R
Randy_Carson
Guest
NC-
Thanks for your thoughts on my hypothetical.
Thanks for your thoughts on my hypothetical.
- Status
N
ncgolf
Guest
I remember back in the day when “root cause” analysis was all the rage, don’t fix just the problem find out why the problem occurred …
anyway to use that analogy here … why do Catholics and Noncatholic see things so differently … what is the root. If I go back and try to see this root and come up with only a single … I get the differences beginning with a most basic of all Christian thinking … sin.
Catholics - Sin can temporarily or permanently separate us from God … even after justification. Catholics use the Sacraments to strengthen us in our resolve to resist our natural concupiscence.
Noncatholic does not see sin the same light. Sin does not separate us from God … lack of faith does. Any effect of sin after knowing one is of the elect seems to have no consequence … even though one may still sin.
Cathoics view the sacramental life to help us “fight the good fight” … this need is unecessary for the elect.
anyway to use that analogy here … why do Catholics and Noncatholic see things so differently … what is the root. If I go back and try to see this root and come up with only a single … I get the differences beginning with a most basic of all Christian thinking … sin.
Catholics - Sin can temporarily or permanently separate us from God … even after justification. Catholics use the Sacraments to strengthen us in our resolve to resist our natural concupiscence.
Noncatholic does not see sin the same light. Sin does not separate us from God … lack of faith does. Any effect of sin after knowing one is of the elect seems to have no consequence … even though one may still sin.
If we do not view sin and its consequences in the same light …then I can see how everything else does not follow … especially the Sacraments.
Cathoics view the sacramental life to help us “fight the good fight” … this need is unecessary for the elect.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Except if you were not saved to begin with:
Which leads us back to OSAS offers no assurance of salvation.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
NonCatholic-
Can one choose to accept or reject faith? Does God predetermine those to whom he will give His gift of faith, and willfully withold faith from others?
Can one choose to accept or reject faith? Does God predetermine those to whom he will give His gift of faith, and willfully withold faith from others?
K
kangkongking
Guest
AMEN to that!
B
broski234
Guest
Guano,
Like I have said before, it is just a matter of time before you catch a logical inconsistency in NC’s responses.
C
coda
Guest
So,if I am “saved” and then go out a couple years later and commit adultery with my best friend’s wife-- I’m still saved? no need to repent?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You would not do that if you were really saved. If you did that, you weren’t really saved to begin with.
C
coda
Guest
So I have no free will?You would not do that if you were really saved. If you did that, you weren’t really saved to begin with.
B
broski234
Guest
Ok, let me give you an analogy…If you are married for 20 years, and your spouse loves you more now than she/he ever did, but you haven’t nurtured your relationship they way your spouse has. And then you go out and cheat on your spouse. Is that to say you were never really married? Or that you never loved your wife? The answer quite plainly is NO!You would not do that if you were really saved. If you did that, you weren’t really saved to begin with.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I think that depends on how Calvinist the OSAS is. I think there are degrees.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That’s a really good argument.
C
coda
Guest
My question was in response to NONCATHOLIC.but, – Are you catholic?
C
coda
Guest
Just to clear thngs up-- I do believe salvation can be lost, as we are not actually" saved" until our particular judgement…You would not do that if you were really saved. If you did that, you weren’t really saved to begin with.
B
broski234
Guest
I agree
C
coda
Guest
???. And what is an OSAS???
C
Cinette
Guest
N
ncgolf
Guest
For Non the judgement is either hell or the reward handed from the Bema Seat.
I had never heard this term before … when I first saw it I thought it was a typo but I googled it and found reference to it.
Non … from what I have read does not believe in the particular judgement. It is either damning (not of the elect) or the reward.
T
The_Smiter
Guest
I agree, too! (For what it’s worth!)
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
NonCatholic!
As for the truth that Christians can fall away, I think that the strongest passage to support this teaching is 2 Peter 2:17-22. I think this passage has been brought up in this thread already, but I’d like to give it a more thorough analysis in hopes that it might persuade you to see it otherwise than you already do:
“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’”
I saw someone post somewhere, perhaps in this thread, but maybe in another, that the conditional statement of verse 20 suggests to him that this is only a hypothetical possibility that will never actually come to pass. “For if…” But what I would like to say is that I think these verses show that what is posed as a hypothesis has indeed already come to pass in the subjects of this warning. The ones who “have escaped the defilements of the world” and are “again entangled in them and overcome” in verse 20 are the false prophets described in verse 19 who are “slaves of corruption,” having been “overcome” and enslaved by that corruption. To say it again, when we move from verse 19 onto the hypothetical argument that Peter makes, we see that the antecedent of that argument (the “if” clause) proposes what the case will be for those who “have escaped the defilements of the world” and “are again entangled in them and overcome.” Do we have any examples of people who have been overcome and who are entangled or enslaved? Certainly! The immediately preceding verse indicates that we do. And so, this is no mere hypothetical proposition lacking the possibility of being fulfilled. It has already been fulfilled. He moves on to say in verse 22 that “what the true proverb says has happened to them.” The conditional statement describes a potential reality that has already been manifested in the lives of these false prophets. Peter is using various images in the forms of a hypothetical argument and a proverb to tell us what has happened.
What else do we learn from the conditional statement? These false prophets are those who “have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20). To understand what Peter is saying here, I think it is very beneficial to look at what Peter himself says in almost the exact same words at the beginning of his letter to and about Christians:
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him Who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (1:3-4).
Please note the extreme similarity in wording between these two passages. I think it very nearly goes without saying that the false prophets – to Peter’s mind – were at one time Christians.
What else do we know about these false prophets? We know that they have denied “the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2:1). And what did God purchase with “the precious blood of Christ?” (1 Peter 1:19): “The church of God, which He obtained with His Own blood” (Acts 20:28). “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor 7:23). You were bought with a price, O false prophets! Having been a member of the church of God, do not then become slaves of corruption, for it would have been better for you “never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back”!
In his essay, “The Meaning of Foreknowledge,” found in Still Sovereign, Reformed theologian S. M. Baugh discusses the teaching about knowing God and of being known by Him in Galatians 4:8-9. At the end of the relevant paragraph he writes, “Such knowledge of God, or rather His knowing us, means being committed to Him, which brings with it certain obligations and dangers.” At the end of this sentence he goes on to refer the reader to 2 Peter 2:20 in order to make his point! “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Peter 2:20). And so, if we have established that the hypothetical argument is a realized hypothesis, then according to S. M. Baugh, we may also say of the false prophets that they had at one time been in a loving relationship with God their father, having been known by Him.
As for the truth that Christians can fall away, I think that the strongest passage to support this teaching is 2 Peter 2:17-22. I think this passage has been brought up in this thread already, but I’d like to give it a more thorough analysis in hopes that it might persuade you to see it otherwise than you already do:
“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’”
I saw someone post somewhere, perhaps in this thread, but maybe in another, that the conditional statement of verse 20 suggests to him that this is only a hypothetical possibility that will never actually come to pass. “For if…” But what I would like to say is that I think these verses show that what is posed as a hypothesis has indeed already come to pass in the subjects of this warning. The ones who “have escaped the defilements of the world” and are “again entangled in them and overcome” in verse 20 are the false prophets described in verse 19 who are “slaves of corruption,” having been “overcome” and enslaved by that corruption. To say it again, when we move from verse 19 onto the hypothetical argument that Peter makes, we see that the antecedent of that argument (the “if” clause) proposes what the case will be for those who “have escaped the defilements of the world” and “are again entangled in them and overcome.” Do we have any examples of people who have been overcome and who are entangled or enslaved? Certainly! The immediately preceding verse indicates that we do.
And so, this is no mere hypothetical proposition lacking the possibility of being fulfilled. It has already been fulfilled. He moves on to say in verse 22 that “what the true proverb says has happened to them.” The conditional statement describes a potential reality that has already been manifested in the lives of these false prophets. Peter is using various images in the forms of a hypothetical argument and a proverb to tell us what has happened.What else do we learn from the conditional statement? These false prophets are those who “have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20). To understand what Peter is saying here, I think it is very beneficial to look at what Peter himself says in almost the exact same words at the beginning of his letter to and about Christians:
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him Who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (1:3-4).
Please note the extreme similarity in wording between these two passages. I think it very nearly goes without saying that the false prophets – to Peter’s mind – were at one time Christians.
What else do we know about these false prophets? We know that they have denied “the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2:1). And what did God purchase with “the precious blood of Christ?” (1 Peter 1:19): “The church of God, which He obtained with His Own blood” (Acts 20:28). “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor 7:23). You were bought with a price, O false prophets! Having been a member of the church of God, do not then become slaves of corruption, for it would have been better for you “never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back”!
In his essay, “The Meaning of Foreknowledge,” found in Still Sovereign, Reformed theologian S. M. Baugh discusses the teaching about knowing God and of being known by Him in Galatians 4:8-9. At the end of the relevant paragraph he writes, “Such knowledge of God, or rather His knowing us, means being committed to Him, which brings with it certain obligations and dangers.” At the end of this sentence he goes on to refer the reader to 2 Peter 2:20 in order to make his point! “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Peter 2:20). And so, if we have established that the hypothetical argument is a realized hypothesis, then according to S. M. Baugh, we may also say of the false prophets that they had at one time been in a loving relationship with God their father, having been known by Him.
- Status