Question for Calvinists

[Miguel_Sastre]

Are there OSAS Evangelicals that do NOT espouse Calvanism?

Of course. In fact most of the OSAS crowd are NOT Calvinists because most OSAS Evangelicals deny unconditional election. Can you imagine a Calvinist who denies the U in TULIP?

On what basis can, or should, such an assumption be made? How can any such assumption be in any way “safe”?

I’m going to go with what Jesus said about knowing a tree by its fruits. Further, if every tree that does not bear fruit is fit to be cut off and thrown in the fire, then we could “safely” assume that if we see no fruit, the tree gets burned. But notice I said “assume.” For it really is only that. Only God can look into the heart and know for certain who is among the elect. We can only know this provisionally and imperfectly.

Here is another good example of equating God’s eternal and unconditional love with salvation.

How disappointing. If you’d had read closer, you’d see that I had qualified my remarks by saying that I agreed with “some” of what Charles Stanley teaches. I do believe that salvation is eternal. And I also believe that God’s love is without conditions. But it doesn’t follow from those two beliefs that I equate God’s eternal love with salvation. Wherever did you get that notion?

It is not a matter of being “disinherited”, but rather, the person who has been made a member of the family walking away from the inheritance.

Ah, the “nothing can separate us from the love of God (but ourselves)” argument. What part of “nothing” admits of an exception? If “nothing” can separate the elect from God, by what authority or stretch of the imagination do we smuggle in any kind of exception?

However, when you look at the parable of the seeds, you see that 75% of them sprouted. This means, according to Jesus, the Word was received and began to take root. Such an event cannot occur unless a person is sealed. Unless one is born again, one canot “see” the Kingdom.

I’d urge caution in drawing inferences from this parable. It is far from clear that three out of four believers have lost their salvation. In fact, it’s far from clear that all the seed describes believers.

You seem to believe that a person who has been sealed cannot then fall from the faith.

Not cannot, but will not. Jesus warned the elect to persevere to the end. But he also said that they cannot finally be lost. The warning, therefore, is the means by which the elect will be preserved. The elect will not be lost because they will heed the warning. And whoever does not, well, then we can infer they weren’t among the elect. It’s really not that complicated.

There is absolutly no biblical evidence that this statement has any validity whatsoever.

Jesus said that in the kingdom there would be weeds among the wheat, bad fish among the good, chaff among the wheat, and goats among the sheep. Do you really think that there were no unbelievers in the early Christian communities? That’s like believing that 100% of every baptized Roman Catholic in your parish has been predestined to both grace and glory. What are the odds?

It is true that a committed disciple of Christ has, indeed, put off the old self. However, you still seem to be assuming that a sealed person cannot be lost.

Will not be lost. Why? Because if the Holy Spirit seals you to the day of Redemption, then you will not be lost. The seal can be interpreted as either the wax that keeps the letter from getting lost or the guarantee of an authorized authority. Can you get more of a guarantee than the Holy Spirit? Can you get any tighter of a seal than the Spirit of God’s? But now for the tradeoff: Can we infallibly know that we have been sealed? I don’t think so. But then I don’t think this is a reference to baptism, so it’s not a problem for me.

All one need do is read the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation to be clear that believers can be lost.

Wrong inference. The warnings in Revelation, Hebrews and everywhere else in scripture are–I would argue–directed toward believing Christians and that they threaten real loss of salvation. Thus, IF we don’t heed the warnings, THEN we will be lost. It does not follow, however, that the IF ever becomes a THEN for the elect. The reason is that God is the one who preserves the elect to salvation. One of the ways he does this is through his warnings. The warnings are there because the threat is real. But so is the promise to save us.

 

[jwright82]

I really don’t see how the “Calvinist” doctrine of election implies that we can sin with impunity. What it does imply is that God will grant perseverance to his elect. The idea that because of our doctrine of election we beleive this is not held by any serious Reformed/Calvinist thinker. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith it strictly denies that idea and that document is as “Calvinist” as it gets. The question itself is legitamently a concern and should be but the straw man that the question assumes is not the “Calvinist” beleif at all.

Here are some links to the sections that deal with this question.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.

The language is a little dated but here is a link to the whole thing reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.

 

[StTommyMore]

I really don’t see how the “Calvinist” doctrine of election implies that we can sin with impunity. What it does imply is that God will grant perseverance to his elect. The idea that because of our doctrine of election we beleive this is not held by any serious Reformed/Calvinist thinker. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith it strictly denies that idea and that document is as “Calvinist” as it gets. The question itself is legitamently a concern and should be but the straw man that the question assumes is not the “Calvinist” beleif at all.

Here are some links to the sections that deal with this question.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.

The language is a little dated but here is a link to the whole thing reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.

But without an infallible authority all you end up with is chaos with various strains of “Calvinism” no two of which agree. It all comes down to personal opinion. And faith alone at least implies that you do not need to worry about sin, after all, it is faith that saves you, not obedience.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

." Repentance is more than just evidence, it is necessary for salvation and since repentance is necessary then how can one be saved by faith alone? I’m not taking about confessing one time but every time you sin.

Faith alone doesn’t exclude repentance any more than it excludes grace. Moreover, the faith that belongs to “faith alone,” is a living faith that does God’s will. Keep the historical context in mind. Faith alone was reaction to the theology that said in addition to a confession of a faith, one needed sacraments, devotions, good works, works of expiation of personal sin and most likely several centuries in purgatory in order to finally go to heaven.

You think David had no choice?

Of course he had a choice. Who said he didn’t?

To believe that God’s grace is irrestible is unbiblical.

What do you mean by “irresistible”? In one sense, Fallen humanity can only resist God. In another sense, spiritually dead men cannot will themselves back to life. So God must do for them what they cannot do for themselves. This first grace is irresistible. But that doesn’t mean believers are thereby no longer able to disobey.

God has already seen the future. Everything is in the present. Our free will choice was seen by Him from the foundation of the world and He includes our free will choice in His plan of salvation

Yes, God knows the future because he created it. But does it follow from this fact that God bases His decisions on what He foresees? If so, then apparently He is neither omniscient, in that he can take in new information and react accordingly, nor immutable.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Didn’t David have to freely respond?

How am I contradicting myself?

Don’t ignore the parable in Luke 8. Jesus tells us that the belief was a saving faith but that person still fell away.

I’m not seeing anything like that here. It sounds to me like the seed was taken away before salvation took place. 8:12 “The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.” If these “seeds” are already saved, then it would appear that the devil has snatched away their salvation. But the text no where says that. Further, Jesus says this in John 10:2-29: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Putting the two texts together, I don’t think we could infer that the seed that fell in rocky soil is descriptive of Jesus’ sheep.

That verse is conditional. One must “hear” His voice and “Follow” Him. As long as we remain in the state of grace we will be His sheep and we will be saved.

You’re turning this into a conditional. But the verbs are indicative. The sheep hear and follow. But neither the hearing nor the following are the means by which the sheep are saved; rather it is the fact that Jesus “gives them eternal life,” not “temporary” life that can later be lost.

Hebrews isn’t describing a genuine faith? Hebrews 6:4–6
“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have **tasted the goodness of the Word of God **and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away.”

There are a number of schools of thought on this one. I’ll sketch a few of the major ones out there and then briefly give you my theory.

1. Loss of Salvation View. This makes sense of the text, but cannot be squared with the many “assurance” passages that affirm that the elect will not finally be lost.
2. Loss of Rewards View. This one is completely bogus, but is unfortunately very popular among Evangelicals. It doesn’t take the text seriously at all.
3. Test of Genuineness. The warnings are retrospective and thus describe those who really weren’t Christians in the first place. While there are scriptural passages like this (e.g., 1 John 2:19), I don’t think this one of them. The passage you describe (and others in Hebrews) seem to include believing Christians and so the warnings must apply to them.
4. Means of Salvation. In fact the warnings are prospective and therefore are directed toward believers threatening them with the loss of salvation, thereby setting up an IF, THEN scenario. IF we fail to heed the warnings, THEN we will be lost. But this doesn’t mean any of the elect will lose salvation. The warnings, in this view, are the means by which God preserves His elect. The warnings are intended to be heeded and the elect will heed them finally. I favor this view because it requires us to take the warnings seriously and take seriously the passages that clearly affirm the unconditionality of God’s promise to save His elect.

It’s called Sacred Tradition. We are sealed in baptism and confirmation but that doesn’t mean our salvation is irrevocable.

You can take your tradition, I’ll go with what the text actually says. The metaphor of sealing either means that which is sealed cannot be lost or that which is sealed is guaranteed by a higher authority. Either way, if the Holy Spirit seals us for the Day of Redemption, then we will finally be saved. Since salvation is both a call and a gift, and since the “gifts and call of God are irrevocable,” (Romans 11:29), it follows that salvation will not finally be lost.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

We have the free will to reject God’s grace.

That’s a very humanistic way at looking at the equation. Why go to the wall for “free will,” terms not used by any biblical author and terms laden with humanistic and post-modern baggage? Why not instead, look at it from the standpoint of God’s freedom in election? We believe because God has chosen us for belief, not because of anything in us, but for his own good pleasure? (Hint: Romans 9. It’s worth a prayerful read.)

Paul tells the Corinthians that they have been “washed, sanctified and justified”. That is a reference to baptism yet he warns these same Corinthians " 1 Cor. 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers…will inherit the kingdom of God"

Again, leaving the baptism question aside which is completely absent from both text and context, I would answer as I did before. These are real warnings. Those who heed them are the elect. Those who do not are not. Don’t forget that Paul says, “and such were some of you” (v. 11). Nothing here even remotely suggests that salvation will be lost.

Then please answer this question with a simple yes or no. If you were to commit murder and not confess and repent are you still saved?

I can’t answer that because if I were to do such things, then I don’t think the words “still saved” would apply because the fact that I did such things would call into question whether I was ever saved in the first place, as 1 John 2:19 makes plain.

God knew David would confess and repent. God knew David would respond to His grace.

Yes, God knows the future. But is it His knowledge of the future that determines his subsequent actions? Or is it because the future is first and foremost God’s creation that what he has preordained must infallibly come to pass? Could it be, then, that David repented because God willed him to do so rather than having to suppose that God granted him repentance because God already knew David would?

David responded to God’s grace and confessed and repented without which he would have been lost.

That’s true of us all. There but by the grace of God go I.

 

[Third_Day]

=Miguel Sastre;7677667]
I can’t answer that because if I were to do such things, then I don’t think the words “still saved” would apply because the fact that I did such things would call into question whether I was ever saved in the first place, as 1 John 2:19 makes plain.

Miguel, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. This last answer is puzzling. I asked if you were to commit murder would you still be saved and you put murder in the plural so let me reword it because it is my experience with those who hold to your beliefs that only “habitual” sin is cause to doubt ones salvation.

If you were to commit ONE murder and did not confess or repent would you question whether you were saved in the first place?

Likewise if you were to commit ONE sin of adultery and did not confess or repent would you question whether you were saved in the first place.

Do you believe that you, Miguel, as a believer would have lost your salvation if you committed ONE of those sins and did not confess or repent of that ONE sin and then died with that ONE un-confessed, un-repented sin on your soul?

 

[guanophore]

Repentance is the evidence of faith. Further, “faith alone” is, properly speaking, with respect to “justification,” not “salvation.”

What is the difference?

"Didn't David have to freely cooperate with God's grace to come to repentance?"

Where does the text say anything about “freely cooperating?”

Do you think David’s prayer of repentance was coerced out of him by God?

Ps 51Prayer for Cleansing and Pardon

To the leader. A Psalm of David, when the prophet Nathan came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.

Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love
According to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you alone, have I sinned,and done what is evil in your sight,so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment. 5 Indeed, I was born guilty,a sinner when my mother conceived me.
6 You desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness;let the bones that you have crushed rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins,and blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,and put a new and right spirit within me. 11 Do not cast me away from your presence,and do not take your holy spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation,and sustain in me a willing spirit.

Yes. It seems the Word needs to “take root” as it were before it can do it’s job of bringing us to salvation. So apparently it isn’t enough to just “hear” the word. One has to also respond to it and the fact that some do not can be attributed directly to the work of Satan. I have no problem with this because there is no reason to suppose that they were saved and then lost their salvation because the Devil took it away. If you hold this view, then how do you explain Jesus’ words that “nobody” can snatch the sheep from Jesus’ hand that we read about in John 10?

I will have to understand how you conceive of salvation differently from justification in order to respond to this. At this point, I can only tell you that the Catholic Church adheres to the Apostolic Teaching that our salvation is not accomplished until this life is over. For that reason, it is improper to say that one can “lose their salvation”. One cannot lose that which one has not yet attained.

Phil 3:13-16
13 Beloved,** I do not consider that I have made it my own**; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

 But "believing for a while," isn't the same as salvation because "salvation" is determined by election.

And on what basis do you determine that “salvation is determined by election”?

I agree that scripture makes it clear that some are elected and predestined. I will also agree that believing for awhile is not the same as salvation. Being justified is not the same as salvation either.

There is nothing here that requires us to hold that the faith described where was ever genuine.

Except that Scripture makes no distinction between a “true” believer and a “false” or disingenuous one. In fact, this is an injection into the Scriptures that arises from modern American Evangelicalism.

Their faith is the same faith as those who were saved. The same faith as those who were choked by weeds. The text makes no distinction. The seed sprouted in all those cases.

Paul nowhere connects the idea of “sealing” to baptism in Ephesians and in any event the sealing is “unto the day of Redemption,” which would make it irrevocable.

Yes, the Apostles taught that the sealing is errevocable. They also taught that we are sealed in baptism.

If this is baptism, then Paul is saying the baptized person cannot fail to go to heaven, which would contradict Rome’s view that salvation can be lost. Or can we “unseal” what the Holy Spirit has sealed?

No. It is baptism, but he is not saying that the baptized cannot fail to go to heaven.

No, we cannot unseal that which has been sealed. However, a person can fail to be united with the inheritance that is being kept imperishable for him in heaven.

 

[guanophore]

I think every epistle is addressing communities with both believers and unbelievers in them.

This shows a grievious misunderstanding of the nature of the early church. The NT Christians were being persecuted and martyrd for their faith. They were very careful not to allow the uninitiated into the gatherings.

That is why there are so many warnings and exhortations to holy living–not because salvation can be lost; rather because one can mistakenly think one is a believer when in fact he/she is not.

I agree on both points. Since our salvation is not accomplished in this life, it can’t be “lost”. Those who enter salvation when this life is over can never “lose” it. I also agree that one can think one is a believer when one is not. For example, many people believe they have been sealed, even though they are not baptized.

The letters, though, are written only to believers. They are addressed to believers, read by and to believers, preserved, protected, promulgated and canonized by believers. They were read to the congregation because believers were sometimes ACTING like unbelievers, and needed to be warned that they would fail to be united with their heavenly inheritance if they did not REPENT! Anyone who reads the letters of Revelation can have this made clear to them at once.

 I'd say the evidence of the sin is a sign that they might not have been saved in the first place.

Although your soteriology is off, your observation is correct. A person who leads a live of sin is not “in Christ”, and one cannot be saved lest one is “in Christ”.

The Scriptures are clear that a person can be justified and become a disciple, then fall from the faith.

That said, do you think David’s murder and adultery caused him to loose his salvation?

He was not in right relationship with God. Can one be saved who is not?

How can that be if he was elect from all eternity?

Think of it this way. Salvation is like a river(Ezek. 47). A person can enter it, then get out and walk away from the Source of Life. Some of those that do return before this life is over. Some do not.

 And does not the fact that God restored him prove that "no one" had snatched him from God's hand, not even his own sin?

I suppose you could say that. But the believer can bite the Hand that feeds him, JUMP out, and run away. That is not getting snatched. It is willful.

 

[guanophore]

I think every epistle is addressing communities with both believers and unbelievers in them.

This shows a grievious misunderstanding of the nature of the early church. The NT Christians were being persecuted and martyrd for their faith. They were very careful not to allow the uninitiated into the gatherings.

That is why there are so many warnings and exhortations to holy living–not because salvation can be lost; rather because one can mistakenly think one is a believer when in fact he/she is not.

I agree on both points. Since our salvation is not accomplished in this life, it can’t be “lost”. Those who enter salvation when this life is over can never “lose” it. I also agree that one can think one is a believer when one is not. For example, many people believe they have been sealed, even though they are not baptized.

The letters, though, are written only to believers. They are addressed to believers, read by and to believers, preserved, protected, promulgated and canonized by believers. They were read to the congregation because believers were sometimes ACTING like unbelievers, and needed to be warned that they would fail to be united with their heavenly inheritance if they did not REPENT! Anyone who reads the letters of Revelation can have this made clear to them at once.

 I'd say the evidence of the sin is a sign that they might not have been saved in the first place.

Although your soteriology is off, your observation is correct. A person who leads a live of sin is not “in Christ”, and one cannot be saved lest one is “in Christ”.

The Scriptures are clear that a person can be justified and become a disciple, then fall from the faith.

That said, do you think David’s murder and adultery caused him to loose his salvation?

He was not in right relationship with God. Can one be saved who is not?

How can that be if he was elect from all eternity?

Think of it this way. Salvation is like a river(Ezek. 47). A person can enter it, then get out and walk away from the Source of Life. Some of those that do return before this life is over. Some do not.

 And does not the fact that God restored him prove that "no one" had snatched him from God's hand, not even his own sin?

I suppose you could say that. But the believer can bite the Hand that feeds him, JUMP out, and run away. That is not getting snatched. It is willful.

 

[guanophore]

Could you list the sins we may commit that are healthful for those who profess a love for Christ?

I am confused why you are asking this, unless you just missed my humor in the above post.

To assist you, let me note that YOU are the one who said
"jericho:

Sin at any level is not healthful for those who profess a love for Christ.

I was giving my assent by citing the Apostle’s reference to “mortal” (deadly) sins. Would you not agree that “deadly” is not healthful?

Also do you think a sin that leads unto death could be a civil judgment i.e. for murder?

No. I think the Apostle is speaking of eternal consequences. That is why he says “I am not saying you should pray for that”. Are there any circumstances that we would not pray for a person who is in sin?

The past tense you are talking about was in eternity past when God predestined those to glory and was completed by Christ’s finished work on the cross. This is the promise to all who have been elected. Then in v31 he attaches it to the present applying it those whom he is speaking to in present tense.

No, I think not. Humans have not existed since “eternity past”. Humans are a rather recent addition to the cycle of life.

I agree, though, the passage does refer to those who are predestined to glory, and were purchased by Christ’s blood on the cross. It was for them that Jesus descended into Hell after He left the grave.

I agree that it is also a promise to us, but not everyone reaches the heavenly inheritance that is promised to them.

First not all who are called are chosen. Mat 22:14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Quite right. this is a Catholic doctrine, written by a Catholic, for Catholics.

He is saying it is God who elects and predestines. The Holy Spirit then sanctifies the believer.

Yes, these are also Catholic doctrines.

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

What does predestined, elected and chosen mean when God refers those He has/is going to save. It doesn’t make sense to use words that clearly mean one thing but you say mean something else.

I agree. Calvin assigning different meanings to these words 1500 years after the Apostles gave them to the Church seems like nonsense to me. But, Calvin did not like the Apostolic concepts. They offended his sensibilities, so he redefined the words to mean something other that the once for all divine deposit of faith that was given to the Church. In the process, he founded “a different gospel” than the one that was committed to us by the Apostles.

 Why can’t He choose those He wants to save? I have counted 29 passages mostly NT that specifically say it is God who chooses those He will save. Never mind in the OT God makes no apology for saving only Israel not the whole world as you would like to believe. And in the NT He blinds the Jews for our benefit they are put aside until the times of the gentiles are complete.

Yes. These concepts are all part of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If you were to commit ONE murder and did not confess or repent would you question whether you were saved in the first place?

Yes, I would question myself and anyone else.

Likewise if you were to commit ONE sin of adultery and did not confess or repent would you question whether you were saved in the first place.

Yes.

Do you believe that you, Miguel, as a believer would have lost your salvation if you committed ONE of those sins and did not confess or repent of that ONE sin and then died with that ONE un-confessed, un-repented sin on your soul?

No. Instead I would have to question whether or not I was ever a believer in the first place. Salvation can’t be lost. But we also can’t know who the saved are with infallible certitude. When you act like the unsaved, how can you be sure you’re not one of them?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

What is the difference?

My concern was for accuracy. “Sola fide” is the material principle of the Reformation and it had to do with the basis for our justification. It is shorthand for “Justification by faith alone.” Therefore we ought not substitute other words for justification. Further, since salvation is a broad term that can cover both the beginning and the end of salvation, the past present and future, whereas justification more often has to do with the beginning point of salvation in time, it makes far more sense, both historically and theologically to simply stay with the original term.

Do you think David’s prayer of repentance was coerced out of him by God?

Of course not. But the choice isn’t between “free will” or “coercion,” as if human volition were a matter of one or the other. We choose. But we don’t choose in a vacuum, unencumbered by external and internal influences. Certainly unregenerate man who is still a “slave to sin,” isn’t “free.” Nor, however, is he “coerced.” He is complicit in his own enslavement because his preference is to do evil.

I will have to understand how you conceive of salvation differently from justification in order to respond to this. At this point, I can only tell you that the Catholic Church adheres to the Apostolic Teaching that our salvation is not accomplished until this life is over.

That’s not the teaching of the apostles. The Catholic Church teaches a provisional salvation that isn’t complete until this life is over and can be lost at anytime between initial justification and final sanctification. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that God is both the author and finisher of our salvation, that He will infallibly complete the work he has begun in us and that nothing can stop the process He has started. While we can agree that salvation has both an ongoing and future aspect to it, that God still is saving us from the power of sin (sanctification) and will finally save us from its presence (glorification), the golden chain funning from election in eternity past to glorification in the future will never be broken. The only caveat, of course, is that none of us can know who the elect are, which is why scripture exhorts us to make our calling and election firm.

And on what basis do you determine that “salvation is determined by election”?

Scripture. God chooses His elect from the foundation of the world. He chooses those whom he has “foreknown.” Those whom He chooses, he saves.

I agree that scripture makes it clear that some are elected and predestined.

Not some, but all. Those not chosen to glorification, are therefore rejected. There is nobody about whom God is neutral.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Except that Scripture makes no distinction between a “true” believer and a “false” or disingenuous one.

Sure it does. They’re called wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers and sometimes they’re even named.

In fact, this is an injection into the Scriptures that arises from modern American Evangelicalism.

No, no. It derives from scripture. Perhaps it is American Roman Catholicism that is unwilling to entertain the possibility that its churches are full of such people. I call them baptized unbelievers.

Their faith is the same faith as those who were saved.

Not in the case of the seed that was snatched away before it could sprout. There’s no need to suppose these were ever believers in the first place. As for the other seed—well, assuming we can push the illustration that far—and I’m not so certain we—there is no need to suppose that these people are now “lost.” They may be unfruitful due to their anxiety about the world and/backslidden. But we are simply not told the final state of these souls. That’s not the purpose of the parable. But what the parable does do admirably is to remind us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not (2 Cor. 13:5) and to produce fruit. As a warning, which this parable surely is, it functions to make sure the elect do not fall away or become unfruitful even as it reminds us that the pseudo-Christian surely will.

Yes, the Apostles taught that the sealing is errevocable. They also taught that we are sealed in baptism.

They taught the former, but nowhere did they teach the latter. That’s an interpretative tradition, but not one that can be proven from the text.

This shows a grievious misunderstanding of the nature of the early church. The NT Christians were being persecuted and martyrd for their faith. They were very careful not to allow the uninitiated into the gatherings.

You’re asserting this with absolutely no exegetical support and you are reading the practice of the underground church during the explicit persecutions back to an earlier time when martyrdom was rare. But if you’d only think this through a bit, I think you’ll see that Christ described kingdom using many metaphors that show that there are both believers and unbelievers within it. There will be wheat and weeds, sheep and wolves dressed like sheep, sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, good and bad fish. Moreover, when we read the epistles, we see a lot of exhortations to self-examination to see if we’re in the faith, commands to confirm our election, and provisos that Paul’s words only apply to those who have learned Christ, which strongly suggests that not everyone in the communities he wrote to were believers. He gives advice to believers for how to deal with their unbelieving spouses, then castigates the Corinthians for their widespread immorality, suggesting that some of these may not really be in the faith, denounces false teachers, etc. Then there are people like Ananias and Sapphira and Simon Magus, all of whom appeared to be believers, but, given what happened to them, very likely were not.

 

[StTommyMore]

Sure it does. They’re called wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers and sometimes they’re even named.

No, no. It derives from scripture. Perhaps it is American Roman Catholicism that is unwilling to entertain the possibility that its churches are full of such people. I call them baptized unbelievers.

Not in the case of the seed that was snatched away before it could sprout. There’s no need to suppose these were ever believers in the first place. As for the other seed—well, assuming we can push the illustration that far—and I’m not so certain we—there is no need to suppose that these people are now “lost.” They may be unfruitful due to their anxiety about the world and/backslidden. But we are simply not told the final state of these souls. That’s not the purpose of the parable. But what the parable does do admirably is to remind us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not (2 Cor. 13:5) and to produce fruit. As a warning, which this parable surely is, it functions to make sure the elect do not fall away or become unfruitful even as it reminds us that the pseudo-Christian surely will.

They taught the former, but nowhere did they teach the latter. That’s an interpretative tradition, but not one that can be proven from the text.

You’re asserting this with absolutely no exegetical support and you are reading the practice of the underground church during the explicit persecutions back to an earlier time when martyrdom was rare. But if you’d only think this through a bit, I think you’ll see that Christ described kingdom using many metaphors that show that there are both believers and unbelievers within it. There will be wheat and weeds, sheep and wolves dressed like sheep, sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, good and bad fish. Moreover, when we read the epistles, we see a lot of exhortations to self-examination to see if we’re in the faith, commands to confirm our election, and provisos that Paul’s words only apply to those who have learned Christ, which strongly suggests that not everyone in the communities he wrote to were believers. He gives advice to believers for how to deal with their unbelieving spouses, then castigates the Corinthians for their widespread immorality, suggesting that some of these may not really be in the faith, denounces false teachers, etc. Then there are people like Ananias and Sapphira and Simon Magus, all of whom appeared to be believers, but, given what happened to them, very likely were not.

At least you recognize that the Kingdom of God is the Church. WE just need to make you realize that the theology of the Early Church was Catholic.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

At least you recognize that the Kingdom of God is the Church. WE just need to make you realize that the theology of the Early Church was Catholic.

The kingdom of God is not coterminous with the church, but certainly includes it. Nor is the church coterminous with Roman Catholicism. I agree that much of the theology of the early church does lend support to many of Rome’s distinctive doctrines today. But there are also a lot dissenting voices in the early church and a lot of silences that call into question how “Catholic” they indeed were. The trouble with so many in the Roman apologetics movement is that they see only radical continuity with the early church when in fact there is a lot of discontinuity as well. The church in deed was “catholic,” but it isn’t safe to say it was “Roman Catholic” on a number of issues.

 

[jwright82]

But without an infallible authority all you end up with is chaos with various strains of “Calvinism” no two of which agree. It all comes down to personal opinion. And faith alone at least implies that you do not need to worry about sin, after all, it is faith that saves you, not obedience.

As far as different strains of Calvinism we in practice are very similer to Catholics in the sense that we have a tradition that we look to guide how we interpret things. The sort of failings that you mention here are very much to be pinned on more evangelical Protestants, not Reformed thinkers. We disagree with you in the reasons you look to tradition not that you look to tradition.

Yes faith alone has been driven to this conclusions by general evangelicals, and sadly some members of Reformed churches. This argument is that all Protestantism leads to this shallow easy-beleivism. But I have yet to see a single argument that Protestantism as represented by traditional Reformed and Lutheran churches neccessarily, in the logical sense, to this point of view. I hear all the time on Catholic Answers, and other Catholic programs on my radio station, that “yes Calvinists would deny this but their position leads to this point of view” (this is obviously a paraphrase of the many different ways it is said and the essence of the argument). That is merely an assertion, I want to see scholerly evedence that the position as defined in the Westminster Conffesion of Faith logically leads to this idea.

 

[StTommyMore]

The kingdom of God is not coterminous with the church, but certainly includes it. Nor is the church coterminous with Roman Catholicism. I agree that much of the theology of the early church does lend support to many of Rome’s distinctive doctrines today. But there are also a lot dissenting voices in the early church and a lot of silences that call into question how “Catholic” they indeed were. The trouble with so many in the Roman apologetics movement is that they see only radical continuity with the early church when in fact there is a lot of discontinuity as well. The church in deed was “catholic,” but it isn’t safe to say it was “Roman Catholic” on a number of issues.

The Kingdom of God is definitely identified with the Church, provided that you have the proper understanding that the Church is not only to be found on earth. In Catholic Theology the Church has three expressions in the present age: Militant (the Church on Earth), Suffering (the Holy Souls of Purgatory), and Triumphant (those who have gone on to their final reward. At the end of all time, Militant and Suffering will be completely absorbed into Triumphant, and we will all be together taking part in the Heavenly Liturgy in a more complete way. As far as the Church not being united, I will somewhat agree. But ut is clear that the See of Peter in Rome enjoyed a kind of primacy (this can be seen in St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. We also see that the Early church frequently partook in the Eucharist (Acts 2:43-47), and that the Early Church held the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation (yes, I know the word was not used until the 13th century, but the doctrine is there–in the Letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnans).

 

[mark_a]

I used to be a Fundamental Baptist, and though not purely Calvinist, they definitely had Calvinist tendencies. For my community sin had no effect whatsoever on salvation. If you said the “Sinner’s prayer” and meant it, you were among the elect. Nothing you could do would separate you from the love of God. Ever. :twocents:

Do you mean that the sinner needs to say the prayer only once and that future sins don’t “count” against him or her?

 

[StTommyMore]

Do you mean that the sinner needs to say the prayer only once and that future sins don’t “count” against him or her?

That is precisely what I was taught. Just one of many problems with Evangelical Fundamentalism

 

[mark_a]

That is precisely what I was taught. Just one of many problems with Evangelical Fundamentalism

Sign me up!!