That is true. But for the non-elect, they will fall away; but to say they were never justified is where Reformed theology veers off the handle.
Was King Saul justified prior to the Holy Spirit departing from him? King David after he sinned with Bethsheba?
Then you can never know whether you possess the grace of justification now.
Then you better stop arguing with the Orthodox and the sedevacantistsI love it when Protestants argue. It shows how right we are about sola scriptura not answering everyone’s questions the same way.
Oh no, not me! The Orthodox are fun to dialog with until they get all “innovations!!!” and refuse to hear out the logic and all the facts. For example, the first recorded use of the filioque was in Syria by an Orthodox Church! Sedevacantists are crazy. They might as well become Mormons. Actually, they should all become Orthodox.Then you better stop arguing with the Orthodox and the sedevacantists
Not, as the Lord said, if it doesn’t persevere—it’s not the faith of one who’s been reconciled to God (Col 1:21ff).
It says they didn’t persevere. Christ only intercedes for the elect.
Yes they will; that is the will of the Father for them.
Neither my assurance, nor my faith is based on a feeling, but on the promises of God, as I’ve said.
No more precarious than your’s, and far less precarious than the Catholics’.
IYO.
I don’t know with Saul. That’s a different covenant; clearly, the working of the Spirit was different then.
And before.
You must prove that the Galatian Church was severed from Christ by works-righteousness.
So much for infallible Church authorities
Correct…and the faith of the non-elect will not persevere. That does not, however, mean, their faith did not justify when they had it.
The promises of God are given to all who hear the word preached. Calvinism doesn’t believe that. So again, the promises of God are great if they apply to you…and you have no way to determine that other than your belief. That is not faith in the atonement, it is faith in faith.
I agree in many respects, vis a vie Rome; however, the situation is much the same within Reformed theology. This is why the Puritans had to create entire systems of theology about determining salvation based on external works (the work-ethic) and other such measures; in the end, both Rome and Geneva must rely on an inward quality to judge assurance.
It was a different covenant? God doesn’t have one means of justification throughout all human history? Faith?
You must prove that Paul’s statement to the Galatian church “you are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law” was an empty threat.
Proof of that justification?
The promises are not given to all who hear the word preached, but preached to all who hear the word.
And that would be your faith in your baptism, correct?
Yes, God saves by grace alone, through faith alone, in Him alone; The spirit of Samuel tells Saul that on the day of Saul’s death he and his sons would be with Samuel. How do you take that?
I’ve never said it was an empty threat; nevertheless, my reading of the text is that some in the Galatian church were getting circumcised, but not the entire church.
Severed from Christ; cut off from the vine; this indicates connection with that which is being severed from. We cannot be ingrafted into Christ without being justified.
And that goes back to the previous question; how do you know you’re elect?
I don’t doubt that your faith is in God. It is not my position to question your faith. It is, however, my position to insure you remain consistent with your theological presuppositions. For a Calvinist to speak about assurance they have to sound like a non-Calvinist. If you are consistent with your viewpoints, you cannot point to the promises of God in Scripture; because you do not know if they apply to you unless you believe they apply to you. There is nothing that separates it from the reprobate down the street who is deluding himself into believing he is saved.
No; in the atonement.
Verse reference?
Yes, some were and not the whole church; yet Paul makes no distinction between “believers” and “professed believers.” Clearly, the wording of Paul’s warning indicates that he assumes that the ones relying on the law for salvation were justified, otherwise he wouldnt tell them that they were severing themselves from something they were never connected to.
Is there a difference between belief and Faith??
It could be the same depending on context.Is there a difference between belief and Faith??
I think Jesus clearly taught that all who professed Christ (visible church) are not in the invisble church.
The opposite of “I never knew you” is “I foreknew” (predestination).Thanks for the compliment.So my friend Reformed is back! Hmmmmmm…??
By the way Reformed I am beginning to associate you with a boar - do you think you could present us with a prettier picture?
Please go back to the verse in Revelation and interpert it in its proper context. Who is the audience that Jesus is talking to, the entire world (all humanity), or the church?
Hi wild boar brother,
Are you saying that Mormons and Catholic have much in common, like rejecting the sovereignty of God in salvation? I noticed that both Mormons and Catholics like to teach about the apparent free will of man.
LOL!!! … I knew TriuneUnity was on the Roman road.Sounds like you are well on your way to becoming a Catholic then.
I thought you were my wild boar brother?Hey TriuneUnity, are you a wild boar or have you been domesticated?I love it when Protestants argue. It shows how right we are about sola scriptura not answering everyone’s questions the same way.
Do you hold some level of acceptance of nominalism with regards to God?Are you saying that Mormons and Catholic have much in common, like rejecting the sovereignty of God in salvation? I noticed that both Mormons and Catholics like to teach about the apparent free will of man.
I was just responding to our LDS Christian friend.