SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[TinaG]

This is why we believe in sufficent grace. If not than God calling people to repent of their sins would be pointless.

I wish I had time to respond to this, but I need to go soon. This is it for today, and maybe I will just give up on this thread if it doesn’t improve.

God revealed Himself sufficiently in nature that all people know Him (Romans 1) and are accountable. This is general revelation. God also gives general grace to all (Mt 5, for example, where He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous) and cares for all people. At the same time not all are chosen (Many are called, few are chosen) and not all receive special revelation. I think there is a correlation between what you are referring to as sufficient grace and what I call general grace.

God desires all people to be saved. Not all are saved. The modern Catholic (along with Pelagius) blames the will of man, the Reformed (along with Jesus, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas and probably others) place the source of that election in God not in man.

-Tina " I would rather be in the latter group" G

 

[TinaG]

Tina, amiga, I have asked you twice to clarify for me what your position is on free will and both times you did not answer. I’m asking you again, what is your position on free will?

No Catholic is saying that. For heaven’s sake Tina.
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.

Sorry, I just saw this, and I need to go. Really quickly: I don’t have one. I do not deny it exists - that means that it may be something. But I have not defined it and I am not sure it really is central to this thread, despite the Catholic insistence that it is. Has anyone bothered defining this? Where is the phrase found first historically in theology?

-Tina “I really need to go. Now.” G

 

[Odell]

So do I, Odell, so obviously there’s some confusion on your part as to what I believe, and some confusion on my part as to what you were referring earlier.

Yes.

Perhaps it’s you who needs to go back and re-read what I’ve said. I’ve addressed it.

I’ve told you, Odell, the “he was sanctified…” refers to Jesus, who was set apart to God to do God’s will (Jn 17:19; cf 4:34; 5:19; 6:38: 7:16; 9:4). It can’t be unbelievers, because they are not sanctified, and it can’t be believers because they will never perish (Jn 10:28), and as the writer says in v39, they ***“are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.” ***

You need to read more carefully, Odell.

Ok sig it’s clear to me now sorry for that!

You acknowledge here that it can’t be believers (the sanctified) because the context of the passage allows the sanctified to fall back and the believes cant fall back

But however if Jesus is the one that is sanctified in this passage how is it that Jesus can fall back or have a worse punishment and be judged by worse fire? How is it that Jesus shows contempt for Son of God and consider unclean the covenant by which he was sanctified and insults the spirit of grace?

Jesus does not fit in the context of the passage the sanctified can only be believers. To your own admission they can’t be unbelievers. And in context and context you understand I might add that the sactified in this passage fall back. The sanctified cannot be Jesus it just doesn’t fit. So again the sanctified can fall back this is not a contradiction when you understand what Inhabe been saying all along that though some are given efficacious grace to believe not all are given grace of preserverince.

Perhaps this is why you were making no sense to me. Because it doesn’t make any sense. And now I have had the opportunity to show you. Thanks for clarifying your position. But would you care to further clarify in light of what I have said?

 

[Lisa44]

Sorry, I just saw this, and I need to go. Really quickly: I don’t have one. I do not deny it exists - that means that it may be something. But I have not defined it and I am not sure it really is central to this thread, despite the Catholic insistence that it is. Has anyone bothered defining this? Where is the phrase found first historically in theology?

-Tina “I really need to go. Now.” G

Thanks

 

[Odell]

Do you really believe that God will actively assist you in sinning? Are you really claiming that the Holy Spirit will empower you to sin? To me that is wandering near blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. When He leads and empowers, it is ALWAYS so we can better follow Christ.

-Tina “Sometimes Even I am Led by God!” G

You would make a good Thomast

 

[Odell]

I wish I had time to respond to this, but I need to go soon. This is it for today, and maybe I will just give up on this thread if it doesn’t improve.

God revealed Himself sufficiently in nature that all people know Him (Romans 1) and are accountable. This is general revelation. God also gives general grace to all (Mt 5, for example, where He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous) and cares for all people. At the same time not all are chosen (Many are called, few are chosen) and not all receive special revelation. I think there is a correlation between what you are referring to as sufficient grace and what I call general grace.

God desires all people to be saved. Not all are saved. The modern Catholic (along with Pelagius) blames the will of man, the Reformed (along with Jesus, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas and probably others) place the source of that election in God not in man.

-Tina " I would rather be in the latter group" G

Right God requires faith but he brings about the faith and works that He also requiers by efficacious grace. All of mans good is from God. It’s a mystery but efficacious grace causes man to freely choose to freely desire and claim to that good. God also wills punishment while he permits the sin. With this God is in total control. But however God does not will any to perish as some calvinist would claim antecedently.

Enjoyed it Tina

 

[Lisa44]

I wish I had time to respond to this, but I need to go soon. This is it for today, and maybe I will just give up on this thread if it doesn’t improve.

God revealed Himself sufficiently in nature that all people know Him (Romans 1) and are accountable. This is general revelation. God also gives general grace to all (Mt 5, for example, where He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous) and cares for all people. At the same time not all are chosen (Many are called, few are chosen) and not all receive special revelation. I think there is a correlation between what you are referring to as sufficient grace and what I call general grace.

God desires all people to be saved. Not all are saved. The modern Catholic (along with Pelagius) blames the will of man, the Reformed (along with Jesus, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas and probably others) place the source of that election in God not in man.

-Tina " I would rather be in the latter group" G

Funny, I"m not sure you meant to say that. What you are saying is that Catholics blame free will, and Reformed blame God.

That is why I asked you about free will. Because its not easy to navigate around it without getting caught in the wrong place.

 

[Sig]

Ok sig it’s clear to me now sorry for that!

You acknowledge here that it can’t be believers (the sanctified) because the context of the passage allows the sanctified to fall back and the believes cant fall back

But however if Jesus is the one that is sanctified in this passage how is it that Jesus can fall back or have a worse punishment and be judged by worse fire? How is it that Jesus shows contempt for Son of God and consider unclean the covenant by which he was sanctified and insults the spirit of grace?

Let me help you: "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose,will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which the Son of God was sanctified (Jn 17:19; cf Jn 10:18) a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace." We’re dealing with nouns, pronouns and their antecedants, in addition to theological truths concerning Jesus, the elect, and the non-elect.

Jesus does not fit in the context of the passage the sanctified can only be believers. To your own admission they can’t be unbelievers. And in context and context you understand I might add that the sactified in this passage fall back.

Those who fall back are those who “received a knowledge of the truth.” Face it, Odell, one who hears the Gospel has received a knowledge of the truth, what’s crucial after receiving the knowledge of the truth is conversion. The unconverted “fall back” the converted will never fall back, it’s impossible for them to fall back because Jesus has given them eternal life, and along with that eternal life Jesus gives the promise they “will never perish,” (10:28). I understand that you don’t believe Jesus concerning that, and I’m helpless to change your mind in that. I can’t do it.

The sanctified cannot be Jesus it just doesn’t fit. So again the sanctified can fall back this is not a contradiction when you understand what Inhabe been saying all along that though some are given efficacious grace to believe not all are given grace of preserverince.

Perhaps this is why you were making no sense to me. Because it doesn’t make any sense. And now I have had the opportunity to show you. Thanks for clarifying your position. But would you care to further clarify in light of what I have said?

See above.

 

[Sig]

Right God requires faith but he brings about the faith and works that He also requiers by efficacious grace.

FYI, “Efficacious” grace is synonymous with “Irresistible” grace.

Many Calvinists use the two words interchangeably.

 

[Odell]

Let me help you:

This isn’t nessessary sig and uncharitable. And the fact that we are in a Catholic forum informing other what we believe. Now debate we can do. But we don’t need your help

"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose,will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which the Son of God was sanctified (Jn 17:19; cf Jn 10:18) a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace." We’re dealing with nouns, pronouns and their antecedants, in addition to theological truths concerning Jesus, the elect, and the non-elect.

So who’s being punished in this passage if not the sanctified? And if not Jesus since Jesus is who you say is the sanctified in this passage?

Those who fall back are those who “received a knowledge of the truth.” Face it, Odell, one who hears the Gospel has received a knowledge of the truth, what’s crucial after receiving the knowledge of the truth is conversion. The unconverted “fall back” the converted will never fall back, it’s impossible for them to fall back because Jesus has given them eternal life, and along with that eternal life Jesus gives the promise they “will never perish,” (10:28). I understand that you don’t believe Jesus concerning that, and I’m helpless to change your mind in that. I can’t do it.

The passage at hand talks about the sanctified falling back; who are the sactified?

 

[Odell]

FYI, “Efficacious” grace is synonymous with “Irresistible” grace.

Many Calvinists use the two words interchangeably.

How do the Calvinist believe irreseistable grace is compatible with free will? I really don’t know I hope I made my point how we believe efficient grace to be compatible with free will.

Also Calvinist do not believe in sufficient grace.

 

[fhansen]

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7 for one. Or is Aquinas insufficiently Catholic to be a primary source?

That whole section (His question 23) is interesting in light of the current thread. It has some ins and outs that have not been explored. Some Catholics on this thread, in their zeal to defend Catholicism, appear to be calling STA’s views heretical and I suspect they are veering close to blasphemy in some of their statements about a “God who would do such and such is (fill in the blank, such as capricious).”

-Tina “Not St. Thomas Aquinas, if you were wondering” G

I don’t understand this argument-the Church doesn’t accept all of STA’s arguments-or anyone else’s-especially on this topic.

What particularly bothers me regarding this thread is that the Catholics seem to be saying they are not saved by faith but by their free will. Perhaps that is an overemphasis to combat what they view as errors on the other side?

There’d be no way to exercise what little part their free will plays unless they first had something to believe* in*. God gives us that in the Atonement et al. It appears from our perspective that your theology seeks to protect the concept of Gods sovereignty but in so doing makes Him a tyrannical capricious God instead of one whose judgments are right because they’re based on love, justice, and reason.

One related difference is in whether or not He’s going to have His way. Is He going to help man obtain the ability to willfully obey, as man was designed to do, or does He stop caring whether or not we obey? Is sanctification a mere side effect of mans justification, unnecessary for salvation, or is it part and parcel of it? Did God give commands man couldn’t obey, blame him for not obeying then anyway, exiling him from the garden, and then for no apparent reason decide to save him, or at least save some, at a later date with no apparent criteria?

This argument, free will verses none, has raged in the Church since the beginning. The Church never came down on the side of any particular teaching, neither STA’s opinion that leaned somewhat more heavily towards determinism nor Molina’s that recognized the need to protect the idea the free will plays a part. But she’s always rejected the notion that man lacks free will and that in any case free will plays no part whatsoever. More on this can be found here:
newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#tho

 

[Sig]

This isn’t nessessary sig and uncharitable. And the fact that we are in a Catholic forum informing other what we believe. Now debate we can do. But we don’t need your help

Forgive me, Odell, I’ll not offer you help again.

So who’s being punished in this passage if not the sanctified? And if not Jesus since Jesus is who you say is the sanctified in this passage?

I’ve already told you, those who have received a knowledge of the truth, but have not converted, and who have not been sanctified.

The passage at hand talks about the sanctified falling back; who are the sactified?

Where does it do that, Odell?

 

[Sig]

How do the Calvinist believe irreseistable grace is compatible with free will? I really don’t know I hope I made my point how we believe efficient grace to be compatible with free will.

Maybe this definition will help, err, read this definition:

Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God’s eternal decreee.)

Christ dwells within us not for the purpose of sinking our being into His being, nor of substituting Himself for us as the agent in our activities; much less of seizing our wills and operating them for us in contradiction to our own immanent mind; but to operate directly upon us, to make us good, that our works, freely done by us, may under His continual leading, be good also.

B.B. Warfield

Also Calvinist do not believe in sufficient grace.

How do you figure?

 

[Odell]

I don’t understand this argument-the Church doesn’t accept all of STA’s arguments-or anyone else’s-especially on this topic.

There’d be no way to exercise what little part their free will plays unless they first had something to believe* in*. God gives us that in the Atonement et al. It appears from our perspective that your theology seeks to protect the concept of Gods sovereignty but in so doing makes Him a tyrannical capricious God instead of one whose judgments are right because they’re based on love, justice, and reason.

One related difference is in whether or not He’s going to have His way. Is He going to help man obtain the ability to willfully obey, as man was designed to do, or does He stop caring whether or not we obey? Is sanctification a mere side effect of mans justification, unnecessary for salvation, or is it part and parcel of it? Did God give commands man couldn’t obey, blame him for not obeying then anyway, exiling him from the garden, and then for no apparent reason decide to save him, or at least save some, at a later date with no apparent criteria?

This argument, free will verses none, has raged in the Church since the beginning. The Church never came down on the side of any particular teaching, neither STA’s opinion that leaned somewhat more heavily towards determinism nor Molina’s that recognized the need to protect the idea the free will plays a part. But she’s always rejected the notion that man lacks free will and that in any case free will plays no part whatsoever. More on this can be found here:
newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#tho

Absolutely correct:thumbsup: I wasn’t taken sides when I said Tina would make a good Thomist however a lot of what she says is compatible with Catholisism for one the Council of Orange tells us “That grace is preceded by no merits. Reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but; grace, which is not due, precedes that they may be done.”

 

[fhansen]

Do you really believe that God will actively assist you in sinning? Are you really claiming that the Holy Spirit will empower you to sin? To me that is wandering near blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. When He leads and empowers, it is ALWAYS so we can better follow Christ.

-Tina “Sometimes Even I am Led by God!” G

Don’t know how you came up with that. My post simply means that God will assist all in not sinning-but we can resist His assistance.

 

[Odell]

Forgive me, Odell, I’ll not offer you help again.

I’ve already told you, those who have received a knowledge of the truth, but have not converted, and who have not been sanctified.

Where does it do that, Odell?

First, did you not say that the sanctified could not be believers because believers do not fall? Was you not agreeing that the passage talks about whomever was sactified in this passage falls with this admittance? If not than why can’t the sanctified be the belivers if the passage is not referring to the sanctified that are the ones whom have fallen?

"Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one(who is THE ONE punishment is due?)= who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was sanctified and insults the spirit of grace.

The one is the one who has been sanctified. You really do a butchering job trying to explain it away

Let’s try this so mabe you’ll understand. A subordinant clause is a claus that can not stand alone as a seperate sentence since its meaning depends on the meaning of the main clause and giving additional info.
"Do you not think a worse punishment is due (subordinant clause) We need additional info because this sentence does not stand on its own in fact the word of God never even put a period here so this will elaborate my point even more. The sentence continues with “the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was sanctified.” (main clause) The additional info needed to understand who is due the punisent.

I honestly don’t know any other way. I have broke this down in so many ways it’s making my head spin. But you my friend are alien to how this passage has been interpreted by those whom learned from the apostles. If you read up on them you might begin to understand your reading the passage with Protestant glasses. I don’t need your help. I prefer using the church fathers for help

 

[Sig]

First, did you not say that the sanctified could not be believers because believers do not fall?

Yes.

Was you not agreeing that the passage talks about whomever was sactified in this passage falls with this admittance?

No.

If not than why can’t the sanctified be the belivers if the passage is not referring to the sanctified that are the ones whom have fallen?

For one thing Odell, the passage is speaking in the singular, and not in the plural. It seems you missed that. The only one who is mentioned as being sanctified is Jesus (v 29).

"Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one(who is THE ONE punishment is due?)= who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was sanctified and insults the spirit of grace.

The one is the one who has been sanctified. You really do a butchering job trying to explain it away

Odell, you’ve butchered the passage by not accurately writing it.

Look: “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” What’s the antecedent noun of the pronoun “he” was sanctified (Jn 17:19, et. al.)?

Let’s try this so mabe you’ll understand. A subordinant clause is a claus that can not stand alone as a seperate sentence since its meaning depends on the meaning of the main clause and giving additional info.
"Do you not think a worse punishment is due (subordinant clause) We need additional info because this sentence does not stand on its own in fact the word of God never even put a period here so this will elaborate my point even more. The sentence continues with “the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was sanctified.” (main clause) The additional info needed to understand who is due the punisent.

I honestly don’t know any other way. I have broke this down in so many ways it’s making my head spin. But you my friend are alien to how this passage has been interpreted by those whom learned from the apostles. If you read up on them you might begin to understand your reading the passage with Protestant glasses. I don’t need your help. I prefer using the church fathers for help

And you are reading the passage with “Catholic glasses.” What’s your point?

And by the way, list those Father’s who were taught by the apostles, and who interpreted this passage, and provide the dates of those Father’s births and deaths, and link their writings for me as well. (Methinks sometimes that phrase, “this passage has been interpreted by those who learned from the apostles,” rolls off the Catholic tongue too easily, and without merit).

 

[FutureCatholic1]

Yes, folks. You decide:

[SIGN]Does stray mean the same thing as “continuously hears and follows”?[/SIGN]

nope it dosnt

 

[onenow1]

Yes, folks. You decide:

[SIGN]Does stray mean the same thing as “continuously hears and follows”?[/SIGN]

:nope: