Someone can lose their salvation?

[Randy_Carson]

But does not embrace the cross. Such a definition, in fact, circumvents it.

How so?

I gave you scripture references to illustrate the past, present and future aspects of salvation…how does “embracing the cross” (please provide a definition of this term) suggest that salvation is a one-time event?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That particular post of Randy’s is another of his “canned responses” that I’ve seen him post elsewhere with a specific name inserted in the final question when Randy’s feeling bold, and the generic brother, it would seem, when he’s feeling more timid.

Sandusky-

I have a few more thoughts I would like to share in response to your comment.

Time and again, Catholic members of this forum have asked you to answer certain questions or to explain your position on some matter, and you’re response has been, “I’ve posted what I believe many times before - just research what I’ve said” or “I already gave you my answer.” No offense, but it’s not easy keeping track of what every non-Catholic in this forum believes on each a every point of doctrine. You guys are not exactly known for your doctrinal unity, and you’ll have to forgive us if we ask for a refresher from time to time.

However, you had the audacity to belittle my posting as nothing more than “another of [my] ‘cannned responses’”.

Unlike you, I’m prepared to answer any question at length as often as is necessary for any and all who ask. If I don’t know something, I’m willing to do some research in order to learn, and I try very hard to provide as much detail in my answers as possible. Whenever possible, I document my sources with links to articles, the names of books and authors, and, of course, as much scripture as possible. Some of what I post is original material and some is borrowed from articles I’ve read and talks I have heard. If I only took material from a single source, this would be plagiarism; in fact, I steal from lots of sources, and this is called “research”.

My goal is to provide as much factual information as time and space permit to those who do not know, understand or agree with the Catholic faith so that they can find their way home, God willing. If that isn’t possible, I hope that fair-minded visitors from other faith traditions will learn a little something about what their Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ believe. In some cases, my only hope is that the rabid anti-Catholic who waltzes in here thinking that he will “show those papists a thing or two about the Bible” will simply realize that he doesn’t know as much as he thought he did and shut up. Or that we know a lot more than he thought we did. Bearing false witness about what Catholics teach and believe is not pleasing to God.

Now, to your charge: if I post something more than once, it is only because you and others keep asking the same questions or making the same false allegations and assertions. You have my word that I will continue trying to find new and better ways of saying what you need to hear, but there are a lot of posters in a lot of threads to get to, and I’m doing my best to answer as many as I can. MOST genuine seekers, Catholic and otherwise, are grateful just to be pointed in the right direction.

Your reasons for being here, on the other hand, are less clear. You’ve been posting in these forums for almost four years now. You do not appear to be genuinely interested in the Catholic faith personally nor does it seem that you have any real desire to convince us that your positions have any merit because you make so little effort to prove them. I don’t doubt your sincerity about what you believe; I just question your motives for participating in these discussions.

So, what gives Sandusky? Are you interested in becoming Catholic, are you interested in winning us over with thoughtful presentations of your theology, or are you just trolling?

 

[ncgolf]

Newflash: All of the ECFs have given their own personal, fallible man-made interpretations.

Who then interprets infalliably … Paul does not interpret God’s word … he writes it. Authors write and the readers obligation is to understand the writer’s intent … has it not always been that way?

I think by this admission you have discounted all of us as interpreters … though I do not think this is true … some interpretations take us closer to the truth and some farther away.

If you have found an infalliable interpretation of Paul’s writing concerning salvation … tell us … where have you found this?

A claim that the HS is the interpreter, while true, is a claim you cannot prove to me nor I to you. I have no evidence that would convince you of how or when this occured to myself so this leaves us with the question of where can people go to even begin learning the truth when fallability is all around us?

 

[paul_c]

Moondweller and Sandusky,
You were very active last night. The more you two discuss, the more I understand your positions. That is better than many on this board.

It seems to me that the main thrust of your argument is actually a noble one: You want to emphasize the importance and power of Jesus’s sacrifice on Salvation. This is laudible and correct. I think the issue we have between your Reformist position and the Catholic position is the unerstanding of the will of God.

Our view of the will of God is that

• He wanted all men to have the possibility of being saved and that possibility was provided by Jesus. This is accomplished through baptism (which we will call initial justification)
• He wants all men to willingly come to him in love.
• He wants all men to strive for holiness, to love above all else.
• After initial justification, man remains in the state of Grace and is fully holy until he deviates from God’s will, committing sin.
• Man can regain holiness and regain the Grace of God, through the sacrament of reconciliation, if he is contrite, repentent and does the good works that demonstrates his faith
• He will reward those that do his will and condemn those that don’t. This is pointed out in Matthew 7: 19-21, Mathew 19:16-19, and Matthew 25: 31-46 among countless other places. Eternal life is the reward for dying in the state of grace

Your view of the will of God (and please, correct my misunderstanding) is:

• He chooses to save some men based on their declared faith(lets call for consistency of discussion, this initial justification.)
• Upon initial justification (the act of faith, in your example), man is rewarded with eternal life. This is a gift that can not be refused or lost
• God does will us to do good work, but this does not play a role in salvation, but will be done out of love by the justified man

So we both believe in an initial justification. Our initial justification can actually be without any merit at all from the individual, for example an infant who owes his baptism to the love of his parents.
Your initial justification requires an act from the individual: the declaration of faith so your initial justification can in fact, be more earned than we think is required

However, we think of our justification as simply initial, while you think of justification as more than initial but as permanent. While it is true that your justification requires more initially than ours, which is purely a gift from God out of the love of our parents , it is equally true that post the initial statement of belief, in your system nothing else is required. (although to be fair, for Catholics baptized as adults, the requirement is the same as for you, to declare their faith).

In the end, we believe that to gain eternal life, a person must be personally holy, achieved through faith, good works and regular cleansing of sin through the sacrament of reconciliation .

You on the other hand, see holiness as a desirable end and the obvious outcome of faith, but not a requirement of salvation, which to you is a free gift to those that believe. So, for you there is no judgment based on how you lived your lives, but only on whether you had an initial faith gifted to you by God. This however, is in direct contrast to the Biblical statements in Matthew discussed above, where judgement is clearly on our live’s works.

Yours is a very forgiving theology. It requires nothing of man beyond an initial, maybe one time statement of faith. But this seems also inconsistent with Jesus’s expectation that the “Gate is narrow and few find salvation, but the Gate is wide and many find the way to perdition.” It also denies the our actions have ramifications. This is inconsistent with both biblical teaching and also the experience of life on earth.

 

[guanophore]

It’s certainly God’s revealed will that all men be saved:**Acts 17:30**

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent…But in His secret will, I don’t believe that God purposes the salvation of all men, but only the salvation of the elect:Deuteronomy 29:29
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (cf Rom 8:30).

Perhaps you can help me understand the difference between God’s will, and God’s purpose?

How is it that God is sovereign, yet He permits some to reject His purpose for themselves?

This is an element of Reformed theology that has always been a puzzle for me.

All that ordainin’ hardly sounds like freedom—you might want to think about that, and study it more. Then again, you might not. I don’t know.

I agree. Just as Adam and Eve were ordained by God to have freedom, and used it to enslave themselves, and their offspring. I do not believe this was God’s intention for them, or for us.

Scripture posits that every aspect of the choosing in election is the Father’s choosing, and His choosing is not thwarted by the creature.

So, that means that the ones that are called, those whom He purposes to be saved that refuse are not “chosen”?

And if the answer to that is “yes”, can you explain why God would purpose people to be saved, when they were not chosen, or elect? I am so confused about that.

Perhaps it’s time you read the commentaries of some Reformed theologians; if you’re really interested, that is.

I have read a number of them, and the original works of some when I was in Protestant seminary. The reason I returned afterward to the Apostolic Church is because I was unsatisfied.

 

[guanophore]

No, in respect to salvation you don’t participate in the “suffering” of Christ.

Well, those who have received the Apostolic faith do. I think a redemptive understanding of suffering is one of the great shortcomings of modern Protestantism. It seems to have gotten lost when the Reformers separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition.

However, it is a spiritual truth that the believer in Christ is now seen by God as having died with Christ “to sin” on the cross, and now raised to new life with Him in resurrection (Rom. 6:2, 6, 7, 8; Eph. 2:5-6; Col. 3:1-3). It’s the true believer’s position now “in Christ” resurrected before God.At Paul’s conversion Jesus said to Ananias:Acts 9:15-16 "…for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake."Paul’s ministry (stewardship) to the Gentiles would incur great suffering on his part. Christ would use him to not only build His church but minister to it as well.

And Paul understood this mystery of joining in the sufferings of Christ as redemptive, not only for himself, but for the whole Church. We can, by uniting our suffering to His, find fellowship with Him in suffering, and contribute those things that may be added to His sufferings for the sake of His Body, the Church.

Christ Himself accomplished the “work” of reconciliation on the cross. It was His work and His alone. His work of reconciliation is appropriated, in full, to the believer at the time of personal belief in Him. But Paul and the other Apostles were commissioned not with the “work” of reconciliation (this work could only be done by Christ on the cross), but the “WORD of reconciliation” (see 2 Cor. 5:18-19).

Are you saying that participation of the reconciliation of the world to God is not work?

Christ, in His body, through death, accomplished the work of reconciliation (Col. 1:19-20, 22), rose from the dead and ascended back into glory. Nothing was lacking in that perfect work. What was lacking, however, was the “word of reconciliation” which was commissioned to Paul and the other Apostles.

This comes very close to Catholic Teaching. Many Protestants seem to believe that all the “work” and “suffering” was done, and will actually purport that we are not expected to engage in either.

For this commission, Paul especially, suffered (2 Cor. 11:23-29). Not for his salvation, but that through his word others would believe and be saved. Those who have believed the “word of reconciliation” are saved and make up the “body of Christ, which is the church” (Col. 1:24).

I think this rendering emanates from a truncated view of salvation as an event that takes place in time, once for all time. Paul clearly stated that he was compelled to preach the word, and made reference to being disqualified, as well as other language that indicated that he may not arrive at the “prize”.

Paul’s call into ministry involved great suffering on his part for the sake of the church, the body of Christ. But it’s through Christ’s suffering and sacrificial death on the cross through which God saves those who believe in Him.

And those who participate in His suffering can also participate in the salvation of those who believe.

Salvation involves: Redemption from sin (complete forgiveness); reconciliation to God; sanctification in Christ; justification as a new, righteous standing before God; the gift of eternal life; and the future glorification of the body to be conformed with the body of His glory. All this according to GRACE through FAITH alone.

Faith is never alone. It always abides with Love, and Hope.

 

[guanophore]

But there’s great debate on what you’ve written above.

First of all, where does it say in Scripture that divine justification is qualified with the word “initial?” Or where does it say Jesus provides justification, even so-called “initial” justification?

Like the word Trinity, it is the concept that is found in Scripture.
Are we not in agreement that there is a point at which the Divine Life in Christ begins/starts?

Phil 1:6
he who began a good work in you

Gal 3:3-4
Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?

Rev 2:3-6
4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

The fact is, Jesus provided redemption through His blood; but it is God Himself who GIFTS justification to the believer “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” He justifies the believer, giftwise, through the perfect, finished, redemptive work of His beloved Son on the cross.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

Hence, it is impossible for justification to be merely "*initial*,"

Ths is a non sequitor. Jesus does “gift” us. The new life begins. There is an initial starting point that occurs because of the free gift of God. We begin in the Spirit.

 i.e., subject to destruction or waiting to be completed by the perseverance men.

It is true that Scripture is clear that, if a person falls from grace, his last state is actually “worse” than the first. That indicates, along with the other testimony to the event of initial justification, that a permanent change has occurred.

I agree with you, perseverance cannot be completed by men. It is God, who is at work in us who is able to preserve us.

Such a notion is Biblically inaccurate and nothing short of blasphemy.

You are right, it is blasphemous to say that man can preserve himself before God. It is a mystery to my why Protestants constantly accuse Catholics of this blasphemy. Somehow, when Protestants claim that they persevere by the grace of God, this is permitted, but for Catholics to claim that it is God in us who works to will and to do His good pleasure, this is not permitted for us.

According to the Scriptures, the only persevering work on which God justifies anyone is that of the incarnate Son. His redemptive work on the cross, *alone*.

Indeed! To separate the good works that God has prepared before hand that we should walk in them from the redemptive work of Christ on the cross would render them useless.

 

[sandusky]

Perhaps you can help me understand the difference between God’s will, and God’s purpose?

How is it that God is sovereign, yet He permits some to reject His purpose for themselves?

This is an element of Reformed theology that has always been a puzzle for me.

I thought that I’d written and posted this for you last year, but it was for someone else.

The initial question was with respect to 1 Tim 2:3-5.

Scripture teaches predestination/election to salvation, both of us understand that, as each of our respective soteriologies teaches that. That should not be a problem for you.

When one understands election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, it should be evident, necessarily, that another choice of God is at work: His sovereign choice not to save others.

That’s known as reprobation—God’s sovereign decision, before creation, to punish for their sins, those not chosen for salvation. It is through that choice that God manifests His justice.

What’s observed in scripture is that God’s will is spoken of in two distinct aspects: God’s “secret” will, and His “revealed” will, or will of “precept” (Dt 29:29).

God’s revealed will is His declaration concerning what men should do, or should not do because God has commanded them so to do, or so not to do.

God’s revealed will is described by the Gk word thelō. That ”thelō” will of God, is the will of God that men disobey.

Regarding God’s secret will, it’s described by the Gk word boolay. That is His secret Counsel, His Divine Purpose. That ”boolay” will of God is the Divine Purpose of God that no man can disobey or thwart. A few exceptions interchange the Greek words, but overall, thelō and boolay describe God’s will as revealed, or secret respectively.

Back to reprobation, does scripture teach it? I think scripture does.

Jude speaks of some persons, “who ***long ago were designated for this condemnation, *** ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

Paul says:Romans 9:17-22

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?Don’t be fooled by the “WHAT IF,” as it’s a statement of fact, in a rhetorical question—God is now doing what v 22 describes (cf v17).

We see further in Rom 11:7, that God did not choose all to be saved when Paul says of Israel, ”…the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” And Peter echoes both Jude, and Paul, when he says, “they stumble because they disobey [refuse to repent and believe] the word, ***as they were destined ***[etethēsan] to do” (1 Pet 2:7, 8).

And Jesus thanked the Father both for hiding the knowledge of salvation from some, and for revealing it to others, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in your sight” (Mt 11:25, 26).

That God desires, or commands all men to be saved is seen in Acts 17:30, “God is now declaring to men, that all people everywhere should repent…”

Do all people repent? We know they don’t, even though it’s God’s revealed will that they should.

God also reveals that He desires men to live moral lives. That is seen in the moral law He gave to the Jews. God has made it clear to men, in the Decalogue, what they shall not do.

However, even though the Decalogue is God’s revealed will for men, they disobey, and break His law. Sometimes His punishment is swift, and other times, He is “longsuffering,” and forebears punishment (cf Rom 9:22).

God’s secret will, or Divine purpose, is seen in various passages of scripture.

In accordance with His Divine Purpose, God has predestined some to glory according to His secret Counsel (boolay). (Eph 1:3-6, 11).

Again, God’s secret will, His Divine Purpose, can neither be disobeyed by anyone, nor thwarted by anyone.

Further of evidence of God’s Divine Purpose are revealed elsewhere, “This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God you nailed to a cross…” (Acts 2:23).

We see God’s “secret” will stated in other passages, James says, ***"If the Lord wills, *** we shall live and we shall do this or that” (Jas 4:15; see also: Gen 50:20; Acts 21:14; Rom 1:10, 15:32; 1 Cor 4:19; 1 Pet 3:17; 4:19; Jas 1:18; Heb 6:17).

So the 1 Tim 2 passage is a statement of God’s revealed will—that all men be saved, but not a statement of His Divine Purpose, in which He saves some, and consigns others to destruction.

 

[Marquette]

I agree. It’s men, in their unbelief, who complicate divine grace - not the Scriptures.of God."

John 3:36 "He who believes (pisteuo) in the Son has eternal life; but he who believes not (apeitheo) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."N.T.

What translation are you using here? I have the New American Standard and mine says:

 

[Marquette]

Moondweller -

You quoted:

John 3:36 "He who believes (pisteuo) in the Son has eternal life; but he who believes not (apeitheo) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."N.T.

What translation are you using? I have the New American Standard Version and it says:John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who DOES NOT OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

 

[ncgolf]

Acts 26:18 "…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified (how?) by faith in Me.’…says Jesus

I re-read Acts 26:18 … and what I read is …“to open their eyes that they may turn their hearts from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been consecrated by faith in me.” May implies the gift will do it if is accepted … “may” implies possibility not finality. What if they do not wish their eyes to be opened?

.No. Personal faith in Christ alone is the means through which God saves the believer by GRACE.

I agree but it the faith is not personal … a dimension of faith is between you and God but that is not the totality of it … I have said this before faith is not something you own like a home or car but a gift and as such is to be shared in the manner it was given.

“Sanctity” is the quality of being “holy.” “Holy” in the Scriptures means being set apart, which is the definition of being sanctified.

We are closer … we are being sanctifed … hopefully more today than yesterday.

The one who believes in Christ unto salvation is “sanctified” in the resurrected Christ. God has set him apart for His own eternal purposes “in Christ.” It’s God who makes men “holy” by setting them apart through faith in Christ Jesus alone, in whom they “have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14).AMEN. Works demonstrate salvation faith (the context of James’ argument in Ja. 2), but are not the cause of it (salvation). The believer, saved by grace through faith…not as a result of works" (Eph. 2:8-9), is revealed as being now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works,” but not BY them. Only one Man’s work is ever considered when God saves men: The vicarious, efficacious, expiatory, propitiatory, redemptive, finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Yes … it is Christ’s sacrifice that opens up all of grace for us … Amen … but like Christ the work is not finished until death. Christ had to die for us … death was required for the totality of the gift … it is no different for us.

Because through this Divine work, and this work alone, can God remain just when He justifies the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). That’s the power of the cross.

1 Cor 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (cf. Rom. 1:16-17).
​

You are right … we are being saved.​

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

I agree. Just as Adam and Eve were ordained by God to have freedom, and used it to enslave themselves, and their offspring. I do not believe this was God’s intention for them, or for us.

By that statement you endow the creature with power and authority over the creator, which I find a deep-seated truth within the minds of most Catholics because of their pre-commitment to “free-will.”

The fact that Adam fell is indicative of the fall being God’s purpose, or it wouldn’t have happened—it’s that simple!

In Ps 115, the psalmist says of God that He “sits in the heavens, and He does whatever He pleases.”

Therefore, one of the things that can be said of the fall of Adam with very great certainty, is that it was somehow pleasing to God for it to have happened; if it would not be pleasing to God for it to have happened, then it wouldn’t have happened—it’s that simple!

You know, people are not surprised by God’s rescue of the people of Israel from enslavement in Egypt, but they fail to recognize that He put them into that slavery, and left them in it for 400 + years.

It was, in some way, pleasing for God to have done so.

All events are necessary to God’s plan, no event is inconsequential, or meaningless in God’s creation.

The only way an event could be meaningless, is if God didn’t purpose the event.

guanophore:

So, that means that the ones that are called, those whom He purposes to be saved that refuse are not “chosen”?

After reading your question many times, I think that’s actually a statement of your position phrased as a question.

 

[guanophore]

I agree. It’s men, in their unbelief, who complicate divine grace - not the Scriptures.

I thought you did not believe this was possible?

John 3:36 “He who believes (pisteuo) in the Son has eternal life; but he who believes not (apeitheo) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”[/indent]You can see by the above verses that Christ put the weight of salvation on faith alone.

No. The faith of which Christ speaks is never alone. It is never separated from Divine Hope and Love. It is faith that works, so it is never separated from works either.

The “weight” of salvation is actually grace. Faith is the faculty through which we access that grace.

in the context of salvation He presents Himself, throughout the Gospel accounts, not as the "*ultimate role model*" but as the OBJECT of saving faith.

Actually, He does both. That is what is meant when He says “come after me”.

The Apostle affirms this when he says “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ”.

He requires faith alone because it’s through His work alone that one is saved.Paul emphatically states:Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works…”

I have never counted the number of times the Reformed insert the word “alone” into the biblical texts. nor have I counted how many times this verse is used and truncated at V. 10. There seems to be a very deliberate attempt to separate the grace that saves from the grace that produces the works for which we are saved. The Apostles never separated them.

When Paul makes reference to works at all he addresses those who are already saved, that is, those identified as “created in Christ FOR good works” (Eph. 2:10). Works of value are reserved for the saved,

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 According to the N.T. salvation is divinely gifted upon faith in Christ alone - the Object of salvation faith.

Yes, except that faith in Christ is never alone.

Was the Trinity in the Scriptures prior to the 4th century?

The word was never there, before, or after the 4th century.

Eternal security was revealed in the N.T. Scriptures the moment they were penned. It’s only when men returned to the Scriptures as their final authority that they fully understood,

Scripture never was, nor shall be, the “final authority”. Authority can only be wielded by persons. Authority contains elements that do not belong to books, however Holy.

after many years of religious confusion, that they are eternally secure in Christ, saved and kept by Divine grace alone (Heb. 7:25).Judaism could save no one. Through the Law came the knowledge of sin - not salvation.

Do you think no one was saved before Christ?

Christ didn’t change the direction of the salvation message; there was no salvation message according to the Law.

Such a statement reflects a gross lack of understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.

The Person and work of Jesus Christ Himself is the salvation message, and the Law pointed to Him:Rom 3:20-22 “…because by the works of law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through law {comes} the knowledge of sin. But now apart from law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe;”

Salvation has always been by grace, through faith. This is how those under the law were saved as well.

Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

Those who accepted the tutoring did, indeed, discover salvation by grace through faith.

 

[guanophore]

Being now sanctified in Christ is part and parcel to salvation.“Sanctity” is the quality of being “holy.”

Why is it, when Catholics say this, we are erroneously accused of clinging to a “works salvation”?

 

[paul_c]

Sandusky, I thought this was particularly well researched and written:

When one understands election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, it should be evident, necessarily, that another choice of God is at work: His sovereign choice not to save others.

That’s known as reprobation—God’s sovereign decision, before creation, to punish for their sins, those not chosen for salvation. It is through that choice that God manifests His justice.

What’s observed in scripture is that God’s will is spoken of in two distinct aspects: God’s “secret” will, and His “revealed” will, or will of “precept” (Dt 29:29).

God’s revealed will is His declaration concerning what men should do, or should not do because God has commanded them so to do, or so not to do.

God’s revealed will is described by the Gk word thelō. That ”thelō” will of God, is the will of God that men disobey.

Regarding God’s secret will, it’s described by the Gk word boolay. That is His secret Counsel, His Divine Purpose. That ”boolay” will of God is the Divine Purpose of God that no man can disobey or thwart. A few exceptions interchange the Greek words, but overall, thelō and boolay describe God’s will as revealed, or secret respectively.

Back to reprobation, does scripture teach it? I think scripture does.

Jude speaks of some persons, “who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

Paul says:
Romans 9:17-22

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
Don’t be fooled by the “WHAT IF,” as it’s a statement of fact, in a rhetorical question—God is now doing what v 22 describes (cf v17).

We see further in Rom 11:7, that God did not choose all to be saved when Paul says of Israel, ”…the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” And Peter echoes both Jude, and Paul, when he says, “they stumble because they disobey [refuse to repent and believe] the word, as they were destined [etethēsan] to do” (1 Pet 2:7, 8).

And Jesus thanked the Father both for hiding the knowledge of salvation from some, and for revealing it to others, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in your sight” (Mt 11:25, 26).

That God desires, or commands all men to be saved is seen in Acts 17:30, “God is now declaring to men, that all people everywhere should repent…”

Do all people repent? We know they don’t, even though it’s God’s revealed will that they should.

God also reveals that He desires men to live moral lives. That is seen in the moral law He gave to the Jews. God has made it clear to men, in the Decalogue, what they shall not do.

However, even though the Decalogue is God’s revealed will for men, they disobey, and break His law. Sometimes His punishment is swift, and other times, He is “longsuffering,” and forebears punishment (cf Rom 9:22).

God’s secret will, or Divine purpose, is seen in various passages of scripture.

In accordance with His Divine Purpose, God has predestined some to glory according to His secret Counsel (boolay). (Eph 1:3-6, 11).

Again, God’s secret will, His Divine Purpose, can neither be disobeyed by anyone, nor thwarted by anyone.

Further of evidence of God’s Divine Purpose are revealed elsewhere, “This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God you nailed to a cross…” (Acts 2:23).

We see God’s “secret” will stated in other passages, James says, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that” (Jas 4:15; see also: Gen 50:20; Acts 21:14; Rom 1:10, 15:32; 1 Cor 4:19; 1 Pet 3:17; 4:19; Jas 1:18; Heb 6:17).

So the 1 Tim 2 passage is a statement of God’s revealed will—that all men be saved, but not a statement of His Divine Purpose, in which He saves some, and consigns others to destruction.

I think Catholics can stand behind most of what you have here.
The one thing I would say that Catholics would add to this is that Man does have free will and that God respects this.

The Catholic Church believes that God does have a plan and that that plan can not be thwarted by man, since God is omnipotent. The Catholic Church also teaches that man has free will and that God will respect our wishes to be saved or not saved.

The great mystery within the church is how God simultaneously manages to have man’s free will act in perfect accordance with God’s plan. There are various theories(Thomism / Molinism) of how this work but the mechanism isn’t as important as the outcome, which we are bound to believe. Free will exists for man, God has a plan and the two cooperate perfectly. So under this construct, man damns himself by following his free will into sin. Even though God knew that this would happen as part of his plan, he did not force it on man, it was man’s free choice that caused his damnation.

This construct has two basic advantages over the one you advocate:

1. It retains the fact that God has a plan that can not be thwarted and that all salvation is made possible by God.
2. It also retains a true judgment of man based on his own actions and intents that is both just and merciful

 

[guanophore]

I thought that I'd written and posted this for you last year, but it was for someone else.

The initial question was with respect to 1 Tim 2:3-5.

Thank you, that is what I was seeking. I knew there must be a creative way to dispense with any scriptures that seem to indicate the monergistic view was not correct!

What’s observed in scripture is that God’s will is spoken of in two distinct aspects: God’s “secret” will, and His “revealed” will, or will of “precept” (Dt 29:29).

God’s revealed will is His declaration concerning what men should do, or should not do because God has commanded them so to do, or so not to do.

Is this what some Reformed posters are calling God’s “counsel” or “advice”?

God’s revealed will is described by the Gk word thelō. That ”thelō” will of God, is the will of God that men disobey.

Regarding God’s secret will, it’s described by the Gk word boolay. That is His secret Counsel, His Divine Purpose. That ”boolay” will of God is the Divine Purpose of God that no man can disobey or thwart. A few exceptions interchange the Greek words, but overall, thelō and boolay describe God’s will as revealed, or secret respectively.

Ok, so you are saying this passage:

Luke 7:30
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

is an “exception” to the rule?

Can you please explain how it is an exception, and how it is that the word used here indicates will that cannot be thwarted, yet it is clear that the pharisees do thwart it?

Thanks for your help.

 

[guanophore]

By that statement you endow the creature with  power and authority over the creator, which I find a deep-seated truth within the minds of most Catholics because of their pre-commitment to “free-will.”  :shrug:

I am sure, since you do not receive the Apostolic Teaching on the nature of man and the nature of freedom, that ti does seem this way. However, this is not the case. The fact that God has ordained that we have freedom to accept or reject a state of eternal fellowship with him does not give us “authority” over the Creator. We are given freedom, but it has limits.

A good example of this is the angels. They were also given freedom. When some exercised that freedom to rebel against Him, “he did not spare the angels”. Neither will He spare us, if we neglect so great a salvation.

The fact that Adam fell is indicative of the fall being God’s purpose, or it wouldn’t have happened—it’s that simple!

It was within His permissive will.

In Ps 115, the psalmist says of God that He “sits in the heavens, and **He does whatever He pleases.”**

Indeed. it has pleased Him to give mankind choice.

Therefore, one of the things that can be said of the fall of Adam with very great certainty, is that it was somehow pleasing to God for it to have happened; if it would not be pleasing to God for it to have happened, then it wouldn’t have happened—it’s that simple!

There are many wrongs that do not please God. Yes, He does what He pleases, and mankind, as well as the angels (devils now) do things that displease him. There are severe consequences for engaging in behavior that is displeasing to God:

Num 14:34-35
“…and you shall know my displeasure.’ 35 I, the LORD, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.”

You know, people are not surprised by God’s rescue of the people of Israel from enslavement in Egypt, but they fail to recognize that He put them into that slavery, and left them in it for 400 + years.

Really? Which people are those?

Do you think that God might have allowed something different had his people obeyed Him as they ought?

 It was, in some way, pleasing for God to have done so.

This is a logical fallacy. One can easily see how illogical by simply looking at a relationship of a father to his son. The father is pleased for the son to choose wisely. IF the son chooses unwisely, the father will be displeased.

Deut 9:19
19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure which the LORD bore against you, so that he was ready to destroy you.

It is a risky thing to develop theology from hymns.

There is some very good theology in hymns. There is some bad too.

All events are necessary to God’s plan, no event is inconsequential, or meaningless in God’s creation.

The only way an event could be meaningless, is if God didn’t purpose the event.

Well, we have a different perception of God, and His way of interacting with humans. We also have a difference of understanding about mankind, and the nature of free will.

After reading your question many times, I think that’s actually a statement of your position phrased as a question.

I think you are right. I can’t help but believe that it is possible for mankind to reject God’s purpose for himself. I am genuinely curious, however, how the Reformed tradition dispatches this passage.

Luke 7:30
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

 

[qui_est_ce]

Perhaps you can help me understand the difference between God’s will, and God’s purpose?

How is it that God is sovereign, yet He permits some to reject His purpose for themselves?

This is an element of Reformed theology that has always been a puzzle for me.

Thank you, I find this very confusing as well.

I agree. Just as Adam and Eve were ordained by God to have freedom, and used it to enslave themselves, and their offspring. I do not believe this was God’s intention for them, or for us.

Adam and Eve were clearly “saved” but lost their salvation when they chose to eat of the fruit of the of the tree in the middle of the garden. They were banished from Eden. They FELL from grace.

So, that means that the ones that are called, those whom He purposes to be saved that refuse are not “chosen”?

And if the answer to that is “yes”, can you explain why God would purpose people to be saved, when they were not chosen, or elect? I am so confused about that.

I** have read a number of them, **and the original works of some when I was in Protestant seminary. The reason I returned afterward to the Apostolic Church is because I was unsatisfied.

I too find the explanations and verses to support them tortured and confusing. They are out of context with Salvation History, Biblical Tradition, and the practices of the early Christians, the disciples of the Apostles.

It seems that without an Authority, all interpretations are merely “interpretations of men,” yet Jesus promised the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and He gave us the Advocate. Yet so many here claim to have the Advocate, yet disagree.

In this thread, the Moondweller and Sandusky agree to disagree with the Catholic Church. Would a Reformed and a Lutheran agree on Salvation? Southern Baptist? How do you know who is right?

No, it’s just not in line with the promises of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Moondweller -

You quoted:

John 3:36 "He who believes (pisteuo) in the Son has eternal life; but he who believes not (apeitheo) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."N.T.

What translation are you using? I have the New American Standard Version and it says:John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who DOES NOT OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

There is no difference in the concepts. Saving faith is faith that obeys. It is faith that works, faith that has love and hope. It is obedient, active, participative faith.

 

[qui_est_ce]

At Paul’s conversion Jesus said to Ananias:Acts 9:15-16 "…for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake."Paul’s ministry (stewardship) to the Gentiles would incur great suffering on his part. Christ would use him to not only build His church but minister to it as well.

As did the martyrs. Suffering and building the Church was not left to Paul alone.

is work of reconciliation is appropriated, in full, to the believer at the time of personal belief in Him.

An ACT

But Paul and the other Apostles were commissioned not with the “work” of reconciliation (this work could only be done by Christ on the cross), but the “WORD of reconciliation” (see 2 Cor. 5:18-19).

Catholics do not preach a salvation of faith plus works.sed:

For this commission, Paul especially, suffered (2 Cor. 11:23-29). Not for his salvation, but that through his word others would believe and be saved. Those who have believed the “word of reconciliation” are saved and make up the “body of Christ, which is the church” (Col. 1:24).

The ACT of FAITH. They must CHOOSE to believe.

Salvation involves: Redemption from sin (complete forgiveness); reconciliation to God; sanctification in Christ; justification as a new, righteous standing before God; the gift of eternal life; and the future glorification of the body to be conformed with the body of His glory. All this according to GRACE through FAITH alone.

Faith yes, but not ALONE.

***1 Corinthians 13: 1-13

1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love,** I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4
3Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
5
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
6
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
7
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8
Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
9
For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
10
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11
When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
12
At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
13
5 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love. *

You can’t explain any of this away. Love is a verb. The whole chapter speaks of the in insufficiency of Faith ALONE. Yes, faith, but not ALONE.