SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[Odell]

You say there is a contradiction between free will and “once-saved-always-saved.”

Prove it.

-Tina “Not that I am not a Contradiction” G

Can one choose to leave God once they are saved?

If so how is it that you believe osas?

 

[TinaG]

Can one choose to leave God once they are saved?

If so how is it that you believe osas?

Two (leading/misleading) questions are a proof?

You were asked to prove something. That is not a proof of anything.

-Tina “Or was that one question in two?” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, UnityofTrinity,

I am starting to wonder… does this mean we have a hypo-Calvinist for those who almost get it, a Calvinist who thinks they get it and a hyper-Calvinist for the guys who are more saved than the mere Calvinist?

As I recall, I read the item also - and, it still has the same basic flaws that remain unanswered when it comes to Free Will. None of the OSAS group has said that they were forced to respond to a post - or were constrained from answering a post … they just freely chose to answer it. And, this is just one of many freely made choices that they enacted during the course of this day. If there is no Free Will - then none of the simple and ordinary activities of daily living could be accomplished because each of us must begin by willing their acomplishment into our minds to get our bodies to complete the task - like getting out of bed in the morning.

As long as any branch of Calvinism denies the presence of Free Will - there will be major problems.

God bless

Tina, I did read your article on hyperCalvinism and Calvinism and again it still leaves the question unanswered as well as failing to reconcile freewill and predestination. If God indeed has predestined for some to goes unsaved, then no amount of freewill can save that soul

 

[PRmerger]

Tradition.

Could you cite this, please? What tradition says that David was still going to heaven if he never repented?

Now, if you’re only joking about the answer (and the winky face is in indicator of this, yes?) then what’s your actual answer? Thanks. If it’s that you really don’t know, that’s acceptable, too.

 

[TinaG]

Could you cite this, please? What tradition says that David was still going to heaven if he never repented?

Now, if you’re only joking about the answer (and the winky face is in indicator of this, yes?) then what’s your actual answer? Thanks. If it’s that you really don’t know, that’s acceptable, too.

Hi, PR.

Repentance is not necessary for going to heaven. If it is, then Jesus and Mary are in hell, as are all unborn babies and children under the age of reason. The primary cause of going to heaven is God’s free and sovereign choice - and then He does whatever He thinks is necessary to get someone there - whether repenting, through sacraments, fire and water, eating liver, whatever. Repentance may be required for the elect to go to heaven, but if it is, God would make sure the elect repented, right?

-Tina “Potentially Repenting for Getting Involved in this Thread” G

 

[Odell]

Two (leading/misleading) questions are a proof?

You were asked to prove something. That is not a proof of anything.

-Tina “Or was that one question in two?” G

It’s an honest question.

I’m one cannot choose to leaved God after being saved than they no longer have the freedom to leave.

If my wife says I have to stay home and can’t go out with the buddies I’m not free to leave. Similarly if I am in Christ and cannot summit back to the yoke of slavery than I am not free to leave Christ.

So l ask again can you choose Tina leave God and summit back to the yoke of slavery?

 

[Odell]

Hi, PR.

Repentance is not necessary for going to heaven. If it is, then Jesus and Mary are in hell, as are all unborn babies and children under the age of reason. The primary cause of going to heaven is God’s free and sovereign choice - and then He does whatever He thinks is necessary to get someone there - whether repenting, through sacraments, fire and water, eating liver, whatever. Repentance may be required for the elect to go to heaven, but if it is, God would make sure the elect repented, right?

-Tina “Potentially Repenting for Getting Involved in this Thread” G

You can’t use that argument That’s the same argument I use when people say baptism is not necessary. My logic goes like this it’s the norm as well as repentence and faith.

I go through the same spill about faith. Is faith necessary? I’m assuming you and 99% of the Protestants out there would say yes. Then I would go into the whole spill about babies and mentally handicapped.

No Tina Faith repentence and baptism are the norm. We don’t claim that God Himself is bound to this.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PR.

Repentance is not necessary for going to heaven. If it is, then Jesus and Mary are in hell, as are all unborn babies and children under the age of reason.

If they have freely chosen sin, Tina, then they must repent.

Nothing unclean enters heaven, as Revelation proclaims, and thus if they have not repented, they are unclean.

Now, of course, Jesus, Mary and all of those under the age of reason have no need to repent, as they have nerve sinned.

And I hope and pray that you never repent…
(of having gotten involved in this thread. )

 

[TinaG]

It’s an honest question.

I’m one cannot choose to leaved God after being saved than they no longer have the freedom to leave.

If my wife says I have to stay home and can’t go out with the buddies I’m not free to leave. Similarly if I am in Christ and cannot summit back to the yoke of slavery than I am not free to leave Christ.

So l ask again can you choose Tina leave God and summit back to the yoke of slavery?

I don’t understand your post.

-Tina “Please edit it” G

 

[TinaG]

If they have freely chosen sin, Tina, then they must repent.

Nothing unclean enters heaven, as Revelation proclaims, and thus if they have not repented, they are unclean.

Now, of course, Jesus, Mary and all of those under the age of reason have no need to repent, as they have nerve sinned.

And I hope and pray that you never repent…
(of having gotten involved in this thread. )

We just go round and round and round and round.

I explain that I do not deny free will.
Then they tell that OSAS is wrong because it denies free will.
Then I explain AGAIN that I do not deny will.
etc.

They do not understand Paul.
They do not understand Augustine.
They do not understand Aquinas.
They do not understand Calvin.

-Tina “They don’t understand my posts either!” G

 

[PRmerger]

We just go round and round and round and round.

I explain that I do not deny free will.
Then they tell that OSAS is wrong because it denies free will.
Then I explain AGAIN that I do not deny will.
etc.

They do not understand Paul.
They do not understand Augustine.
They do not understand Aquinas.
They do not understand Calvin.

-Tina “They don’t understand my posts either!” G

Umm…I think, Tina, that you may not be responding to the correct poster here? I did not mention anything about free will.

 

[tqualey]

Hi TinaG,

There is a contradiction - Free Will and Calvin’s version of predestination … or pre-determination more accurately - are totally incompatable.

The proof is that Calvinism denies that man must accept the Grace of God in order to be saved and that God wills the damnation of souls for His glory. In Catholic doctrine, Souls risk damnation by freely rejecting God’s Grace. Here are some examples of differences between Catholic doctrine and OSAS

**CALVINISM AND CATHOLICISM CONTRASTED

Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.**
Here is a link: philvaz.com/apologetics/num21.htm

I submit that by claiming Calvin had no contradiction between his teaching on free will and that of the Catholic Churhc you have misrepensented Calvin’s teaching. St. Augustine defended Free Will as did St.Thomas Aquinas - Calvin denied Free Will.

God bless

You are the one asserting a contradiction. The burden of proof is on you.

-Tina “Enough of a Burden Already” G

 

[Lisa44]

Canon 22 is confusing but they were dealing with predestination. It means to say that while God aids those in persevering He never aids anyone not to persevere-“aids” as in hardening ones heart for that purpose, for example.

We just go round and round and round and round.

I explain that I do not deny free will.
Then they tell that OSAS is wrong because it denies free will.
Then I explain AGAIN that I do not deny will.
etc.

They do not understand Paul.
They do not understand Augustine.
They do not understand Aquinas.
They do not understand Calvin.

-Tina “They don’t understand my posts either!” G

Would you clarify for us what your position is on free will. Or rather, in your eyes, how is free will compatible with OSAS?

 

[TinaG]

Umm…I think, Tina, that you may not be responding to the correct poster here? I did not mention anything about free will.

Sorry.

I seem to be posting cross-eyed.

-Tina “Now Taking a Break from this Thread” G

 

[Church_Militant]

One of the most clear passages indicating a loss of salvation is found in Revelation.
Chapter 3:[5] He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Now, according to other passages in the New Testament having your name in that book of life means you are saved, but if one has a name in it that is blotted out, then the rest is self evident that they lost their salvation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

You have be guilty of sin in order to have something to repent of. For the rest of us - this is not a problem. Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity - no sin there. By special Grace - Mary was born sinless and did not sin during her life time - no sin there, either. So, saying that, “… Jesus and Mary are in hell…” is really out of bounds.

Additonal hyperbolic statements like eating liver to get to heave are not doing much for the quality of your argument on OSAS.

Maybe you can get serious and tell us about how your view of Free Will be compatible with OSAS differs from what Calvin taught.

God bless

Hi, PR.

Repentance is not necessary for going to heaven. If it is, then Jesus and Mary are in hell, as are all unborn babies and children under the age of reason. The primary cause of going to heaven is God’s free and sovereign choice - and then He does whatever He thinks is necessary to get someone there - whether repenting, through sacraments, fire and water, eating liver, whatever. Repentance may be required for the elect to go to heaven, but if it is, God would make sure the elect repented, right?

-Tina “Potentially Repenting for Getting Involved in this Thread” G

 

[fhansen]

Would you clarify for us what your position is on free will. Or rather, in your eyes, how is free will compatible with OSAS?

First of all I had misread Canon 22, BTW. My mistake. Canon 22 basically means that only with Gods help can man persevere. Without it he’s unable, with it he’s able. It doesn’t mean he must persevere with God’s help. Read it in light of Canons 26 & 27

**CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.**

The primary cause of going to heaven is God’s free and sovereign choice - and then He does whatever He thinks is necessary to get someone there - whether repenting, through sacraments, fire and water, eating liver, whatever. Repentance may be required for the elect to go to heaven, but if it is, God would make sure the elect repented, right?

-Tina “Potentially Repenting for Getting Involved in this Thread” G

The underlined is where we would have a problem. Man can’t repent without God-but he still doesn’t* have* to repent- he can resist it. God’s judgments are just-because they’re based on love/justice-not on sovereign will/whim that would damn someone for no reason by electing some to heaven and withholding election to everyone else.

If by OSAS we mean that whoever ends up saved will be saved, well, yes, I sure can’t disagree with that. And this implies, of course, that whoever ends up persevering will persevere. But all of that goes without saying, because *we can’t be certain of who it applies to until the end. *

And in any case, if it is all done by God’s sovereign will, with man’s free response having nothing to do with it then I can’t agree. We’d be puppets and God would’ve set up the whole drama of exiling man from the garden into a world of pain, suffering, and death for nothing. OTOH, if God sent us into this world to do with His grace what we can with the time and opportunity we have, that makes sense-that’s a God that makes sense. You just can’t separate man’s will out of this matter as definitively as you seem to want.

 

[fhansen]

And so we go around in circles because what I am asking people who support this position of the compatibility of free will with God’s omniscience is - *how *is that possible? Because if you assert that a man can do something other than what God knows he will do then either you are calling God a liar, or you are saying that God doesn’t perfectly know the future.

There is no distinction between God’s knowing and his forcing, unless you can explain what that distinction is.

Of course a man can’t do something other than what God knows he’ll do-but that doesn’t affect his choice to do it-it just means Gods knows. If we knew what God happens to know then that knowledge could affect our personal choice but we certainly don’t know what He knows anyway.

If today God told you the outcome of, say, a war being fought somewhere in the world, so you knew with absolute certainty what would happen, would your knowledge, by itself, change the way anyone fights it? And even if you told them what you claimed to know, would they listen, no matter who you were? No one would believe you -they’d just continue to go their own way-doing whatever they were going to do. Our free will *consists *in God allowing us to go our own way, doing whatever we’re going to do. If this wasn’t true, then God would be the author of sin-there’s no one left.

 

[Lisa44]

Of course a man can’t do something other than what God knows he’ll do-but that doesn’t affect his choice to do it-it just means Gods knows. If we knew what God happens to know then that knowledge could affect our personal choice but we certainly don’t know what He knows anyway.

If today God told you the outcome of, say, a war being fought somewhere in the world, so you knew with absolute certainty what would happen, would your knowledge change the way anyone fights it? Even if you told them what you claimed to know, would they listen, no matter who you were? No one would believe you -they’d just continue to go their own way-doing whatever they were going to do. Our free will *consists *in God allowing us to go our own way, doing whatever we’re going to do. If this wasn’t true, then God would be the author of sin-there’s no one left.

No, it wouldn’t affect us. We would still do what we would do. (sorry to use this example to death) but just like Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Peter said No I won’t!

People think they have free will. So I agree with you that it doesn’t affect us (God’s knowing) because we* think *we are self willed.

As for your conclusion that if we don’t have free will then God is the author of sin - well who gave us free will?

 

[fhansen]

No, it wouldn’t affect us. We would still do what we would do. (sorry to use this example to death) but just like Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Peter said No I won’t!

People think they have free will. So I agree with you that it doesn’t affect us (God’s knowing) because we* think *we are self willed.

As for your conclusion that if we don’t have free will then God is the author of sin - well who gave us free will?

Free will can be defined as the freedom to oppose His will. If He authors sin, I wouldn’t want to spend any time with Him anyway. Either He directly wills all rape, torture, genocide or the option that causes those things is ours. There’d be no reason to pray that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven-because everything here is already His will.