"Separated Bretheren"

[TommyWommy]

Most Catholics did not really ‘choose’ Catholicism- they were born into Catholic families or Catholic countries. It is not really a ‘bother’ to be Catholic, if you already are one. The fact is, the Church is the entire people of God.

Sure they did. Like I did. I chose it for myself when I was confirmed. Then, in my 20s, I rejected it and tried to be “non-denominational.” After 20+ years of that I chose Catholicism again and came back. Got tired of trying to figure out which pastor/church/denomination was teaching the truth when they had so many differences. Realized I had been born into the original Church in the first place and was actually drifting farther away from the Body of Christ (separating).

Furthermore, every Catholic has ample opportunity to choose or reject Catholicism every time we say the creed or renew our statement of Faith. We are asked directly, “Do you believe in one, holy apostolic Church?” and are expected to respond, “Yes” or “No.” Plenty of folks have said, “No” either in their words or in their actions. Evangelical Protestant churches are filled with “ex Catholics” that have made a choice.

The entire people of God are Catholic (upper case “C”), whether or not they realize it. No one comes to the Father except through Christ. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, if anyone “gets to God” at all, they did it by going through Christ and His Church. They may have done it with an implicit faith (not realizing they are “being Catholic”), but they have gone through Christ and His Church nevertheless.

 

[Rogare]

You can’t be certain, but Catholics have an authority outside of Scripture to appeal to.

Out of all that, you chose one sentence to attack sola scriptura

And that authority has revealed…limbo?

 

[wisdomseeker]

As a Calvinist, I am a firm believer in election, so let’s take a look at your question based on that.

Scripture teaches that in eternity past, God chose those who would inherit salvation:

Obviously, this choice is made before birth and does not depend on the individual, but on God:

Now, I trust that God is completely sovereign over every last infinitesimal detail in His creation. Thus, He (sadly) knows which babies will be aborted or born with mental deficiencies as well as who will die before they can understand the gospel message. So it isn’t like God is taken by surprise by an abortion or malady.

Since I don’t hold God to be incompetent, there’s a couple of logical conclusions that can be drawn. (Since the Scriptures are silent on this issue, we can’t be certain) Either a) all of the aforementioned individuals are elect b) there are members of the elect and the non-elect in this group just as there are in the world. Whichever it is, I trust that God will ensure the salvation of all His elect.

But obviously who knows who are the chosen? We know that Christ found one Church to teach all men. How about those who insist in remaining outside this Church, are they chosen too? Are the disobedient chosen to be an example of God’s people? who can identify if I am one of the chosen? Me?

 

[RevPhil]

Trinitarian Pentecostals and “non-denominationals” reject all creeds, including these. Moreover the Nicene profession in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is problematic even for those Protestant denominations that use that Creed, such as Lutherans, because it does not square with their claim that salvation is by faith alone.

Because no one agrees on how one actually obtains said salvation.

This is how.

I don’t know where you get your information from, but every Pentecostal that I’ve ever known has accepted the Nicene Creed as the basis for their faith. As for the non-denominationals, you are absolutely wrong. I attended a non-denominational university and seminary, and was ordained as a non-denominational minister.and the Nicene was the foundational basis for our statement of faith. I know many others that are part of the Evangelical Movement and all accept, without reservation, the Nicene Creed.

The reason there is disagreement on the method of salvation, is because of differences of interpretation.

As for your link, you are absolutely correct. All Christians that accept baptism believe that they “die to Christ” in that baptism. And when you accept the Holy Spirit, then you become part of the universal body of Christ, the one church (and that does not mean any one denomination. It is the entire body of all Christians that have accepted Christ).

 

[Rogare]

But obviously who knows who are the chosen? We know that Christ found one Church to teach all men. How about those who insist in remaining outside this Church, are they chosen too?

Nobody but God knows who the elect are; I never claimed otherwise (nor will I). As the Scripture teaches, nobody seeks after God (Romans 3:11). So, what’s God to do? Well Jesus plainly states:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (John 6:44)

Based on the words of Christ, not a single person on Earth will come to Christ (or His Church, if you prefer) unless God draws him in. It’s that simple.

Are the disobedient chosen to be an example of God’s people?

Keep in mind, the disobedient reject God because they are dead in sins (Eph. 2:1). They are even hostile toward God (Romans 8:7). So why are they around? Well, Paul plainly speaks on this matter:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?** What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy**, whom he prepared in advance for glory— (Romans 9:19-23)

God punishes the reprobate to bring glory to Himself. It’s that easy. The ultimate goal of mankind and God is to bring glory to God. Anything else is sinful and blasphemous. If you’re not glorifying God, then what are you doing?

 

[Roy5]

Protestantism is very diverse, and obviously many Catholics - understandably - don’t understand its many different dimensions.

Let me pose this question in line with this thread. What about Protestants (or Catholics, of which there are many) who are well aware of the teachings of Catholicism, who know her teachings rather thoroughly, who have actually read a number of the Church Fathers, who even may have (or do) subscribe to various Catholic publications, etc. Yet, they refuse to accept Catholicism because they sincerely disagree with some of its teachings.

For example, I know many well-schooled Protestants (among them Pastors) as well as a number of Catholics who would like a united church, who admire much about Catholicism, but who simply cannot intellectually assent to certain specifically Catholic doctrines (as well as various Catholic practices). 

 These are not sola scriptura Protestants because they have trouble accepting various Biblical accounts also. They often have read the Bible in some detail, even studied it, and have concluded that it contains considerable wisdom but also different accounts that they reject and even find repulsive. Consider the story of Noah. Would a kind and merciful God drown all those people (among them many children and babies in the womb)? Or, they come across verses like Ex. 22:18 and 20 and reject them outright. They don't believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter everyone in Jericho or demanded that Saul seek out the kill every living Amalekite. And what do you do with a narrative like II Kings 2:23-25 when two she-bears tear 42 children apart because they mocked Elisha's bald head? Sacred scripture? "The word of God? Really? So many other atrocity stories that defy that hallowed description, See Nu 21:2; Dt 2:34, 3:6. 7:2, 13:15, 20:17; Jos. 2:10, 6:17, 21, 8:25, 10:1, 28, 35, 37. 39-40; 11:11-12, 20-21; Jdg. 1:17. Or, many verses in Lev. 20, Deut.22-23; etc,

These 'heretical' Protestants (and Catholics) love and seek to serve Christ, but they may have trouble with some things in the New Testament, too. In the epistles, for example, they dismiss the advice given to slaves to obey their masters or to women that they should keep silent in the churches, etc. 

 In other words, these 'liberal' Protestants (many millions of them in mainline denominations) are devoted to Christ as they conceive him and live dedicated lives, but they sincerely do not believe many doctrines embraced by both evangelical Protestantism as well as traditional Catholicism. Most would doubt the virgin birth, for example. and could not honestly accept many of the other cornerstones dogmae of Catholicism, such as transubstantiation, praying to Mary, guardian angels, veneration of saints, absolution of sin through confession to a priest, original sin, and the whole concept of 'one true church'. 

These Protestants (and many Catholics, too) usually are ecumenical in the sense that they respect other faiths, even such distinctly different ones as Buddhism and Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. They certainly worship God, may respect the Pope (they loved John XXIII) and they honor people like Mother Theresa and Fr. Damien, people of any religion who consecrate heir lives in a selfless fashion to help others. 

 They regard Christianity primarily as a call to follow the Sermon on the Mount, and they suspect most dogma. (Reminds me of the recent comic strip. Why don't cats attend church? They don't like dogma!) These Protestants (and Catholics) don't like to be restricted by dogma. They want to think freely when it comes to spiritual matters, usually of the opinion that the universe is simply too mammoth and magnificent and mysterious for any church or person to know the full truth. "Now we know in part...." I Corinthians 13 is more important to them than any ancient creed, creeds written before a decent telescope and any microscope. when many actually thought that Jesus sat literally on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 

 Okay. Do these qualify as 'separated brethren'? Or, are they condemned to the fires of hell? Personally, I think they're as likely to get to heaven as anyone else. Why? Re-read Matt. 25:31-46. I'm inclined to believe that many of these free-thinking doubters do more to serve God through serving others than many who are 'doctrinally pure'. Tragically, religion too often has claimed to preach love, humility and peace while actually inciting bigotry, arrogance, and hostility.

 I'm content to let the Lord do whatever judging may need doing, at the time and place of his choosing. Meanwhile, God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country.

 

[RevPhil]

Amen and Amen!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this concept. It sounds like an oxymoron. How is it possible to be a brother “in Christ” and yet be “separated?” If they are separated from the Body of Christ, how can they be brothers and sisters “in Christ?”

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to be divisive. I want to see them as brothers and sisters. I just can’t seem to grasp how it “works.” I want to be able to articulate how it is possible. I also want to be able to better articulate why they should consider “coming home” to Catholicism if they are already “in the Body.”

Thanks.

We are separated from the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church), but we are “in christ” because we know Christ, just not his church (His Body). catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp does a good job explaining.

 

[SGWessells]

So, even though I believe that

1. There is one God.
2. God consists of three persons of the same substance: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity that was born of a Virgin.
4. Christ lived a life of perfect obedience.
5. Christ died on the cross to atone for my sins.
6. I am saved by the grace of God through faith.
7. Due to this salvation, I will one day inherit Heaven while the wicked will be sent to hell.
   and was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I am still a heretic?

Guess I should have been born among the ante-Nicene fathers so I wouldn’t be considered a heretic for my beliefs

Sorry, but that wouldn’t let you off the hook. The ante-Nicene Fathers believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the Papal primacy, apostolic succession, and several other doctrines you explicitly, with full knowledge of their meaning, reject. They would have ranked you with the Gnostics and the Manicheans. If you are going to reject the faith of the Apostles and their successors, you don’t get to pose as one of the orthodox, who have held fast to all the traditions once for all delivered to the saints. The word “heresy” means picking and choosing; you can’t pick which of the doctrines Christ revealed through His church you will believe, and which you reject, and still claim to believe in Revelation. Just as someone who has broken one law is guilty of all (James 2:10), so someone who has denied one revealed doctrine has denied the faith; for all have been revealed alike by God. If you accept all things God says except one, you make yourself, not God, the ultimate authority for what is true, and implicitly claimed to be wiser than Christ, Whose Body is the Church He founded, which is guided by the Spirit of God as He promised. That autonomy has been the problem with Protestantism throughout its history (and I spent many years as a Protestant, both Evangelical and Charismatic, Armenian and Calvinist, pre-mil and post-mil, so I know). One of my favorite ironies of history is that Luther thought rebellion and innovation would end with him, and that even though he set the example of rebellion and invention, he still whined and complained when others did just what he did, but went further.

 

[Rogare]

Sorry, but that wouldn’t let you off the hook. The ante-Nicene Fathers believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the Papal primacy, apostolic succession, and several other doctrines you explicitly, with full knowledge of their meaning, reject. They would have ranked you with the Gnostics and the Manicheans. If you are going to reject the faith of the Apostles and their successors, you don’t get to pose as one of the orthodox, who have held fast to all the traditions once for all delivered to the saints. The word “heresy” means picking and choosing; you can’t pick which of the doctrines Christ revealed through His church you will believe, and which you reject, and still claim to believe in Revelation. Just as someone who has broken one law is guilty of all (James 2:10), so someone who has denied one revealed doctrine has denied the faith; for all have been revealed alike by God. If you accept all things God says except one, you make yourself, not God, the ultimate authority for what is true, and implicitly claimed to be wiser than Christ, Whose Body is the Church He founded, which is guided by the Spirit of God as He promised. That autonomy has been the problem with Protestantism throughout its history (and I spent many years as a Protestant, both Evangelical and Charismatic, Armenian and Calvinist, pre-mil and post-mil, so I know). One of my favorite ironies of history is that Luther thought rebellion and innovation would end with him, and that even though he set the example of rebellion and invention, he still whined and complained when others did just what he did, but went further.

While I disagree with you, at least you are devout enough to be honest. Why don’t you let the rest of the Catholic Church know that we Protestants are in fact heretics rather than separated brethren. How one could be a heretic and a brethren at the same time is beyond my ability to grasp

 

[Cat_Herder]

As a Calvinist, I am a firm believer in election, so let’s take a look at your question based on that.

Where by election you mean unconditional election, the notion that whether one is saved or not is predetermined before one is even concieved. According to Calvinism, either you’re conceived as one of the saved or you aren’t, and nothing you do or believe during your life has anything to do with it. The theory continues that you can tell whether you are saved or not based on whether or not you have faith. So this leads to a sort of post-hoc salvation by faith alone in which the ones who belong to Church X all believe they were saved from the get go because they came to belong to Church X.

But this only works if you get rid of free will, as Calvin did. I have thoroughly debunked predestination over on the other thread by showing from Scripture (Hebrews 10) that it is possible to lose salvation by mortal sin. This of course presupposes that humans do have free will to commit such a sin and that in turn proves that Calvinist election/double predestination is false; salvation is conditional on not committing a mortal sin.

But let’s go on…

Scripture teaches that in eternity past, God chose those who would inherit salvation:

Quote:
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph. 1:4-5)

This does not say that there exists anyone who is not included in the “elect” and so this does not prove a distinction between the elect and the non-elect/reprobate.

Obviously, this choice is made before birth and does not depend on the individual, but on God:

Quote:
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls…(Romans 9:11-12)
It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Paul is not contradicting what he said in Hebrews 10. Look carefully at Romans 9. All it says is that one cannot work one’s way into heaven–God’s grace, His unmerited favor, is what saves. But it does not follow that salvation, once obtained by grace, cannot later be lost by abuse of the human will as stated in Hebrews and elsewhere.

Now, I trust that God is completely sovereign over every last infinitesimal detail in His creation.

God’s express will is for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). If God is truly sovereign over every last infentisimal detail in His creation then He will orient creation towards accomplishing His will—the salvation of all men. That is so painstakingly obvious that my mind is simply boggled by Calvinist remarks that assert that God wills the damnation of certain people, such as:

God punishes the reprobate to bring glory to Himself.

Thus, He (sadly) knows which babies will be aborted or born with mental deficiencies as well as who will die before they can understand the gospel message. So it isn’t like God is taken by surprise by an abortion or malady.

Read John 3:16. Everyone who has ever watched a sporting event and seen someone holding up that verse knows that God died out of love for the whole world. Not just the “elect” few. Clearly God is not out to condemn anyone–we do that to ourselves. But let’s go on…

(continuation)

 

[Cat_Herder]

(continued)

Since I don’t hold God to be incompetent, there’s a couple of logical conclusions that can be drawn. (Since the Scriptures are silent on this issue, we can’t be certain)

No they aren’t. Let’s test your alternatives against what is written.

Either a) all of the aforementioned individuals are elect

Impossible, because this would mean that everyone who could possibly die in utero or become mentally or physically incapacitated is “unconditionally elected to salvation” regardless of the outcome of these risks. (Otherwise their election would be conditional on whether or not they recover from the disability and ergo no Calvinism.) And since these can potentially happen to everyone, then you must conclude that everyone is saved, yet as Revelation shows us the population of hell is greater than zero.

b) there are members of the elect and the non-elect in this group just as there are in the world.

Impossible, because God wills their salvation. See John 3:16 and 1 Tim 2:3-4. This would lead either to the conclusion that Jesus failed in His mission to save the world since these innocents are unsaved, or that there is some kind of difference between God the Father’s “will” and Jesus’s “desire,” which has no basis in Scripture, breaks the Trinity, and defies all logic and semblance of reason.

How about this:

c) Salvation is through Christ alone, who died for the whole world. Thus, God desires and wills for all to be saved, and so He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved by His grace. However, if they have full knowledge, humans can choose to throw away their salvation by grave and deliberate sin. (Again, see discussion of Hebrews 10 here).

In other words, there’s no such thing as the “elect” and the “non-elect.” Jesus died for everyone and salvation is His gift to the world. We don’t have to do anything to get the gift (that’s Rom.9). But whether we are saved depends on whether or not we choose to open the gift and use what is in there rightly. If we open it we cease to be of the world and become part of the Body of Christ. And with that comes the duty to obey Him; if we do not and refuse to repent, then we have wasted the gift and will be worse off than one who never opened it (1Tim 5:8).

Back to the thread topic, finally. The fact that there are no “reprobate” or “non-elect” is critical in terms of the definition of what the Church is and isn’t. The Church is called Catholic (a Biblical term, read Acts 9:31 in Greek) because the Church is universal. She is there for everyone, not only for the “elect.” Unlike most Protestants, Calvinists who hold to double predestination reject the catholicity of the Church by holding that Jesus only died for the “special” people. That puts Calvinists in an entirely different classification than most other Protestants who correctly understand that Jesus died for the sins of everyone, and this is a huge obstacle to any kind of ecumenical dialogue.

 

[Hammer33]

We are separated from the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church), but we are “in christ” because we know Christ, just not his church (His Body). catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp does a good job explaining.

You are allowing yourself to be deceived; being separated from the Body of Christ means that you are separated from Christ, Those separated from Jesus cannot possibly be in Jesus.

The Bible plainly reads those who reject Jesus’ Church the same do not belong to God.

 

[Hammer33]

While I disagree with you, at least you are devout enough to be honest. Why don’t you let the rest of the Catholic Church know that we Protestants are in fact heretics rather than separated brethren. How one could be a heretic and a brethren at the same time is beyond my ability to grasp

Heretics and separated Christians is the same thing; you are separated because you have apostated from Christianity.

 

[Black_Knight]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church plainly states.

**Wounds to unity **
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
** Toward unity **
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent *renewal *of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
• conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;
• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282
  -* fraternal knowledge of each other*;283
• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
• *dialogue *among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
• *collaboration *among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

Cont’d

 

[Black_Knight]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321
838 ** "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Emphasis mine…

 

[fhansen]

If sinners can’t enter heaven then nobody is going in since we are all sinners

So is it your position that God created us to sin? That He created man unable to fulfill the Laws He made for him? And then blamed man anyway for not fulfilling them? And then at some later date decided, apparently on a whim, to save him?

In any case the Catholic position is that God never intended man to sin, and then, graciously, pulls him from the pit he’s fallen into, offering to clean him up so that, ultimately, he’ll sin no more, the Potter molding His creation into the beings He’s always intended them to be, until they’re ready for heaven, until they’re capable of “seeing” Him, a Vision which is the source of mans’ eternal happiness. We’re a work of His, but He won’t do it without our continued consent; He covets our wills-that they come into alignment with His. This is the restoration of creation. Adam & Eve freely fell, God desires, with His help, that we freely rise again.

In short: I get into Heaven based on Christ’s righteousness (Phil. 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21), which is imputed to me. God forgave all my sins on Calvary (Colossians 2:13-14), I was declared righteous upon faith in Christ.

This can be true only if you’re right about being one of the elect.

I will go into much more detail with many more verses if you desire, but C’s and P’s will never agree on salvation. I think you’re just as wrong as you do me

Yes, we can trade verses all day long. But never say never-if not sooner you’ll still agree in the next life.

 

[Rogare]

Where by election you mean unconditional election, the notion that whether one is saved or not is predetermined before one is even concieved. According to Calvinism, either you’re conceived as one of the saved or you aren’t, and nothing you do or believe during your life has anything to do with it. The theory continues that you can tell whether you are saved or not based on whether or not you have faith. So this leads to a sort of post-hoc salvation by faith alone in which the ones who belong to Church X all believe they were saved from the get go because they came to belong to Church X.

It is quite unnecessary to lecture me on the tenets of Calvinism. I assure you I am more than competent in handling the doctrines of grace.

But this only works if you get rid of free will, as Calvin did. I have thoroughly debunked predestination over on the other thread by showing from Scripture (Hebrews 10) that it is possible to lose salvation by mortal sin. This of course presupposes that humans do have free will to commit such a sin and that in turn proves that Calvinist election/double predestination is false; salvation is conditional on not committing a mortal sin.

Show me one place in Scripture that demonstrates man actually has free will. I posted several verses in the hell thread about man’s free will. You’ve no more debunked predestination than Robert Sungenis has debunked heliocentrism.

This does not say that there exists anyone who is not included in the “elect” and so this does not prove a distinction between the elect and the non-elect/reprobate.

Incorrect. Paul specifically addresses this “to the saints” in verse 1. A saint would be a Christian, and thus one of the elect.

Paul is not contradicting what he said in Hebrews 10. Look carefully at Romans 9. All it says is that one cannot work one’s way into heaven–God’s grace, His unmerited favor, is what saves. But it does not follow that salvation, once obtained by grace, cannot later be lost by abuse of the human will as stated in Hebrews and elsewhere.

We can start a new thread on perseverance of the saints if you wish.

God’s express will is for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). If God is truly sovereign over every last infentisimal detail in His creation then He will orient creation towards accomplishing His will—the salvation of all men. That is so painstakingly obvious that my mind is simply boggled by Calvinist remarks that assert that God wills the damnation of certain people, such as

I would recommend to you James White’s The Potter’s Freedom. His exegesis of this and other “problem” verses is fantastic. In short: Paul references all kinds of people, not every single individual on Earth. If you want more, I’ll be glad to share further exegesis with you; this conclusion is not without warrant.

Also, why do you picture God as such a weak being? If he truly wanted every last individual to be saved, they would be. I would suggest you give God His glory and sovereignty back and quit picturing him as this weak God who sits in Heaven hoping and hoping and hoping that someone would just accept His son. Jesus did not just make man savable on the cross, He actually accomplished salvation for the elect (Acts 20:28).

Read John 3:16. Everyone who has ever watched a sporting event and seen someone holding up that verse knows that God died out of love for the whole world. Not just the “elect” few. Clearly God is not out to condemn anyone–we do that to ourselves. But let’s go on…

John 3:16 says “whosoever” will come. It does not address who is contained in that whosoever. I suggest you read the context around John 3:16 instead of making weak, evangelical conclusions.

 

[Rogare]

No they aren’t. Let’s test your alternatives against what is written.

Impossible, because this would mean that everyone who could possibly die in utero or become mentally or physically incapacitated is “unconditionally elected to salvation” regardless of the outcome of these risks. (Otherwise their election would be conditional on whether or not they recover from the disability and ergo no Calvinism.) And since these can potentially happen to everyone, then you must conclude that everyone is saved, yet as Revelation shows us the population of hell is greater than zero.

True, which is why I reject this first conclusion; others accept it.

Impossible, because God wills their salvation. See John 3:16 and 1 Tim 2:3-4. This would lead either to the conclusion that Jesus failed in His mission to save the world since these innocents are unsaved, or that there is some kind of difference between God the Father’s “will” and Jesus’s “desire,” which has no basis in Scripture, breaks the Trinity, and defies all logic and semblance of reason.

Once again, if you will actually attempt to exegete these verses in their proper context, this simply isn’t an issue. God only wills the salvation of the elect (Romans 9).

God is immutable. Therefore, how can He go from loving everyone while they are on Earth and then hate those that are in hell after they get there? Do you think God will be sitting in Heaven, with all of us worshiping Him for eternity, and be heartbroken and sad over the ones he “loves” in hell? Why would Christ die for those He know will end up in hell? Or is He also no longer omniscient either?

How about this:

c) Salvation is through Christ alone, who died for the whole world. Thus, God desires and wills for all to be saved, and so He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved by His grace. However, if they have full knowledge, humans can choose to throw away their salvation by grave and deliberate sin. (Again, see discussion of Hebrews 10 here).

In other words, there’s no such thing as the “elect” and the “non-elect.” Jesus died for everyone and salvation is His gift to the world. We don’t have to do anything to get the gift (that’s Rom.9). But whether we are saved depends on whether or not we choose to open the gift and use what is in there rightly. If we open it we cease to be of the world and become part of the Body of Christ. And with that comes the duty to obey Him; if we do not and refuse to repent, then we have wasted the gift and will be worse off than one who never opened it (1Tim 5:8).

Back to the thread topic, finally. The fact that there are no “reprobate” or “non-elect” is critical in terms of the definition of what the Church is and isn’t. The Church is called Catholic (a Biblical term, read Acts 9:31 in Greek) because the Church is universal. She is there for everyone, not only for the “elect.” Unlike most Protestants, Calvinists who hold to double predestination reject the catholicity of the Church by holding that Jesus only died for the “special” people. That puts Calvinists in an entirely different classification than most other Protestants who correctly understand that Jesus died for the sins of everyone, and this is a huge obstacle to any kind of ecumenical dialogue.

You’ve made some incredibly bold statements with zero exegesis. Therefore, it is impossible to take you seriously.

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare wrote:"God is immutable. Therefore, how can He go from loving everyone while they are on Earth and then hate those that are in hell after they get there? Do you think God will be sitting in Heaven, with all of us worshiping Him for eternity, and be heartbroken and sad over the ones he “loves” in hell? Why would Christ die for those He know will end up in hell? Or is He also no longer omniscient either? "

Let’s look at the other side of this contention. If God doesn’t love the people in Hell, the “reprobate”, then He didn’t love them when they were alive. How could He, since He created them solely to torture them throughout all eternity? They were not worse sinners than the elect; their lives are often holier than the elect. What makes the difference? The Calvinist says, nothing but the mere will of God. Since nothing in the character, behavior, or piety of the elect makes them worthier to be chosen than the reprobate (otherwise, salvation would not be entirely by grace), it follows that God’s choice is totally arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the deserving of the elect. Therefore, the damned do not deserve to be damned any more than the elect do. Why are the latter saved? God looked at the vast crowds hurrying down the broad and easy road to destruction and said, “I think I’ll save this one, that one, and this other one, and let the others burn forever as a testament to My glory.” Why wouldn’t it be more glorious if He chose to save everybody who wants to be saved? He doesn’t need to torture millions of souls no less deserving of salvation than those He saved, in order to demonstrate His just judgments and hatred of sin. He demonstrated that sufficiently on the cross. There remains no reason for choosing some and not others. Ezekiel says God takes no pleasure in the death of sinners (18:23). Why then did He determine from the beginning that so many sinners would die?
The Calvinist God is a cruel, unloving, arbitrary caricature of the God who loved the world and desires all men to be saved, as 1 Tim. 2:4 says. As for the contention that “all men” means “a representative sample of all kinds of men,” this forced interpretation is refuted by verses 1 and 2 of chapter 2, in which Paul first urges that “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanks givings be made for all men”, with no hint of exception or selection. Then the only “kinds” of men he specifically mentions are “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” undisturbed by arrests and martyrdom (RSV-CE). Surely Calvinists do not mean to imply that only “kings and those in high places” comprise the elect. Neither Christ nor any of the apostles were earthly kings, prefects, or procurators; during their earthly sojourn they were hauled before the magistrates; they did not sit beside them. So obviously this verse does not merely refer to :kinds" of men, as though God were a respecter of persons after all, but of all men without distinction. 1 John 2:2 confirms this by saying that Christ is the “expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world.” Such would not be the case if Christ died only for the elect. Paul echoes this in 1 Tim. 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” Note the distinction; God is the savior “especially” but not “only” of those who believe.

All this points out the great service Rogare has done for us, in providing such a clear example of why scripture alone cannot, and was never intended to, be the only source of revealed truth. How is Scripture alone to decide between all these verses, which seem to say opposite things? Scripture cannot arbitrate, because it is the subject of contention. If the meaning of Scripture is the issue, appealing to its meaning cannot resolve the dispute. Throughout history teachers have taken opposite sides on this issue, which can only be decided by an authority outside the Bible. What better than the Church Christ founded, which Paul calls the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Not the Bible, but the Church, its divinely appointed and guided expositor.