We’ve covered this with the apostasy discussion as well as numerous passages that show that believers can fall away and fall from grace. It is obvious to us that a person cannot fall from grace unless they have received it.
My point is that the dogma is not based on the “allegory of scripture” as you asserted.
Actually, that is not right either. The Arians were using the same scriptures, and coming up with different results (just as all the private interpreters do today). The Sacred Tradition was what was used to defeat the heresy. Sacred Tradition ensures that Scripture is interpreted in the way it was written.
There was no need. All the writers of the Scriptures personally knew Mary, and it would have been ridiculuous for anyone to assert she had other children. Most of the writers knew Jesus as an only child, or knew those that spent time with Him, and was aware that he had no womb siblings.
Well, we read it differently!
Don’t you think that question belongs on another thread?
That’s a CD for “questioning Protestants.” I’m beyond questioning. Been given the standard answers and now I’m asking for proof. Lots of assertions, conjecture and allegorizing Scripture.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I have never read, heard, or studied any apologetic on this point. I realized by reading your posts, and those of other Reformed posters here, that this verse was being twisted out of its tense to apply to those who have not yet been glorified.
Ok. we read it differently. Catholics believe that God allows people to make choices other than His perfect will.The English definition of predestine is identical to that of a Greek Lexicon: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand.
IOW, it’s a sure thing.
Well, for the sake of this discussion, shall we agree that God desires most everybody to be saved? Aside from the vessels that were created for perdition?
Is this related to following the commandments?
Why don’t you just block them?You’re projecting. ISTM that about 90% of the time, none of your responses to anyone have anything to do with the posts to which you respond.
I did address the post. What you mean is that I rejected what you imagine to be the believer’s power in heaven. And that the verse you quoted had anything to do with it.
I already answered that question. You know I did because you changed your question from “loved” to “honored.” Which I said was what the Mosaic Law required. Jesus was born a Jew, born under the Law, and lived it perfectly. The Law did not require that a Jew exalt his mother. Go back and re-read my post. I covered it all.
This thread appears to have wandered irretrievably off topic.
Yes. It is someone who was also predestined to grace, remained faithful, endured to the end, and was saved.
Salvation is a free gift from God. God knows who will accept it before they do it. People who accept this grace are “predestined to grace” because God new it before hand. If they are faithful and endure to the end they are “predestined to glory”, because God also knew that before hand.
Adam.
God is true to his promises. That doesn’t mean we are unable to reject his gift (even after we recieve the Holy Spirit).
Have you kept every gift ever given to you? If not, that doesn’t change the fact that you recieved it in the first place.
I agree.
Every scripture quote in this thread, about losing salvation, is proof.
I’ve answered your questions, so please answer mine. They are directly related to this topic.
Ok. I agree that Jewish law does not require that a son “exalt” his mother. What would it mean for Jesus to “honor” His mother?
"And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. (Mt 13:22)
I understand the concerns about spending money, but there is a lot more material presented by Tim Staples then you are familiar with. It is very rich in material.That’s a CD for “questioning Protestants.” I’m beyond questioning. Been given the standard answers and now I’m asking for proof. Lots of assertions, conjecture and allegorizing Scripture.
There’s plenty of information out there which I’ve painstakingly read. It didn’t look like my 40 bucks was going to buy me anything more than what I’ve already studied on the issue and what’s been presented elsewhere for free. Thanks anyway, Pax. Appreciate it.
The exact terminology you’re looking for is not in scripture, but the discussion we had eliminates any other possibility. This is a logic issue based upon the empirical data of scripture. I gave you examples of Ananias and Saphira as well as Simon the Magician. I also mentioned Alexander and Hymenaes. The discussion showed that they were saved and then lost it. The proof is pretty obvious.
I think you’re going to your Tradition once again. The implication of your understanding of predestination is that the responsibility of remaining faithful is the sole purview of the human.
Your post asserts that ”the first grace can be merited.” Catholic Theologian, Ludwig Ott, asserts the opposite.
It means exactly that God never gave them saving grace.
By definition, Saving Grace Saves because it is Saving Grace!
Again, that’s your Tradition, which attributes salvation to the human, and not to God.
That’s your tradition. The only predestination spoken of with respect to salvation is to Glorification.
Adam, as Christ, is a singularly unique human being.
I don’t argue that God’s warning was meaningless to Adam—what Adam chose, he chose freely. God did not hold a gun to Adam’s head.
That is works salvation in that it asserts that salvation can be lost on the basis of human action.
Salvation is a gift gifted by the will of God! God’s will cannot be thwarted!
It is grace issued from the will of God to accomplish the purpose for which it is given.
You have yet to prove "predestination to grace only," except within the framework of your Tradition.
**Ephesians 4:11
I think this is a very good example. The seed sprouts,and grows. Jesus is clear that the seed is the Word of God, which cannot sprout and grow without grace.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your answer. Would you please answer again with a bit of explanation.
And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the** faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge** of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time? . . But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:42; 45-46)
Of course!
Sacred Tradition is what produced the text, therefore, the best understanding of it is to read it from the point of view of those who wrote it! :clapping:Only in your mind, sandy. Scripture itself is very clear that “it is God who is at work in you to will and to do His good pleasure”. Whatever we do that is not in faith is sin.
Although Paul sees himself in this chain, he also says that a mature attitude is not to consider that one has already arrived. He also indicates that he, too, may be disqualified.
Well, we read it differently.
Sandy, this is a shameless misrepresentation. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. Everything in it is Catholic, and nothing in it contradicts what is taught by the Catholic Church. Where it is written “you are saved by grace, through faith”, this is an expression of Catholic soteriology.
What I’ve offered regarding predestination is what is clearly taught in Scripture, and that is that with respect to salvation, only one predestination is taught and that predestination
You have yet to offer a statement in Scripture teaching ”predestination to grace only."
I’m sorry, then, I obviously misunderstand what you are asking in light of the passage you quote.
Ah. See? You learn something new every day! I am continually amazed with Reformed Theology.
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.Code:Thus God observes that **TRULY**:**Genesis 6:5**
AND:
Romans 3:10-18
10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
I think if you look at the passage from which this is quoted you will easily see that it starts out “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”. Both of these passages are talking about unbelievers. How is it this principle is easily applied for you in other places, but not here?
Clearly, God decides to save Noah and his family , so not “everyone” displeased him unto death.
sandusky;4125399:
But Adam was made differently, and was able to exercise a choice that the rest of us cannot?
Then, God continued to expect manknd to choose the good, even though we were incapable?
No, salvation is based on grace. Salvation is lost when there is a separation from grace. Sin separates us from God. The nature of sin has not changed from the beginning. Man is separated from God by sin.
It is grace that saves, through faith, not human action. When that grace is lost, through unbelief, then one is separated from saving grace. Scripture calls this “fallen from grace”.
That truth is a knife that cuts both ways.
Salvation is a gift gifted by the will of God! God’s will cannot be thwarted!
Something is amiss in this soteriology. Otherwise, how is it that some are said to thwart God’s grace?
" But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves. " Luke 7:29-30