The Sovereignty of God – a discussion on a very difficult topic…

[JamesATyler]

I think Scripture would testify to that reality on that particular issue in both the OT church and NT church. Sheep and goats, and wheat and tares in the church were taught by Jesus in the gospel accounts. Israel always had a mix of sheep and goats too. I think Catholic theology would have a more difficult time explaining why not all in the Catholic Church will end up in Heaven. For those Catholics who will not make it to Heaven, would you say that they were sheep that changed to goats? Since the sacrament of baptism is considered the new birth where one becomes an adopted child of God, what would you say about those Catholics who don’t end up in Heaven; were they ever adopted children of God that were once united to Christ?

Jesus answered it.

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, some an hundred. He said unto them, He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

 

[Anthony_V]

Is baptism necessary to being born again? Reformed people generally do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I would say baptism is an obedient act and a means of sanctifying grace; therefore, the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for being born from above.

I have a difficult time understanding why Reformed theology insists on justification and sanctification being two separate things. In Catholic theology, we are justified in our sanctification itself.

This seems utterly contrary to Christian mysticism, and creates a dichotomy where there is none–that is, that security ultimately rests in God or in the faithful. We cannot (at least in my own experience as a Christian) live in community if we do not know our relationship with God. God the Holy Spirit, through Christ, is the binding force on the Christian Churches which makes them into the Body of Christ. Can a person discern if they are not in God’s favor? How can this be differentiated from the sin of despair? This idea, in general, as always posed some very practical issues for me.
I think this is one of our biggest differences. Our confidence rests in the promises of God revealed in the Scriptures, and our understanding of a forensic justification. I believe in adoption through propitiation, so our security rest in Christ alone.

So you cannot know, or you can know? Christianity is about a relationship with Christ. Do you love him? How can you know without putting security in yourself?

How can you claim to have been sanctified? It seems to me that, within this system, any sort of security in the person is seen as “evil”, a presumptuous sin. We have to always be afraid of God, not resting in the peace of God.*

Sanctified as in set apart or sanctified as in the lifetime process of growing in personal holiness and obedience? Again, the security is in the promises of God and our understanding of justification and sanctification which is quite different than the Catholic Faith on these issues.

It would seem to me that sanctification is both of the things that you said. In being set apart, we begin our process of growing in personal holiness and obedience. Grace does both of these things.

God never forsakes his work–yes. But do men? Love does not fail, men do. Love is mutual, not a puppet play. If God gives us the faculties to love him, grace, are we forced to love him? That paints a scary picture.

I would agree men do fail, but God’s grace is sufficient for us. God’s discipline in Hebrews 12 would be also grace too.

I did not ask if God’s grace is sufficient–we both believe that. I asked if regenerated people had no choice but to 'love" God. Because if it is, then we’re not really loving God, God is loving himself. That seems to defeat the entire purpose of creating creatures to love you out of their own free will.

So sanctification–to make holy–is by count of justification? That God is disgusted with our sinful nature, but then “covers it up” to make it look all better, without really making it all better? That seems to be totally against the notion of being “born again”, where we are literally transformed to be given a new life, which is the Life of Christ.

Our differences is a forensic justification.

Define forensic justification, please.

I will make no comment on this portion, directly. Do you take Romans 3:23 entirely and fully literally?

Maybe I would understand that verse in context from Romans 3:21 through Romans 5:21.

Do you believe, therefore, that only impediment to man’s communion and union with God is sin?

 

[guanophore]

 Calvinism believe in perseverance of the saints and not OSAS (contemporary modern day idea):

From an Apostolic point of view, they are both contemporary modern day innovations.

The means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God’s power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again.

Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology (pg. 788)

Perhaps you can help me understand the difference betweent the two? To me it seems they are the same. Calvin taught that salavation occurs when one is regenerated/born again, and that this salvation can never be lost. There fore, one who is truly born again has been saved once and for all. Isn’t OSAS just another term that describes the perseverance of the saint?

Catholics also believe in a form of OSAS. We receive the Apostolic teaching that we are working out our salvation throughout this life, and that, at the end of our life here, we expereience the judgement, at which time the soul is determined to spend an eternity in the presence of God, or in the absence of God. At that point the soul of the saint which has persevered moves forward into glorification and can never again be separated from the inheritance that is kept preserved in heaven for them. They are forever “saved”.

 If our religion be of our own getting or making, it will perish; and the sooner it goes, the better; but if our religion is a matter of God's giving, we know that He shall never take back what He gives, and that, if He has commenced to work in us by His grace, He will never leave it unfinished.

C.H. Spurgeon

Indeed, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, but we also know that His gifts and His call can be rejected, spurned, and denied by those to whom it was given. He does not take it back, but they can refuse to accept the gift, refuse to open the gift, or throw away their birthright, as did Esau.

For non-reformed theologies..."at the end of the day, the security of the believer finally rests with the believer. For those in the opposite camp [Reformed], the security of the believer finally rests with God -- and that, I suggest, rightly taught, draws the believer back to God himself, to trust in God, to a renewed faith that is of a piece with trusting him in the first place."

D.A. Carson

Yes, this is a common myth or misunderstanding among Reformed theologians. It is an untruth, however. All the Scriptures written in the NT about security and assurance for the believer were written by, for, and about Catholics. The fact that they are misapplied by our separated brethren in no way changes their eternal truth, and power. The believer is kept in grace by the Holy Spirit, not by themselves, or their own “security” (of which they have none).

When we speak of “once saved, always saved,” we are not taking into account the full scope of salvation. We have been saved (justification), was are being saved (sanctified), and we will one day be saved (glorified). You cannot claim to have been “saved” (justified) unless you are being sanctified. Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord.

Michael Horton from Putting the Amazing Back into Grace (pg. 171)

Wow that sounds so very Catholic!

Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart is continued and brought to competition. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.
Louis Berkhof from Systematic Theology (pg. 546)

As does this!

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints does not maintain that all those who profess the Christian faith are certain of heaven. It is saints - those who are set apart by the Spirit - who persevere to the end. It is believers - those who are given true, living faith in Christ - who are secure and safe in Him.

This much is consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Many who profess to believe fall away, but they do not fall from grace for they were never in grace. True believers do fall into temptations, and they do commit grievous sins, but these sins do not cause them to lose their salvation or separate them from Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith gives the following statement on this doctrine:

This one is just a mystery. I cannot fathom how anyone can read the multitude of Scriptures, specifically addressed TO THE SAINTS that refer to falling from grace, and becoming separated from salvation due to their sins, and dismiss them. It is mind boggling.

Personally, though I think the concept of “lose their salvation” is misleading. One cannot “lose” what one has not yet attained.

  They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither     totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and     be eternally saved.

this statement represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[fhansen]

I hope you guys understand our differences are rooted in our mutual exclusive sources of final authority, correct?

Of course, you’re at a huge disadvantage when it comes to understanding the gospel correctly-you have no idea at this point how profound the differences really are. Scripture was simply never intended to play the role you want to force it to play, of authoritatively conveying the meaning of Gods Word, apart from the church He established for that purpose. The church presumably could preach the gospel without the bible, as she did before one word of the NT, at least, was written. She could completely do without the field of hermeneutics, for example, even though she employs it as others do to support and defend her positions, because her faith doesn’t proceed from scripture, as if she suddenly discovered it and then proceeded to build her faith around it. Rather her faith is her lived experience, what she received and preserved since the beginnings of Christianity. There simply is no other way to know the faith with any kind of certainty; as is made evident by the endless arguing over the bible’s meaning by sincere people with sincerely differing interpretations. The bible is not a theological handbook or a catechism.

 

[guanophore]

Boettner is certainly correct in asserting that This doctrine does not stand alone but is a necessary part of the Calvinistic system of theology. The     doctrines of Election and Efficacious Grace logically imply the certain salvation of those who receive     these blessings. If God has chosen men absolutely and unconditionally to eternal life, and if His Spirit     effectively applies to them the benefits of redemption, the inescapable conclusion is that these persons     shall be saved. The following verses show that God's people are given eternal life the moment they     believe. they are kept by God's power through faith and nothing can separate them from His love. They     have been sealed with the Holy Spirit who has been given as the guarantee of their salvation, and     they are thus assured of an eternal inheritance.

David Steele & Curtis C Thomas from The Five Points of Calvinism (pg. 56)

I agree. All of these doctrines need to hang together with one another and are a necessary part of teh Calvanistic system. As it turns out, though, they are each individually and severally major departures from Apostolic faith. Calvin’s “logic” does not encompass the revelation that God has made. Although I am sure it helped him make sense of the faith, and seems to for many of his spiritual descendants, what we observe is the fruit of error, which is fragmentation and separation, rather than unity. Not all Christians are able to read the Scriptures through Calvanitstic lenses, and they can’t help seeing the verses he could block out, which defy these basic tenents of his theology.

Perseverance of the saints is the biblical doctrine that God infallibly preserves in faith all of those he has given to the Son (John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65) so that they are never lost. It maintains that none who are truly redeemed by Christ can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith. For as the apostle Paul states in Philippians 1:6, “I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
Monergism.com

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Perseverance-of-Saints/

Well, certainly this defines Calvin’s view of the perseverance of the Saints. That does not make the Apostolic version he rejected any less valid.

I hope you guys understand our differences are rooted in our mutual exclusive sources of final authority, correct?

No, nothing of the kind. Catholics accept the authority of the Scriptures as well as the Authority of the Church. They are two strands of divine revelation, and are not mutually exclusive. What is mutually exclusive is modern theologians who depart from the once for all divine deposit of faith. It was Calvin’s intention to create such an exclusion, because he wanted to separate Christianity from Catholicism. In order to do so, he had to redefine a number of theological concepts to his own liking. One of those is justification.

Until we understand this point, we will be going in circles without really understanding how we arrive in what we each believe. Let me quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith so you can understand how I discern truth:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

Of course on its face, this sounds acceptable to a Catholic, because we would make the same confession. However, what underlies this statement is the fact that the Scripture has been removed from it’s context. It is no longer interpreted from the point of view of those who wrote it, but from the point of view of the READER. That basically removes the CC from the position of authority, and replaces the CC with the READER, who then takes the seat of authority.

 

[guanophore]

…the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

And this statement essentially contradicts the one above it, which says that the Scriptures are authoritative of themselves, not on account of any human testimony. And yet, here it is written that it is the tesimony of the human heart, believed to be experiencing the witness of the HS, that is the bottom line. Therefore, each person who reads the Scripture and believes they experience the HS bearing witness in their heart to the Truth becomes their own authority. This is precisely what has caused the fragmentation of Protesatantim, and the perpetuation of mutually exclusive doctrines.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12]

This statement is an excellent example of a “tradition of men”. Developed during the Reformation as a method to separate from the authority of the CC, this concept was created as much for political reasons as religious. It is a concept found itself nowhere in Scripture, and is again a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. It has also fed into the plethora of fragmentation in Christendom.

The work of the HS always leads to unity. So when we see the fruits of such man made doctrines causing disunity, we can certainly know them by those fruits.

X. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

While the apostles did teach that the whole of scripture is necessary to interpret correctly, they never did anthropomorphize the Holy Writings as the Reformers did. In an effort to replace what they considered corrupt leadership with something more pure, they tried to infuse the Scriptures with qualities it does not posess. Scripture cannot be “infallible”, because this charism can only be given to PERSONS. It requires the ability to act, decide, discern and be responsible (ie to be fallible). The Holy Writings, as essential as they are, do not these things.

Interpretation is also the activity of persons, not books, however Holy they may be. And interpretation is grounded upon one’s perceptions, experience, and education (or lack of it). This is why we see such a broad spectrum of it active today, even to the exent that very devout Christians claim that baptism has nothing to do with water.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

Another man made doctrine, sincere it it’s attempt to purify the Church of corruption, yet causing even more fragmentation. Books cannot judge (criterionate) because Holy Writings do not have will, reason, and the ability to discriminate between options. Therefore, those who espouse this man made tradition make themselves the judge and examiner, and though each one believes he hears the HS “speaking through scripture” we find that suddently that “HS” is teaching the faithful doctrines opposite to what Jesus reveled to the Apostles.

Not only so, but this principle is expressely CONTRARY to scripture, which make an even greater problem for a man made tradition than one that is just not found there.

God bless them all. In an efffort to purge what they deemed corrupt and man made traditions, they only replaced them with more corrupt and man made traditions.

 

[fhansen]

For non-reformed theologies…“at the end of the day, the security of the believer finally rests with the believer. For those in the opposite camp [Reformed], the security of the believer finally rests with God – and that, I suggest, rightly taught, draws the believer back to God himself, to trust in God, to a renewed faith that is of a piece with trusting him in the first place.”*
D.A. Carson*

When we speak of “once saved, always saved,” we are not taking into account the full scope of salvation. We have been saved (justification), was are being saved (sanctified), and we will one day be saved (glorified). You cannot claim to have been “saved” (justified) unless you are being sanctified. Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord.
Michael Horton from Putting the Amazing Back into Grace (pg. 171)

Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart is continued and brought to competition. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.
Louis Berkhof from Systematic Theology (pg. 546)*

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints does not maintain that all those who profess the Christian faith are certain of heaven. It is saints - those who are set apart by the Spirit - who persevere to the end. It is believers - those who are given true, living faith in Christ - who are secure and safe in Him. Many who profess to believe fall away, but they do not fall from grace for they were never in grace. True believers do fall into temptations, and they do commit grievous sins, but these sins do not cause them to lose their salvation or separate them from Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith gives the following statement on this doctrine:*
They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither * * totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and * * be eternally saved.

I gotta tell you, I fail to see the distinction between the doctrine of perseverance of the saints and OSAS unless the Calvinists are merely asserting an obvious fact, that those who will be saved will, um, be saved. And since they also distinguish between those who are true believers vs those who only think they’re true believers, without any definitive means of telling the two apart, the doctrine of perseverance of saints is rendered a merely academic point, not particularly useful since we won’t know for sure until the end anyway just who made the grade- and who didn’t.

 

[CopticChristian]

I gotta tell you, I fail to see the distinction between the doctrine of perseverance of the saints and OSAS unless the Calvinists are merely asserting an obvious fact, that those who will be saved will, um, be saved. And since they also distinguish between those who are true believers vs those who only think they’re true believers, without any definitive means of telling the two apart, the doctrine of perseverance of saints is rendered a merely academic point, not particularly useful since we won’t know for sure until the end anyway just who made the grade- and who didn’t.

Fhansen,

Here is a Protestant view of the difference, from the OSAS camp, it is a distinction without a difference…Both OSAS and Perserverance of the Saints emanates from the mind of man and not God…while we do believe that it is possible for one to with grace persevere, it requires constant reflection…

What do I believe?
How do I live?
What is the Moral requirement to Imitate Christ?
How do I ask for the help that I need?

Failure to persevere is to believe that you know and understand completely all that God has revealed without any need to reflect.

Failure is complacency in living.

Failure is believing that you have achieved the perfection of Christ in imitation.

Failure is to fool yourself that you have learned to pray without ceasing.

Perseverance with grace by Faith acting to love God and neighbor…this is true.

Contrary to what most people think, John Calvin didn’t teach eternal security at all. Calvin insisted that believers must persevere in faith if they are to remain in grace. He believed that the elect will persevere in faith and continue in grace to ultimate final salvation. These damnable heresies are far from the teachings of the Bible. The very fact that Calvinism requires a saint to “persevere” to the end is damnable heresy. Eternal security is the preservation of the saints, NOT the perseverance of the saints. To “persevere” is works salvation.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe I would understand that verse in context from Romans 3:21 through Romans 5:21. I think Reformed theology on justificaton would rest quite a bit in the section of Romans I quoted above. I think quite a bit of Reformed doctrine on justifcation and sanctification would be builit from the book of Romans and Galatians.

I think this is a very accurate observation. This is one of the reasons that the doctrine departs so much from Apostolic faith. Basing any doctrine on a collection of Scriptures, or even a couple books of the NT is bound to result in a lopsided approach. It cannot explain the rest of the NT, or the OT, or what the disciples of the Apostles believed and taught, as we read in the Early Fathers.

 I think Catholic theology would have a more difficult time explaining why not all in the Catholic Church will end up in Heaven.

No, not a bit. We accept the teaching of teh Apostles that we can fall from grace, be cut off, thrown into the fire and be burned, fail to finish the race, sell out our birthright, spurn the blood that bought us, have our names blotted out of the book of life, etc, etc.

For those Catholics who will not make it to Heaven, would you say that they were sheep that changed to goats?

Yep.

Since the sacrament of baptism is considered the new birth where one becomes an adopted child of God, what would you say about those Catholics who don’t end up in Heaven; were they ever adopted children of God that were once united to Christ?

Oh yes, but like the prodigal son, they squandered their inheritance, but unlike him, they did not return in repentence.

Like Esau they sell their birthright.

God loves His adopted children, and He loves us so much, He will watch us walk through the gates of hell if we choose.

Mark 10:21-24
21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!”

Calvanism does not incorporate scriptures like these into the concept of salvation, and promotes the erroneous idea that, since “nothing can separate us from the love of God” that we cannot be separated from salvation. The two are not the same. God loves sinners, enough to die for them, He loves those He has called, enough to let them refuse the call.

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. -  Rom 2

Catholics will agree with our separated brethren that baptism will not save those who do not live according to the grace imparted through it.

Jesus answered it
… And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

Yes, but Calvin did not believe the message of salvation was contined in the Gospels, but in the letters of Paul. The doctrines of salvation that are derived using Romans and Galations do not take into account such passages as these. The followers of Calvin are taught that these lessons of Jesus are for the Jews, not the Gentiles.

 I have a difficult time understanding why Reformed theology insists on justification and sanctification being two separate things. In Catholic theology, we are justified in our sanctification itself.

This separation had to happen to support the TULIP. It was also necessary to separate Reformed Christians from the Sacramental life.

Christianity is about a relationship with Christ. Do you love him? How can you know without putting security in yourself?

There are plenty of Scriptures about security to reinforce the beliefs of Calvanism.

It would seem to me that sanctification is both of the things that you said. In being set apart, we begin our process of growing in personal holiness and obedience. Grace does both of these things.

Yes.

I did not ask if God's grace is sufficient--we both believe that. I asked if regenerated people had no choice but to 'love" God. Because if it is, then we're not really loving God, God is loving himself. That seems to defeat the entire purpose of creating creatures to love you out of their own free will.

I see your point, but Calvanism teaches that regenerated people love God because they have hearts inclined toward God. Since one is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, they love the light.

 

[guanophore]

Define forensic justification, please.

this has been hashed over on another recent thread, you might want to search for it. Basically it is a legal declaration (Calvin was a lawyer) that a person has been placed in right relationship with God. The case against them is dismissed because Jesus paid the penalty.

Col 2:13-14
13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Do you believe, therefore, that only impediment to man's communion and union with God is sin?

Calvanism teaches that sin is not an impediment to man’s communion with God, either. Repentance from sin is not necessary, because God will cleanse us from all our sins, and they have already been forgiven (past, present and future sins). Once a person is justified before God, nothing can ever separate him from God again, ever.

Here is a link:

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

Forensic justification can be found about halfway down the page.

 

[Anthony_V]

Calvanism teaches that sin is not an impediment to man’s communion with God, either. Repentance from sin is not necessary, because God will cleanse us from all our sins, and they have already been forgiven (past, present and future sins). Once a person is justified before God, nothing can ever separate him from God again, ever.

The point I was trying to get down to was the question of what stands between man and the beatific vision of God. The end of the string is on the topic of prelapsarian grace. We Catholics hold it because we believe that man is not created into a state of accidental grace and natural righteousness. This is because we believe grace to be–I feel silly talking to you like this–a participation in the life of God, and thus strictly uncreated. Protestants don’t hold it because they need original sin to be a positive occurrence, e.g. that something is lost that should be there by nature, and that sin is a positive, in order for their view of total depravity.
I wrote about this briefly on my blog here. I also wrote about some of the contextual pieces here.

 

[guanophore]

 The point I was trying to get down to was the question of what stands between man and the beatific vision of God. The end of the string is on the topic of prelapsarian grace. We Catholics hold it because we believe that man is not created into a state of accidental grace and natural righteousness. This is because we believe grace to be--I feel silly talking to you like this--a participation in the life of God, and thus strictly uncreated.

Don’t feel silly at all! It is very well said.

Calvanism does some very bizarre things with grace, and the concept of original sin. The notion of total depravity is such a gross departure from ALL of what God has revealed about Himself from the beginning of recorded history until Jesus, who is the fullness of HIs revelation.

Protestants don’t hold it because they need original sin to be a positive occurrence, e.g. that something is lost that should be there by nature, and that sin is a positive, in order for their view of total depravity.
I wrote about this briefly on my blog here. I also wrote about some of the contextual pieces here.

I look forward to reading your work.

 

[rinnie]

Right, like I said, If someone falls from faith they were never really saved to begin with. seems rather a convenient way to mask the lack of substance in your argument.

This statement has always given me a problem. I have to say I totally disagree with it, Here it why.

When a baby is taken to church and Baptised, is it given the true grace promised to us by God at baptism? Either the grace was given and the Child was saved or Christ did not mean his words that we are saved and born again in baptism.

Next comes the truth, can we fall from the Grace of God, not if we never had it, Right?

I believe as St Paul teaches we are all saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. But can we loose the grace, sure we can, by refusing to use the grace.

Comes back to free will. When God gives us grace he truly gives us grace, It is the real thing. But when people say if you fall from grace, it was never truly grace. I believe what Jesus says. In Baptism we are washed completely of those sins, and its a work in progress rather we finish the race to the end.

The grace is there, always there to reach out for, we either continue to reach out and confess our sins throughout life, or we don’t.

This I believe is true because if not, repentance would not have a place in our faith.

 

[rinnie]

The point I was trying to get down to was the question of what stands between man and the beatific vision of God. The end of the string is on the topic of prelapsarian grace. We Catholics hold it because we believe that man is not created into a state of accidental grace and natural righteousness. This is because we believe grace to be–I feel silly talking to you like this–a participation in the life of God, and thus strictly uncreated. Protestants don’t hold it because they need original sin to be a positive occurrence, e.g. that something is lost that should be there by nature, and that sin is a positive, in order for their view of total depravity.
I wrote about this briefly on my blog here. I also wrote about some of the contextual pieces here.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, How could sin, separation from God ever be seen as a positibe view?

Sin is death, death of the soul.