Sin and Salvation - Protestant view

[Matt16_18]

Philthy:

Im pretty sure the only definitively condemned positions on predestination in Catholic theology is that of God predestining some to hell, and God usurping the free will of any man.

CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance” …

 

[Contarini]

Veritas41:

Catholic teaching.

Actually it’s both, depending on what Calvinists and what Catholics we are talking about, and exactly what we mean by “sufficient grace.”

Calvinists do generally reject the idea of “sufficient grace” since they understand grace as being by definition efficacious–i.e., if God gives you grace, you will be saved.

However, they do not deny that grace is sufficient in the sense that it has the power to save everyone. Who would deny that? And generally they agree with the formula that the *atonement *was sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.

Furthermore, there are “four-point” Calvinists whose position is basically no different from that of Catholic Thomists (except for the perseverance issue), although they didn’t express themselves in as sophisticated a way. They make what amounts to a distinction between the antecedent/consequent will. More mainstream Calvinists rejected this view as dividing God’s will. But it’s not clear to me that they were actually rejecting what Aquinas taught (since as I said the “four-point” Calvinists were not as careful theologians as Aquinas). I don’t think Aquinas divides God’s will. And the mainstream Calvinist view does hold that God desires all who believe to be saved, which is what I think Aquinas means by the “antecedent” will.

Actually, on thinking it over a bit, I suspect that the key difference is that Aquinas and his followers would phrase the “antecedent” will negatively, and hence unconditionally–i.e., God desires all to be saved unless they resist grace and fall into mortal sin. Whereas Calvinists would put it the other way around–God wills those who accept grace and believe to be saved. Both Thomists (including Thomas himself) and Calvinists believe that God only moves the elect in such a way as to accept grace and be saved, so in a sense there’s not a huge practical difference. But I think it is an important nuance that makes the Thomist position far more satisfactory than the Calvinist one.

Also, looking at it this way has made me see more merits in Fr. Most’s position than I did previously, since the way I’m wording it is somewhat like the way he words it.

Edwin

 

[AugustineFL]

Ignatius:

So by their theology, once we say the Jesus prayer and accept Jesus into our heart as Lord and Saviour, our sins, past present and future are “paid in full” and have no bearing on our salvation. Therefore, it wouldn’t matter if we worship Mary and the Saints, we can’t loose our salvation no matter what, even if we become Catholic.

You wanna know something? That is exactly what my old Baptist pastor (who is also my uncle) told me. When I left his church he said that he knows no matter what I go on to believe now I’m still saved because I accepted Jesus as my savour already and I can’t ever loose that.

 

[Philthy]

Contarini:

Calvinists … do not deny that grace is sufficient in the sense that it has the power to save everyone. Who would deny that? And generally they agree with the formula that the *atonement *was sufficient for all, efficient for the elect…

Edwin

Hi Edwin:

I believe that Calvinists generally hold that Gods Grace to humanity required Christ’s atonement and the atonement’s efficacy to be limited to the elect, ie there’s no “wasted Grace” on people who will not be saved (reprobate). So it is not quite accurate to say that Calvinists “do not deny that grace is sufficient in the sense that it has the power to save everyone” because they don’t really believe its intended to save everyone, only that it will save every one of those who are predestined to be saved.

 

[Philthy]

Veritas41:

Yes, that’s a major difference I see between Calvinism and Catholicism – who are the elect? Calvinism teaches all those who are initially saved will automatically persevere (where OSAS comes in), whereas Catholicism teaches the elect are those who persevere until the end in grace.

Hi Joan-

You might find this article by Jimmy Akin interesting. Its relatively brief and highlights the differences between Catholic and Calvinist theology on predestination and the rest of the TULIP acronym.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

 

[Veritas41]

Philthy:

Hi Joan-

You might find this article by Jimmy Akin interesting. Its relatively brief and highlights the differences between Catholic and Calvinist theology on predestination and the rest of the TULIP acronym.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

Yes, I have read that article before. It was very helpful to me in comparing/contrasting Calvinist and Catholic theology on predestination. I highly recommend it!

 

[allischalmers]

Hello Again
I was wondering if you all read James Akin’s article “a Tiptoe Throught the Tulips” . I thought it was a article untill he came to "the Perseverance of the saints. I think it was nothing more than a lot of double talk and a not understanding or a misinterruption of scripture. He was trying to disprove OSAS by proving perseverance and but ended up proving OSAS.
However, Catholics believe we are born again or saved by baptism which would mean that everything akin wrote in this article is flawed or baptism for salvation in unnesscessary.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[Philthy]

allischalmers:

Hello Again
I was wondering if you all read James Akin’s article “a Tiptoe Throught the Tulips” . I thought it was a article untill he came to "the Perseverance of the saints. I think it was nothing more than a lot of double talk and a not understanding or a misinterruption of scripture.

With all due respect allis, have you ever considered that the discussion might be over your head? Again, I mean no disrespect, but rather than accusing a biblical scholar of “double talk…not understanding…or misinterpretation” wouldn’t it be more prudent to admit that you simply didn’t understand his point?

allischalmers:

He was trying to disprove OSAS by proving perseverance and but ended up proving OSAS.

This is simply another one of your claims which you apparently are unable to justify. How exactly did he prove OSAS, in your opinion. I think you simply dont understand his article and you are wrong. Why don’t explain yourself and show us where Akin(and the entire editorial staff at This Rock) is mistaken and you are correct?

allischalmers:
However, Catholics believe we are born again or saved by baptism which would mean that everything akin wrote in this article is flawed or baptism for salvation in unnesscessary.

Please don’t even pretend to be able to articulate Catholic doctrine - you don’t know what you are talking about. Continuing to do so in your current state of ignorance is bearing false witness.
Rather than make senseless accusations such as this, why don’t you tell us where the flaw is based on your own understanding. Ill give3 you one little hint: the word “saved” can mean a lot of things…

 

[Contarini]

Philthy:

Hi Edwin:

I believe that Calvinists generally hold that Gods Grace to humanity required Christ’s atonement and the atonement’s efficacy to be limited to the elect, ie there’s no “wasted Grace” on people who will not be saved (reprobate). So it is not quite accurate to say that Calvinists “do not deny that grace is sufficient in the sense that it has the power to save everyone” because they don’t really believe its intended to save everyone, only that it will save every one of those who are predestined to be saved.

No, I was being accurate. I was being very precise in saying that for Calvinists grace has the power to save everyone. But you are right that for the majority Calvinist position it is not in any sense intended to save everyone.

I thought I clarified that. I said that if the sufficient/efficient distinction is positing a kind of grace bestowed on everyone, then Calvinists would generally reject it. But if it is speaking of the sufficiency of the grace flowing from Christ’s atoning work, then of course no one denies that it’s sufficient to save the entire human race.

I’m not sure that we really disagree. But I can’t see that I was being inaccurate in this particular instance.

Edwin

 

[allischalmers]

Going back to James Akin article Tiptop throuth the Tulip in the section Limited atonement, more flawed thoelogy. The Bible teaches that God has extended to mankind two calls for salvation. One call is a general call to mankind, Which always go unanwsered, Romans 3: 11 there is none that seeketh God, The other call is an effectual call, effectual meaning it will accomplish that which God has intended it to accomplish and that is to bring someone to a saving knowlegde of Jesus Christ.
How this is the part I hope you smart college guys can understand! Even though Jesus Christ died especially for the elect, all throught the ages mankind has benefited from Christ death which is why the Bible states the Jesus died for the whole world,
At this point I could let you figure it out but I do not think you can. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned not only did man become corrupted , the whole of the universe became corrupted.
Well I think I will let you hang ther for a while, try to figure it out.i will finish tomorrow.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[Veritas41]

According to what you’re saying, God calls people to salvation when He has no intention of saving them and therefore doesn’t provide even the possibility of responding to the call.

 

[allischalmers]

Hello
What I am saying is that God is calling all men to salvation, Scripture says that anyone that comes to God he will not turn away. Scripture also says that NO ONE seeks God. In other words no one of their own volition will respond to the general call to salvation. This is why God has to take the initiative and effectually call those whom he will after the counsel of his own will.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[NonDenom]

yes … but this really confuses me … from what I have read sin is not really an issue for Protestant/Fundamentalist believers in Jesus … but it is a big issue for Catholics. I look at the last sentence of Matthew 13 “I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” and try to reconcile that against their belief and I can’t.

It just does not make sense.

Hi All
You may have read it but it’s not true. Sin is an issue for most Protestants I know. We can fall away, scripture is very clear on this. Paul say’s that he buffets his body daily so that he might not be disqualified for the prize. I know Baptist’s say you can’t lose your salvation, but there just plain wrong.
In Him and Only Him

 

[Veritas41]

allischalmers:

Hello
What I am saying is that God is calling all men to salvation, Scripture says that anyone that comes to God he will not turn away. Scripture also says that NO ONE seeks God. In other words no one of their own volition will respond to the general call to salvation. This is why God has to take the initiative and effectually call those whom he will after the counsel of his own will.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

That’s,right,God has to take the initiative in salvation to draw men to Himself by grace. So, what you’re saying in the above statement is that God calls all men to salvation while at the same time not providing the grace so that they can all respond to the call. Does this seem consistent with the character of God to you:

 

[ncgolf]

NonDenom:

Hi All
You may have read it but it’s not true. Sin is an issue for most Protestants I know. We can fall away, scripture is very clear on this. Paul say’s that he buffets his body daily so that he might not be disqualified for the prize. I know Baptist’s say you can’t lose your salvation, but there just plain wrong.
In Him and Only Him

What do you do about it then?? Repent? Is there something that you have either in your church or that youd do that allows the reconcilation between Christ and yourself?

Thanks

 

[allischalmers]

Hi; I thought I made it quite simple. People just are not interest In salvation untill the Holy Spirit is able to plow into their hardened heart and bring to power the gospel to work. If people were interested in the gospel and salvtion there would not be enough spare on this earth to accommodate all the churches that would need to be built. God’s grace is there for everyone but not everyone is going to take hold of it.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[RattleSnake]

God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved, but His grace is efficacious for the elect.

Well said.

If you ever want to understand the Catholic position on Predestination… I highly reccommend the book: “Predestination” by Fr. LaGrange.

It is very clear and concise.

Calvinism is just that… a belief held by a man named John Calvin. God does not predetine anyone to hell. Hell is OUR Choice.

Here are quotes from St. Augustine

“God does NOT command what is impossible, but in commanding advises YOU to DO what YOU CAN, and to ASK for what you can NOT do.”

“God does not abandon those whom He has once justified by His grace, unless He is first abondoned by THEM.”

“He wills ALL men to be saved, in this sense that He wills to make it really possible for ALL to keep the commandments, and that no one is lost except through THEIR OWN FAULT.”

 

[Veritas41]

This is what I find highly ironic: when I was a Calvinist, St. Augustine was about the only Church Father who was quoted fairly regularly (albeit very selectively) to support Calvinist doctrines that he would have disagreed with (like predestination to hell and denial of free will). I honestly came to see St. Augustine as a pre-Reformation Protestant, when he was anything but!

There were several passages in the Bible I could never fully reconcile with Calvinist theology, because it makes predestination and free will mutually exclusive. I found the Bible taught both, and I see that in Catholic teaching. It certainly is a mystery, but that is to be expected when we’re dealing with an inifinite God revealing Himself to finite human beings.

 

[NonDenom]

What do you do about it then?? Repent? Is there something that you have either in your church or that youd do that allows the reconcilation between Christ and yourself?

Thanks

Hi nc
You bet I repent. I pray to God for forgivness and the strength to overcome the next time I’m tempted. I also believe that if a person
isn’t truly sorry for the sin that they have commited, they can’t truly repent or turn away from that sin. This would make them a hypocrite. I once heard it said that a hypocrite is someone who is sorry on Sunday for what they did on Saturday but fully intend to do again on Monday. I also try to remember that Christ not only died for the sins that I’ve commited, but also every sin that I’m going to commit, which helps give me the strength to fight off that temptation.
In Him and Only Him

 

[Philthy]

Hi allis! :yup:

allischalmers:

Hi; I thought I made it quite simple.

Not only did you make it simple, but you finally expressed your opinion in a manner we could all understand. In doing so, you revealed the logical inconsistancies of your position, which is what Joan has been patiently trying to point out to you.

allischalmers:

People just are not interest In salvation untill the Holy Spirit is able to plow into their hardened heart and bring to power the gospel to work.

Correct. All people are born equally deserving of eternal condemnation, right? It is only by Gods Grace that they can be brought to salvation. For God to not provide some level of that Grace to all is a) unfair and b) inconsistent with the revelation that God wishes none to perish.

allischalmers:

God’s grace is there for everyone but not everyone is going to take hold of it.
forever Baptist
allischalmers

Welcome aboard allis! This is what we have been trying to tell you - God provides Grace for EVERYONE. He does not PREDESTINE some not to recieve his Grace and thereby predestine them to Hell (which is precisely what you were claiming at the beginning of this dialogue). Here are some of those quotes:

allischalmers:

“…God will pick some people to be saved but not others.” and here is another, “God intervenes in some peoples life and not others.”

These quotes don’t seem to line up with your recently professed claim that," God’s grace is there for everyone but not everyone is going to take hold of it." So which of the statements are you prepared to take back?!