and not of grace. I hope someone out there can validate my posting according to official Catholic sources.

I think you may have misunderstood.

Here’s the entire section on Grace and Justification from the Catechism. It’s not that long and I think you will find it interesting.

I bet you will agree with about 90% of it. As for the other 10%, you still have time to figure it out!

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

 

[Contarini]

No it does not, what kind of God do you serve that says no one can snatch one out of His hand or separate from His love, then say but you can?

A God who created us with free will.

You are unable to distinquish when the writers are speaking of believers or nonbelievers;

Or rather, ChestertonRules lacks the Calvinist gloss that tells you how to read the Bible. Nothing in the text itself supports your claim that whenever “turning away” is spoken of it applies only to nonbelievers. You are bringing this theological assumption to the text.

you will never see the Bible speak of true believers, the one’s God actually dwells in as turning away; He says it is not possible. Who can snatch them from the Fathers hand? Implied answer is NO ONE.

There’s no “snatching” involved if we freely choose to turn away. This passage is clearly talking about some external force overpowering God’s grace, not about our free choice to shut ourselves off from the grace we have once experienced.

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” - 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 By whos doing? All of salvation is from God; why? SO NO ONE MAY BOAST EXCEPT IN GOD.

If you still diagree that God only gives salvific grace to the elect, then tell me what you see and understand in just these two passages other than what I have been saying?

There are a lot of things in those passages. They are saying that all salvation is from God so that no one can boast. How on earth is this supposed to rule out the possibility that some might be regenerate and still fall away?

You fall into the typical fundamentalist trap of simply throwing Scriptures at our heads without bothering to explain why they must mean what you say they mean. This isn’t very impressive to someone who doesn’t already share your theological assumptions.

Edwin

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think you may have misunderstood.

Here’s the entire section on Grace and Justification from the Catechism. It’s not that long and I think you will find it interesting.

I bet you will agree with about 90% of it. As for the other 10%, you still have time to figure it out!

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

I am very familiar with the Catholic Catechism. I first read that section about 12 years ago. I disagree with most of it. Remember, I believe in a forensic justification through imputation according to the Apostle Paul. Please try to reconcile this verse which clearly teaches a forensic justification.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. - Paul