SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[pablope]

Fallen man lacks the ability to turn to God on his own. Pelagianism, on the contrary, asserts that man has that ability.

Now, about those He does NOT select for salvation: when they are passed over for selection, is that not a form of selection also, since there are only two classes of people, those who will wind up blessed, and those who will wind up damned?

So, where am I at on this? I will admit that the logic goes there, but I am not willing to follow it, as it seems to go into human reasoning, and we should stop at the literal language of I know what Scripture says and I do not want to contradict it, however tempting it is for me to force God into my image of Who He is rather than deal with Him on His sometimes frightening terms.

-Tina “And God is Awesome” G

Tina G…I posted this back in post 12…but I would like your views or your take on the following: (from #1 to #4):

(source: deepertruthblog.com/ PREDESTINATION, SALVATION, AND DAMNATION
Calvinism and Catholicism Contrasted)

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS

1. Predestination is not predetermination :

“Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved.” (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)

Predestination is God’s decree of the happiness of the elect. God’s infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God’s foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.

1. Election is a consequence of God’s foreknowledge :

By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly foresees will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. But since election depends on God’s infallible foreknowledge, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not we are in that category — God knows with certainty His elect, but we do not. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved.

1. Free will can resist and reject God’s grace :

“You stiff-necked people…you always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). The angels possessed grace and perfectly intact intellect, and yet many of them freely sinned and rejected God. Adam and Eve possessed grace and a perfectly intact nature, and yet they freely sinned. How much more so is it possible for the born-again Christian, who possesses grace but also a wounded nature and a darkened intellect, to sin also. Paul mentions sins which keep a man from the Kingdom of God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, greed, and so on (1 Cor 6:9-10).

When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, “keep the commandments,” and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: “cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste” and so on (Rev 21:8). Aren’t born-again Christians capable of these sins? And if they die in these sins, how can they possibly inherit heaven? If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.

1. We cannot confuse Election with being “Born Again” :

The set of those who are “born again” (in Catholic and historic Christian understanding those who have been regenerated “of water and Spirit” in the Sacrament of Baptism — John 3:3,5; Acts 2:38) is not necessarily co-extensive with the set of those who will persevere and gain eternal life. Born-again Christians can and (sadly) do fall away. Otherwise free will and (mortal) sin are merely fictitious for a Christian during this life of testing and pilgrimage. Otherwise all the language in Scripture of persevering to the end in order to be saved (cf. Matt 10:22; 24:13; Phil 2:12-13) makes no sense.

 

[Lisa44]

this was a mistake post. ignore.

 

[Lisa44]

I think you may be selling the Catholic Church’s position on predestination short.

See
vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/

which states that “unconditional election” is a fully Catholic view.

This is elegantly stated:
stjohn17v20-21.com/predes01.htm

and then there is this:
catechism.cc/articles/predestination-salvation.htm

-Tina “Picky” G

Hi Tina,
From the article: Catholic Soteriology versus Semi-Calvinism,

“Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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.” (CCC, n. 1037).
…Some persons do end up in Hell, but only by the exercise of their free will, such that they freely turn away from His grace, persisting in actual mortal sin unto the end.”

This doesn’t make sense to me because what it is saying is that people will themselves to go to Hell! Who on earth would choose to go to Hell? That is even more unbelievable then that God predestines people to go to Hell. If a person does in fact have free will, then they would only choose good for themselves. If a person chose suffering for themselves that would mean their free will didn’t work because it is contrary to reason for a person to choose to go to eternal punishment.

Secondly, it states:

“Catechism of the Catholic Church: “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace….” (CCC, n. 600).
…The predestination of God seeks the salvation of all. But the predestination of God also humbly respects our free will. And so this predestination to salvation does not occur in such a way that free will has no choice or no ability to obtain salvation, but only in such a way that all future free will decisions are included in the knowledge of God, with the grace that makes the will free and the offer of every grace without exception needed to obtain eternal life. God also knows in advance which souls will be lost to Hell forever by their own free will decisions, despite all His graces. But this knowledge does not compel, and this free will decision not to repent from actual mortal sin (final impenitence) is made despite every grace needed to repent.”

Again, if we have every grace to obtain eternal life then why would a person chose to go to Hell?

Regarding God’s foreknowledge of events, I trip over this concept every single time I hear it. If God is omniscient, as Jesus certainly was, and knows every choice that a person will make before they make it (ie: Jesus telling Peter he will deny him three times) then how on earth does that person have free will?
I cannot reconcile God’s knowledge of the future with a man’s ability to freely choose his destiny. If Jesus knew that Peter would deny him three times, just like Jesus knew Judas would betray him, then how on earth could Peter have not denied Jesus, or Judas not betray Jesus?

Simply saying that predestination and free will are not incompatible doesn’t make it so.
How is it so? And please do not say its a “mystery”.

 

[paul_c]

Hi Tina,
From the article: Catholic Soteriology versus Semi-Calvinism,

“Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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.” (CCC, n. 1037).
…Some persons do end up in Hell, but only by the exercise of their free will, such that they freely turn away from His grace, persisting in actual mortal sin unto the end.”

This doesn’t make sense to me because what it is saying is that people will themselves to go to Hell! Who on earth would choose to go to Hell? That is even more unbelievable then that God predestines people to go to Hell. If a person does in fact have free will, then they would only choose good for themselves. If a person chose suffering for themselves that would mean their free will didn’t work because it is contrary to reason for a person to choose to go to eternal punishment.

Lisa, people make these choices all the time. Think about it. The Catholic Church teaches that to miss mass is a mortal sin and will separate you from God and cause your condemnation unless you repent. Yet, how many people decide that they will risk hell to sleep in or watch a football game or for any other reason.

The net is, when this happens, they must not really believe their souls are on the line. But if they don’t want to be with God for an hour on Sunday, why would they want to be with him for an eternity? It is a choice…

Secondly, it states:

“Catechism of the Catholic Church: “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace….” (CCC, n. 600).
…The predestination of God seeks the salvation of all. But the predestination of God also humbly respects our free will. And so this predestination to salvation does not occur in such a way that free will has no choice or no ability to obtain salvation, but only in such a way that all future free will decisions are included in the knowledge of God, with the grace that makes the will free and the offer of every grace without exception needed to obtain eternal life. God also knows in advance which souls will be lost to Hell forever by their own free will decisions, despite all His graces. But this knowledge does not compel, and this free will decision not to repent from actual mortal sin (final impenitence) is made despite every grace needed to repent.”

Again, if we have every grace to obtain eternal life then why would a person chose to go to Hell?

Because it takes effort and commitment to stay in the state of grace and many don’t want to expend that effort.

Regarding God’s foreknowledge of events, I trip over this concept every single time I hear it. If God is omniscient, as Jesus certainly was, and knows every choice that a person will make before they make it (ie: Jesus telling Peter he will deny him three times) then how on earth does that person have free will?
I cannot reconcile God’s knowledge of the future with a man’s ability to freely choose his destiny. If Jesus knew that Peter would deny him three times, just like Jesus knew Judas would betray him, then how on earth could Peter have not denied Jesus, or Judas not betray Jesus?

Just because something is predicted, even with perfect accuracy, doesn’t eliminate the necessity for something to be done. Let me give you a couple of analogies.

1. two local high schools play a game. One has one every game by a large margin, the other has lost every game by a similar large margin. Everyone knows the first team will win the game but yet, the game must still be played.
2. There is a really good student who always gets 100 on every test. It is assumed by everyone that this student will pass a critical test. But they still have to take the test to pass.

So in a similar vein, there is a person that is very righteous (lets think Francis of Assissi).
Everyone who comes in contact with him sees how holy he is and assumes that this will continue to be faithful to death. But until he does this, it is not so. God has the advantage of being able to see the end at the same time as the beginning so he can predict perfectly, yet St. Francis still needed to do his good works.

Simply saying that predestination and free will are not incompatible doesn’t make it so.
How is it so? And please do not say its a “mystery”.

So, if predestination means that God knows what will happen, then it can be consistent with free wil.

If predestination means that God FORCES it to happen, then of course it is inconsistent with free will.

The Catholic Church teaches the first view. Some people, however believe the second view. I don’t know where Tina stands on this.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C,

Nice response.

I have often wondered why - with all of this wonderful knowledge and ability - did the Devil chose to disobey God? Why did our First Parents - with their perfect minds and wills - chose to disobey God? Well, we are free to speculate as to the ‘why’ of these things - but, the real issue is that they happened and OSAS does not address either tragic event.

No easy answers here … but, there is a simple one: redirect our attentions to our own sinfulness and that we are true need of the Grace of God. Now, pray for that grace and God has promised to answer those prayers. Such actions show that we are continual need of God’s salvation - and we are not to take our position for granted.

God bless

Lisa, people make these choices all the time. Think about it. The Catholic Church teaches that to miss mass is a mortal sin and will separate you from God and cause your condemnation unless you repent. Yet, how many people decide that they will risk hell to sleep in or watch a football game or for any other reason.

The net is, when this happens, they must not really believe their souls are on the line. But if they don’t want to be with God for an hour on Sunday, why would they want to be with him for an eternity? It is a choice…

Because it takes effort and commitment to stay in the state of grace and many don’t want to expend that effort.

Just because something is predicted, even with perfect accuracy, doesn’t eliminate the necessity for something to be done. Let me give you a couple of analogies.

1. two local high schools play a game. One has one every game by a large margin, the other has lost every game by a similar large margin. Everyone knows the first team will win the game but yet, the game must still be played.
2. There is a really good student who always gets 100 on every test. It is assumed by everyone that this student will pass a critical test. But they still have to take the test to pass.

So in a similar vein, there is a person that is very righteous (lets think Francis of Assissi).
Everyone who comes in contact with him sees how holy he is and assumes that this will continue to be faithful to death. But until he does this, it is not so. God has the advantage of being able to see the end at the same time as the beginning so he can predict perfectly, yet St. Francis still needed to do his good works.

So, if predestination means that God knows what will happen, then it can be consistent with free wil.

If predestination means that God FORCES it to happen, then of course it is inconsistent with free will.

The Catholic Church teaches the first view. Some people, however believe the second view. I don’t know where Tina stands on this.

 

[TinaG]

Tina G…I posted this back in post 12…but I would like your views or your take on the following: (from #1 to #4):

(source: deepertruthblog.com/ PREDESTINATION, SALVATION, AND DAMNATION
Calvinism and Catholicism Contrasted)

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS

1. Predestination is not predetermination :

“Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved.” (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)

Predestination is God’s decree of the happiness of the elect. God’s infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God’s foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.

There is a daunting number of posts to respond to here! Wow! And these are all good questions that take time and thought to respond to appropriately. And I have limits…And a few things have come to mind that I want to post as well.

I’ll take a crack at this one now. It is inevitable that I won’t be able to respond to all of them, and it is possible in answering one another is also answered. Since I expect others to respond, I don’t really expect to be able to go through all of these in any sort of order. Oh, well.

Foreknowledge cannot be the same as predestination. Paul says as much in Romans 8:29: “for those He foreknew, He also predestined”. Here the words are used as not meaning the same thing. I will agree that the two groups are the same, but it makes no sense for the words to be synonyms. If Paul had said, for what x, also x, that is silly. He said for what y, also x. These must be two separate concepts.

The Greek uses proegno for “foreknew” and pro-oorisen for predestined. The first word, according to Bauer Gingrich and Danker (2nd Ed) is “know beforehand”. The second word is “decide upon beforehand, predestine”.

They mean different things in Greek, Paul was reciting a series of differing linked actions, and it makes no sense to claim that these two things are synonymous. They are not in the Greek and neither should they be in our theology.

Look also at Ephesians 1:11, where pro-oorizo is used in a context that implies that it is not mere foreknowledge but conscious willful decision and determination at work with this word.

-Tina “Not that I am a Greek Scholar” G

 

[TinaG]

Regarding the “conflict” between free will and predestination.

For one thing, I do not think “free will” is found in Scripture.

For the sake of the present argument let us agree that it exists. Whew.

Take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, Summa Part I Question 23

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

This leaves me wondering if you are ready to accuse STA to be one of those filthy innovating Calvinists. He even comes out in favor of reprobation.

STA also says “predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God.”

NOT in man.

-Tina “Not that I am a Thomist” G

 

[Lisa44]

Does Canon 3 contradict Canon 5 from the Council of Trent on Justification?

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

 

[TinaG]

More than human effort and commitment can obtain. That power and will-power MUST be grace, that is God-given. Otherwise it is a “survival of the fittest” when God says things like
“a smoldering wick He will not snuff out” and he calls the sick, not the healthy, etc.

-Tina “Not that I am healthy” G

 

[TinaG]

Does Canon 3 contradict Canon 5 from the Council of Trent on Justification?

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Is that addressed to me?

I don’t see a contradiction. I don’t even see anything wrong with these statements.

-Tina"Not that I see well" G

 

[paul_c]

Does Canon 3 contradict Canon 5 from the Council of Trent on Justification?

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Not at all. Canon 3 says that man can’t be saved on his own (an answer to Pelegius)
Canon 5 says that man also has a role in his own salvation (an answer to Calvin)

In short, together they say that man and God cooperate for each man’s salvation. Not because God NEEDS man’s cooperation, but because he WANTs it.

 

[paul_c]

paul c;8708126:

Because it takes effort and commitment to stay in the state of grace and many don’t want to expend that effort.
.

More than human effort and commitment can obtain. That power and will-power MUST be grace, that is God-given. Otherwise it is a “survival of the fittest” when God says things like
“a smoldering wick He will not snuff out” and he calls the sick, not the healthy, etc.

-Tina “Not that I am healthy” G

Yes, God puts us in the state of grace through baptism, so we are not doing it alone. But many, many people, fail to cooperate with grace for whatever reason, fall from grace and ultimately are condemned. He calls the sick it is true. but he also alls the healthy. He’s just happier when a sinner repents than when a righteous person stays on path because for those it is expected.

 

[Lisa44]

Regarding the “conflict” between free will and predestination.

For one thing, I do not think “free will” is found in Scripture.

For the sake of the present argument let us agree that it exists. Whew.

Take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, Summa Part I Question 23

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

This leaves me wondering if you are ready to accuse STA to be one of those filthy innovating Calvinists. He even comes out in favor of reprobation.

STA also says “predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God.”

NOT in man.

-Tina “Not that I am a Thomist” G

Thanks for the link. But that is a LONG article. Maybe you could copy the pertinent parts for us to look at. Maybe not? I’m too tired after going over the Council of Trent canons on Justification with a fine tooth comb.

I have not found a decent demonstration of free will either. I’ll get some Augustine quotes soon.

 

[Lisa44]

Is that addressed to me?

I don’t see a contradiction. I don’t even see anything wrong with these statements.

-Tina"Not that I see well" G

Not at all. Canon 3 says that man can’t be saved on his own (an answer to Pelegius)
Canon 5 says that man also has a role in his own salvation (an answer to Calvin)

In short, together they say that man and God cooperate for each man’s salvation. Not because God NEEDS man’s cooperation, but because he WANTs it.

So if man has a role then this is semi-Pelagianism correct?
And doesn’t this still beg the question, if man needs the Holy Spirit to believe, then what use is the free will if it can’t choose to believe in Jesus? (and by extension, I assume, to resist evil).

 

[paul_c]

Regarding the “conflict” between free will and predestination.

For one thing, I do not think “free will” is found in Scripture.

For the sake of the present argument let us agree that it exists. Whew.

Take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, Summa Part I Question 23

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

This leaves me wondering if you are ready to accuse STA to be one of those filthy innovating Calvinists. He even comes out in favor of reprobation.

STA also says “predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God.”

NOT in man.

-Tina “Not that I am a Thomist” G

Thomas does not deny that free will exists. And he descripes reprobation differently than Calvin.

Thomas says:

Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.

As you can see, Thomas maintains that man does have the possibility of being saved, even though he is reprobated and that ultimately the sin that condemns him is from the use of his free will.

 

[paul_c]

So if man has a role then this is semi-Pelagianism correct?
And doesn’t this still beg the question, if man needs the Holy Spirit to believe, then what use is the free will if it can’t choose to believe in Jesus? (and by extension, I assume, to resist evil).

No, In semi-pelagianism, man perseveres on his on strength.
In Catholicism, all of man’s good works are done in cooperation with God’s grace. He can do nothing good without God’s grace. but he can turn from it on his own. That is where free will comes into play. You can either cooperate with God and do his will or you can turn from God and be condemned. So, chosing to believe in Jesus is in effect, chosing not to resist his grace…

 

[paul_c]

There is a daunting number of posts to respond to here! Wow! And these are all good questions that take time and thought to respond to appropriately. And I have limits…And a few things have come to mind that I want to post as well.

I’ll take a crack at this one now. It is inevitable that I won’t be able to respond to all of them, and it is possible in answering one another is also answered. Since I expect others to respond, I don’t really expect to be able to go through all of these in any sort of order. Oh, well.

Foreknowledge cannot be the same as predestination. Paul says as much in Romans 8:29: “for those He foreknew, He also predestined”. Here the words are used as not meaning the same thing. I will agree that the two groups are the same, but it makes no sense for the words to be synonyms. If Paul had said, for what x, also x, that is silly. He said for what y, also x. These must be two separate concepts.

The Greek uses proegno for “foreknew” and pro-oorisen for predestined. The first word, according to Bauer Gingrich and Danker (2nd Ed) is “know beforehand”. The second word is “decide upon beforehand, predestine”.

They mean different things in Greek, Paul was reciting a series of differing linked actions, and it makes no sense to claim that these two things are synonymous. They are not in the Greek and neither should they be in our theology.

Look also at Ephesians 1:11, where pro-oorizo is used in a context that implies that it is not mere foreknowledge but conscious willful decision and determination at work with this word.

-Tina “Not that I am a Greek Scholar” G

Tina, I wonder if any of this elaborate thought on predestination, grace and free will has any real effect on what we do in this life.

If you beleive the saved will do works of love, then you should do works of love. The biggest problem that I see with Calvin’s view is that it leads to complacency on those that believe they are saved and dispair on the part of those that don’t. Neither situation is good for the soul…

The Catholic view is pretty straight forward. God’s will be done and if we are to be saved, we must chose to cooperate with that will. In the end, you must agree with this, right?

 

[TinaG]

Tina, I wonder if any of this elaborate thought on predestination, grace and free will has any real effect on what we do in this life.

If you beleive the saved will do works of love, then you should do works of love. The biggest problem that I see with Calvin’s view is that it leads to complacency on those that believe they are saved and dispair on the part of those that don’t. Neither situation is good for the soul…

The Catholic view is pretty straight forward. God’s will be done and if we are to be saved, we must chose to cooperate with that will. In the end, you must agree with this, right?

Regarding practical application, I am not sure it is any different from Peter’s question to Jesus about John: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus: “…what is that to you? You follow me!”
(John 21:21-22). I NEVER want to be discussed as being anywhere near reprobate status.

I don’t see Calvin’s view as leading to complacency at all. Rather, it is assurance that our efforts will pay off: encouragement, gratitude, celebration, greater love and appreciation for the incredible gift that has been given.

We cannot freely choose to cooperate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. What concerns me is that you talk as if the human will is unfallen and free to choose on its own, whereas it is very weak, very fickle, very uncertain. God must implement a new will in us in order for us to persevere. If we cooperate, it is because He is given us the ability to do so, and He more than coaches us in choosing to do so - and that not in violation of free will, but in support of it. In contrast to what you are describing as a will-based salvation I see a faith-based salvation.

If we are saved we WILL do works of love. Faith without works is dead, as a seed that does not sprout is dead.

Effortless, joyous trusting in God and operating in His power, resting in Him, rejoicing in Him in the trials of this life, not on the basis of anything in us but in Christ working in us and through is, is possible in this life.

-Tina “Not that I have totally arrived” G

 

[Lisa44]

No, In semi-pelagianism, man perseveres on his on strength.
In Catholicism, all of man’s good works are done in cooperation with God’s grace. He can do nothing good without God’s grace. but he can turn from it on his own. That is where free will comes into play. You can either cooperate with God and do his will or you can turn from God and be condemned. So, chosing to believe in Jesus is in effect, chosing not to resist his grace…

Does that contradict Canon 22 of the Council of Trent on Justification?

Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.

 

[paul_c]

Regarding practical application, I am not sure it is any different from Peter’s question to Jesus about John: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus: “…what is that to you? You follow me!”
(John 21:21-22). I NEVER want to be discussed as being anywhere near reprobate status.

I don’t see Calvin’s view as leading to complacency at all. Rather, it is assurance that our efforts will pay off: encouragement, gratitude, celebration, greater love and appreciation for the incredible gift that has been given.

We cannot freely choose to cooperate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. What concerns me is that you talk as if the human will is unfallen and free to choose on its own, whereas it is very weak, very fickle, very uncertain. God must implement a new will in us in order for us to persevere. If we cooperate, it is because He is given us the ability to do so, and He more than coaches us in choosing to do so - and that not in violation of free will, but in support of it. In contrast to what you are describing as a will-based salvation I see a faith-based salvation.

If we are saved we WILL do works of love. Faith without works is dead, as a seed that does not sprout is dead.

Effortless, joyous trusting in God and operating in His power, resting in Him, rejoicing in Him in the trials of this life, not on the basis of anything in us but in Christ working in us and through is, is possible in this life.

-Tina “Not that I have totally arrived” G

I’m happy to hear that you are not complacent. But believing that you are saved is a slippery slope that many fail on. We often have people on this forum that claimed that their sins don’t matter because they are saved by their faith in Jesus so they make no effort to become truly holy. Because, we ARE called to become truly holy…