SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[Lisa44]

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.

But who gave us free will? Ie: the ability to choose evil?

 

[fhansen]

But who gave us free will? Ie: the ability to choose evil?

He did. But that’s the point-our will isn’t necessarily His will-He wants it to be but sin only exists because He allows our will to be done instead of His. You’re right, without His allowing evil, no evil would occur. So His “options” were to either not create at all, create and not include sentient beings with free will or create and include free will. But He deemed creation to be worth it, and free will to be good, and presumably to bring a greater good out of the evil He knew would occur. He wills freedom, He allows evil.

 

[onenow1]

I’ve answered several of your questions.

My question to you, and to other Catholics on this thread remains unanswered: Please provide some support, or proof that “disqualified = loss of salvation” in 1 Cor 9, and that “falling = loss of salvation” in 1 Cor 10.

John 15​

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

=one. “If I"m ot mistaken there is only one other place in scriptureJesus uses the word ABIDE.” Here<>John 6: 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

=one. It seems to me Jesus, is saying abide in me or you lose.

And forgive us our debts [present tense], As we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12)

“And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” (James 5:15)

The Lord removes a branch that does not bear fruit. He removes and He can put it back.

Peace

 

[TinaG]

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.

I’ve got a minute here.

I CAN use that argument. I just did. But you misunderstand my thrust.

The illustration is to show that repentance (while healthy and normal etc) is not the prime logical cause of salvation - the sovereign choice of God is. He uses many things to effect the result, which is the salvation of someone.

Augustine insisted baptism is necessary for salvation, if I recall correctly. Has the Catholic Church now gone away from the ancient faith and now says baptism is not necessary? Oops - that is off the topic.

I think part of the problem here is a lack of definition - has anyone in this debate/discussion/dispute bothered to define what it is we mean by “saved” or “Once Saved Always Saved”? It would seem to me that if we are to disagree so hotly over it, perhaps we should agree on what we are arguing about. It occurs to me that you may be defining it in a way that I would also agree that OSAS is wrong. Or in a way that we would all fight to the death to defend.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for Term Definitions! Whoot!” G

 

[TinaG]

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.

Do you know what is meant by a “secondary cause”?

-Tina “Just Wondering” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fhansen,

It sounds like you might have been describing the problem mythically recorded by Homer when he wrote about Cassandra - given the gift of prophecy yet condemned to have none believe her. As it turns out, she came to a murderous end.

As I see it, we are just hanging onto this thread … by a thread. God certainly knows everything. And just as certainly as He created all that is seen and unseen out of nothing, He knows all events from all eternity. While no one on this thread disputes this - we seem to gettng hung up on its reality when it interfaces with the Gift of Free Will, that God gave to humanity. One approach - admittedly rather prosaic and quite boaring is to realize that this is a mystery (God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will) and simply do what Christ told us to do: “Love God and love our neighbor” - both requiring Faith and Works! And, no OSAS concept to be found anywhere.

Another approach is to sail out on a tempest tossed sea of speculation, wondering IF this then that. No worry about boardom here - but, unfortunately, even when we get down to the last drop in this sea, there will no answer avaiable to us. The NT Scriptures are not very generous when it comes to telling us who is in Heaven. While we know that Lazarus made it and the ‘Rich Man’ didn’t - that was a parable and maybe these particular individuals did not exist! We know that the ‘Good Thief’ made it… and there is a very strong presumption that Deacon Stephen made it… but, I think that is it. Counter this with us not knowing who is in Hell besides the Devil and 1/3 of the angels. If I missed anyone in either location, please do not take offense!

So, there is this tremendous pool of ignorance of where not only large numbers of souls are - but more particularly where individual souls have their final destination. And, this is one of the underpinnings of Calvinism - there is this group claiming to be "The Elect’ and they are pointing at others who are considered to be ‘Reprobate’ - and there is no proof for this when one comes down to specifics. OSAS is a specific (heretical) teaching that must be applied to each individual - and, it simply fails.

Unlike mythical Cassandra who, according to the poet Homer, had the gift of prophecy - the real Calvin has only his dark musings as he contemplates the here-after. There is nothing sanguine about this man in revolt from Christ’s Church founded on Peter - and this comes through in his writings. The only way OSAS can be presented is if God is presented as being infinitely capricious and quite unjust. Man has a free will and Calvin says he doesn’t - St. Paul says he is working out his salvation in fear and trembling and Calivn say, “I’m with The Elect”.

OSAS really has nothing to hold it togeter but personal interpretation of Scripture, heretical writings of Calvin and the wishful thinking of Calvinists today.

God bless

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fhansen,

Well said.

Let me add some additonal material from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, “the subject of this freedom,” is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37

1742 Freedom and grace. The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:

Almighty and merciful God,
in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful,
so that, made ready both in mind and body,
we may freely accomplish your will.38

Here is the link: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

God bless

He did. But that’s the point-our will isn’t necessarily His will-He wants it to be but sin only exists because He allows our will to be done instead of His. You’re right, without His allowing evil, no evil would occur. So His “options” were to either not create at all, create and not include sentient beings with free will or create and include free will. But He deemed creation to be worth it, and free will to be good, and presumably to bring a greater good out of the evil He knew would occur. He wills freedom, He allows evil.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Onenow,

These are excellent quotes. They thoroughly disprove OSAS because they all indicate tht man can chose (he has Free Will) to:

Not become part of the Vine - or to leave the life giving strength of the Vine

Not believe Christ has given us His Flesh to eat and the command to eat - and just walk away like the Jews did when they heard Christ’s clearly spoken words.

Not forgive our neighbor - because this would involved a ‘Work’

God bless

John 15​

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

=one. “If I"m ot mistaken there is only one other place in scriptureJesus uses the word ABIDE.” Here<>John 6: 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

=one. It seems to me Jesus, is saying abide in me or you lose.

And forgive us our debts [present tense], As we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12)

“And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” (James 5:15)

The Lord removes a branch that does not bear fruit. He removes and He can put it back.

Peace

 

[fhansen]

Do you know what is meant by a “secondary cause”?

-Tina “Just Wondering” G

Yes, I understand what you’re getting at. And theologians tells us that every human act is enabled and sustained by God. “In Him we live and move and have our being.” When a killer pulls the trigger it’s only because God enables it to happen as it’s happening-it cannot be otherwise-we don’t even exist otherwise. But that doesn’t resolve the problem-that’s an academic point of theology that has little or no bearing on real life in this world and man’s moral responsibility.

If we take that concept to its logical conclusion and use it to downplay human free will for all practical purposes, then there’s no* such thing* as moral responsibility. We’d have no right or sound reason to ever experience moral outrage or righteous indignation over any human act perceived to be wrong. “I didn’t do it, the devil didn’t make me do it,* God *made me do it”. We wouldn’t even have a moral right to gently discipline our children.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

Of course you can argue any way you choose - you have a free will… show it off!

What I am having a problem with is that after this great lead up - with nearly visible hand-wringng gestures - on their not being a definition for OSAS, you did not provide us with one! Ah, the lost opportunities… But, fear not - I will offer a thumbnail version that should cover the highlights.

Man, devoid of free will, is subject to the absolute choice of God as to the granting or denying of salvation. Those who are saved - well, they were always saved. And, the ones who are damned - well - they never had a chance partial because they did not have a free will but mostly because God simply chose to damn them. Once one knows (how this is accomplished is not too clear) they are saved, then OSAS kicks in. And, this is what ‘Eternal Security’ is all about: not having the problem Paul had with working out his salvation in fear and trembling! Thank God for John Calvin!

The majority of Reprobates only find out after their last breath. Sometime the Elect are surprised as is shown in Matthew 25… but, that is ljust a minority report!)

Here is an interesting item on the subject - and one that is much better written:

Few Evangelical and Fundamental Christians realize that OSAS is the minority view in Christianity today. It is held almost exclusively by Presbyterians, Baptists, and some non-denominational groups with roots in one of these two denominations. OSAS is rejected by the majority of Christians. But, what may come as a bigger shock is that OSAS is a new doctrine unheard of prior to John Calvin. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, Christians believed it was possible for true believers to fall away and be lost forever if they did not persevere in their faith unto the end. In the words of John Wesley: “whatever is true is not new; whatever is new is not true.”

And here is the link: pfrs.org/osas/index.html

God bless

I’ve got a minute here.

I CAN use that argument. I just did. But you misunderstand my thrust.

The illustration is to show that repentance (while healthy and normal etc) is not the prime logical cause of salvation - the sovereign choice of God is. He uses many things to effect the result, which is the salvation of someone.

Augustine insisted baptism is necessary for salvation, if I recall correctly. Has the Catholic Church now gone away from the ancient faith and now says baptism is not necessary? Oops - that is off the topic.

I think part of the problem here is a lack of definition - has anyone in this debate/discussion/dispute bothered to define what it is we mean by “saved” or “Once Saved Always Saved”? It would seem to me that if we are to disagree so hotly over it, perhaps we should agree on what we are arguing about. It occurs to me that you may be defining it in a way that I would also agree that OSAS is wrong. Or in a way that we would all fight to the death to defend.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for Term Definitions! Whoot!” G

 

[Odell]

I’ve got a minute here.

I CAN use that argument. I just did. But you misunderstand my thrust.

The illustration is to show that repentance (while healthy and normal etc) is not the prime logical cause of salvation - the sovereign choice of God is. He uses many things to effect the result, which is the salvation of someone.

Augustine insisted baptism is necessary for salvation, if I recall correctly. Has the Catholic Church now gone away from the ancient faith and now says baptism is not necessary? Oops - that is off the topic.

I think part of the problem here is a lack of definition - has anyone in this debate/discussion/dispute bothered to define what it is we mean by “saved” or “Once Saved Always Saved”? It would seem to me that if we are to disagree so hotly over it, perhaps we should agree on what we are arguing about. It occurs to me that you may be defining it in a way that I would also agree that OSAS is wrong. Or in a way that we would all fight to the death to defend.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for Term Definitions! Whoot!” G

No baptism is necessary as is faith and repentance.

I would go even further and say you might be saying the same as Aquinas argued about final preserverince. Catholics mean this by one who dies in sanctifying grace. But even the elect sin throughout their lives, the grace of preserverince must include the grace of repentance for their sins.

Also the difference between Catholicism and Protestants on eternal security is that In Catholicism only God knows the elect. In Protestantism the person knows they are secure usually at the point they accept Jesus. Neither is scriptural. Provide the verses but I will break them down for you. Now no one can know unless reveIed by God and even then the council says “so also as regards the gift of perserverence…let no one promise himself anything as certain with absolute certitude, although all ought to place and repose a very firm hope in Gods help.” also I might add when one accepts Jesus is not when one is saved; if we are going to discuss what eternal security means and when one can claim to it.

 

[Pitcharan]

…I think part of the problem here is a lack of definition - has anyone in this debate/discussion/dispute bothered to define what it is we mean by “saved” or “Once Saved Always Saved”? It would seem to me that if we are to disagree so hotly over it, perhaps we should agree on what we are arguing about. It occurs to me that you may be defining it in a way that I would also agree that OSAS is wrong. Or in a way that we would all fight to the death to defend.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for Term Definitions! Whoot!” G

Salvation is merely offered and not doled out like a gift. Salvation is not an event but a process that is completed on the day of judgement. The salvation process is made crystal clear by our Lord’s life and teachings. The eternal punishment we incur for our sins is firstly canceled by the process called JUSTIFICATION and the defilement that causes us to sin is cleansed by the process called SANCTIFICATION.

JUSTIFICATION or removal of sins: Sin is a debt that we cannot repay as Satan claims our souls; yet God who has ransomed us with the blood of His Son, is able to cancel the debt of sin for many good reasons:* “Love covers a multitude of sins; if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”*. (1Pet 4:8b, Mt 6:14)

SANCTIFICATION or freedom from slavery to sin: Suffering is the only remedy available for cleansing interior defilement and uprooting the very cause of sin. Recall what our Lord taught: “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ‘For everyone will be salted with fire’.” (Mk 9:43, 49)

To stop sinning is humanly impossible and yet our helplessness is not futility for our God is ‘the help of the helpless’ Whose power is made perfect in our weakness. The battle is truly His and we only have to show our love by refusing to remain slaves and struggling. Freedom is achieved through complete purging of our sinful nature by our own sufferings which can only increase manifold if avoided now and kept for purgation after death.

To know how one loses the offer of salvation, consider this:
***Matthew 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet***

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14** “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”**

Is it not clear from the above parable that the offer of salvation which was made firstly to Israel is now made to all mankind; but the ones who prove unworthy by their own attitude and conduct are bound to lose it?

 

[Sig]

Can one choose to leave God once they are saved?

I always think of that question not in term’s of can one choose to leave, but will one choose to leave.

My conclusion concerning that is, no, they will not, not if they’re truly saved.

 

[Sig]

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.

I don’t understand. How is Jesus’ promise not to blot names out of the book of life mean salvation can be lost?

 

[fhansen]

It occurs to me that you may be defining it in a way that I would also agree that OSAS is wrong. Or in a way that we would all fight to the death to defend.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for Term Definitions! Whoot!” G

This has occurred to me as well. Everyone is quite sincerely convinced of their position-and not from strictly denominational prejudices.

I’ll take a stab at it, speaking in general terms.

Salvation is freedom from sin wherein nothing stands between man and God that would impede us from entering into His presence. It is the direct result of man’s becoming just -a work of God in which man cooperates --where He and man become aligned in will and love. This is not a merely imputed righteousness but an authentic one as God’s purpose has been the restoration of His universe to order and justice ever since the Fall.

 

[PRmerger]

Salvation is freedom from sin wherein nothing stands between man and God that would impede us from entering into His presence. It is the direct result of man’s becoming just -a work of God in which man cooperates --where He and man become aligned in will and love. This is not a merely imputed righteousness but an authentic one as God’s purpose has been the restoration of His universe to order and justice ever since the Fall.

:clapping::bowdown:

I would just add that, ad finem, we are not saved until we are dead.

 

[Odell]

I always think of that question not in term’s of can one choose to leave, but will one choose to leave.

My conclusion concerning that is, no, they will not, not if they’re truly saved.

When we sin willfully are we choosing somthing other than God?

If so choosing to leave God is more than just denying Jesus as Lord. How else would “not ever one who calls me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.” make any sense? It appears on the outside they have not left.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pitcharan,

Excellent response!

The ‘Wedding Banquet’ parable hits the nail squarely on the head - someone who freely chose to refuse the Grace (garment) offered and refused to respond about the matter. He freely chose to insult the Host and was removed.

The arguments about humans lacking Free Will just do not stand up when reading the Gospels. Just as these parables were a warning to Jesus’ listeners - they stand as a warning to us today. We must choose to cooperate with God’s Grace.

God bless

Salvation is merely offered and not doled out like a gift. Salvation is not an event but a process that is completed on the day of judgement. The salvation process is made crystal clear by our Lord’s life and teachings. The eternal punishment we incur for our sins is firstly canceled by the process called JUSTIFICATION and the defilement that causes us to sin is cleansed by the process called SANCTIFICATION.

JUSTIFICATION or removal of sins: Sin is a debt that we cannot repay as Satan claims our souls; yet God who has ransomed us with the blood of His Son, is able to cancel the debt of sin for many good reasons:* “Love covers a multitude of sins; if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”*. (1Pet 4:8b, Mt 6:14)

SANCTIFICATION or freedom from slavery to sin: Suffering is the only remedy available for cleansing interior defilement and uprooting the very cause of sin. Recall what our Lord taught: “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ‘For everyone will be salted with fire’.” (Mk 9:43, 49)

To stop sinning is humanly impossible and yet our helplessness is not futility for our God is ‘the help of the helpless’ Whose power is made perfect in our weakness. The battle is truly His and we only have to show our love by refusing to remain slaves and struggling. Freedom is achieved through complete purging of our sinful nature by our own sufferings which can only increase manifold if avoided now and kept for purgation after death.

To know how one loses the offer of salvation, consider this:
***Matthew 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet***

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14** “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”**

Is it not clear from the above parable that the offer of salvation which was made firstly to Israel is now made to all mankind; but the ones who prove unworthy by their own attitude and conduct are bound to lose it?

 

[TinaG]

Hi, Pitharan,

Excellent response!

The ‘Wedding Banquet’ parable hits the nail squarely on the head - someone who freely chose to refuse the Grace (garment) offered and refused to respond about the matter. He freely chose to insult the Host and was removed.

The arguments about humans lacking Free Will just do not stand up when reading the Gospels. Just as these parables were a warning to Jesus’ listeners - they stand as a warning to us today. We must choose to cooperate with God’s Grace.

God bless

How many times must I say I agree that free will exists? Sheesh!

If we cooperate with God, we do it not on our own power but by His grace. Our unassisted will will always choose away from God.

-Tina “Not on long today” G

 

[fhansen]

How many times must I say I agree that free will exists? Sheesh!

If we cooperate with God, we do it not on our own power but by His grace. Our unassisted will will always choose away from God.

-Tina “Not on long today” G

Yes, as long as that doesn’t deny that our assisted will can still turn away from God.