There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[East_and_West]

Sorry, I should have clarified; I wasn’t stating my view of it in that syllogism, but the typical Reformed way of looking at it.

Thanks for clarifying. Then my statement is only directed at those who use this syllogism.

 

[ralphinal]

Exactly, there is a remnant throughout redemptive history that are rescused from the righteous judgment of God for sin. That remnant is chosen by grace. Please define fairness. The idea of fairness is receiving what we deserve. Do you want fairness or mercy and grace? Be careful for what you ask for. Did the Aztecs receive what they deserve in God’s fairness?

The Remnant of Israel - Rom 11

11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, [1] a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”

9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”

So God let his message be known to all men prior to Christ?

 

[Reformed]

I think the problem is that too many people make this into an either/or situation. It is either predestination or free will. It is either Divine Sovereignty or free will. Catholics believe it’s a both/and situation. When people hear that the Catholic Church affirms free will, they unfortunately resort to an Arminian explanation, as if that is the only “free will” alternative.

Regarding your question, Catholic teachings on predestination/ salvation has never been about what’s fair from a human perspective.

God Bless,
Michael

That’s where I’m trying to direct this with everyone. It is not about receiving what we deserve. What’s fair is receivng what we deserve which is the wrath of God for our sins. It’s about the amazing saving and transforming grace of God found in the person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Let’s make this about the person and work of Jesus Christ and not necessarily about the Roman Catholic Church. How great of a work did God in Christ accomplish 2,000 years ago? I proclaim in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for those who believe. The biblical Jesus Christ is the key and not a religious institution called the Roman Catholic Church. Back to the OP and “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

 

[mikeledes]

My assurance is not based on my experience, but solely on the promises of God in Christ.

Standard Protestant Syllogism
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ will be saved
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ
Conclusion: I am saved.

Now here’s where the logic becomes important: in order to get from the major promise to the conclusion you need a minor premise, which applies the principle to the particular case in hand. How do I get saved? Well, by believing, of course. This is an explicit condition of the promise. For the major premise is logically equivalent to the conditional statement: “if you believe in Christ, you are saved,” where the if-clause states the condition. So the logic follows from this condition: you are saved on condition that you have faith, so if I am to know I am saved I must know I meet the condition.

Indeed, because the content of the promise is conditional, explicitly making everything conditional upon faith, I am in no position to say the Gospel promise is about me until I can say, “I believe”. For most Protestants, this is a really big deal. The hour I first believed, the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the sacrament of baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved.

Notice what this requires of us: not just that we believe, but that we *know * we believe. I call this the requirement of “reflective faith.” Protestant faith has to be reflective in that it’s not enough just to believe; you have to believe you believe, maybe even know you believe. That’s a pretty hefty requirement for those of us who are weak in faith, or who believe that all sin is rooted in unbelief and we are still sinners at heart (simul justus et peccator, both justified and sinner still). It discourages us from confessing our unbelief and encourages us instead to profess our belief. This actually becomes a technical term in English Calvinism: the Puritans spoke of those who were “professors of religion,” meaning that they professed to know that they had been truly converted and regenerated by faith in Christ, whereas those who were not professors might they had true, saving faith. Those who thus could sincerely confess the faith but not confidently
profess faith were taught to believe they were not truly regenerate or born again. A peculiarly Protestant agony of conscience lies here, as Calvinist ministers realized, and they devoted much of their pastoral practice to dealing with it, addressing the problem they called “the assurance of faith.” The problem was to attain assurance that you really had true faith. If that’s your problem, then you are quite Protestant.

But isn’t the standard Protestant syllogism you mention also upheld by Calvinists? I still don’f understand how Calvinist assurance is “faith in faith” while Lutheran assurance is not? Isn’t Lutheran assurance dependant on believing that you have true faith? How does a Lutheran know they have genuine faith?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Now I am confused. I thought that the grace that lead to the gift of faith was not something that you could act in any way upon, at least in non-Catholic theology. Are you saying that, like Catholics, you teach we can choose not to accept faith?

Hang on; let’s go back to your original question:

What proof do you offer that in “double predestination” God allows “someone to be born with absolutely no chance to believe?”

How is the hearing of, and subsequent rejection after hearing the Gospel ”absolutely no chance to believe” the Gospel?

 

[mikeledes]

That’s where I’m trying to direct this with everyone. It is not about receiving what we deserve. What’s fair is receivng what we deserve which is the wrath of God for our sins. It’s about the amazing saving and transforming grace of God found in the person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Let’s make this about the person and work of Jesus Christ and not necessarily about the Roman Catholic Church. How great of a work did God in Christ accomplish 2,000 years ago? I proclaim in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for those who believe. The biblical Jesus Christ is the key and not a religious institution called the Roman Catholic Church.

While the center of Christianity is the person and work of Christ, we believe that Christ did establish a visible Church.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[TriuneUnity]

But isn’t the standard Protestant syllogism you mention also upheld by Calvinists? I still don’f understand how Calvinist assurance is “faith in faith” while Lutheran assurance is not? Isn’t Lutheran assurance dependant on believing that you have true faith? How does a Lutheran know they have genuine faith?

God Bless,
Michael

Yes, the standard Protestant syllogism would apply to Calvinists. For Lutherans, the syllogism would be:

Major premise: Christ told me, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
Conclusion: I am baptized (i.e., I have new life in Christ).

The major premise here is based on a Scriptural promise (Matt. 28:19) but is also a sacramental word, spoken at a particular time and place under very particular sacramental circumstances. This makes it profoundly different from the standard Protestant understanding of the Gospel promise, a difference that is subtle but makes a huge logical difference in the outcome. Note the crucial but familiar point that it is Christ who speaks the baptismal formula through the mouth of the pastor, so that this is nothing less than the word of Christ spoken to me in particular. What I want to dwell on is how we get to this “me in particular”—what Luther calls the pro me of the Gospel. I suggest that what makes this possible is that this sacramental word of Christ is an external word in a deeper sense than the major premise of the standard Protestant promise. For it is tied to *external *circumstances, a particular place and time of utterance (e.g., the baptism of baby Martin in Eisleben in 1483, or my baptism in Brooklyn, New York in 1977, and so on) in such a way that the word “you” it contains means me.

Logically, it’s not a conditional statement. It lays down no conditions about what I must do or decide or even believe in order to make sure the promise applies to me. The promise applies to me because it says so: Christ says “you” and he means me. So the promise of the Gospel, on Luther’s reckoning, is inherently, unconditionally, for me. Faith does not make it so but merely recognizes that it is so, a recognition that happens because we dare not call Christ a liar when he tells us, on that one momentous occasion, “I baptize you…” That is why the minor premise is not about my faith but about the truth of Christ. This is absolutely essential; God is true, faith acknowledges God’s truth, and unbelief calls God a liar.

Now to say that God speaks the truth is, of course, to make a kind of profession of faith, but not in the Calvinist mode, because it is not reflective. We’re not required to talk about our faith, to know we have faith, to profess, “I believe.” We are required, of course, to believe. We must believe that what God says is true, and we must stop calling God a liar (and furthermore, not incidentally, we must believe that Christ who makes the promise is God). But that, of course, is what faith essentially does: it believes in the truth of the Word of Christ. The problem with reflective faith is that it must do more: if reflective faith is required, then believing in God’s Word is not quite enough, because we must also believe that we believe.

 

[mikeledes]

Back to the OP and “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”.

That’s true for those who are and remain in Christ:

John 15:1-6

1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so 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 bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Hebrews 6:4-6

4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[cazayoux]

I proclaim in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for those who believe. The biblical Jesus Christ is the key and not a religious institution called the Roman Catholic Church.

The biblical Jesus Christ IS the key and he founded a visible church.
That church IS still here today, as Jesus promised it would be.

Again, if you were basing your faith on Jesus, you would answer my questions regarding the faith you practice today and if it includes Jesus giving power to men to forgive sins.
If Jesus is your foundation, then why doesn’t your faith do as He prescribed?

Jesus set up a way for men to forgive sins.

The church Jesus founded would recognize this.
Does yours?

michel

 

[Reformed]

Our contention is with your minor premise. If you are a follower of a man made religion (protestantism) rather than the faith established by Christ, are you really believing in Christ or an idol fashioned by Luther and Calvin?

If I am following a man made idol which has no power to save, how can the Magestrium call me your seperated brethern? On the other hand, is you version of Christ the living Christ revealed in the Holy Scriptures? Or, can your Christ be a creation of traditions of men…therefore an idol which cannot save sinners?

 

[Reformed]

The biblical Jesus Christ IS the key and he founded a visible church.
That church IS still here today, as Jesus promised it would be.

Again, if you were basing your faith on Jesus, you would answer my questions regarding the faith you practice today and if it includes Jesus giving power to men to forgive sins.
If Jesus is your foundation, then why doesn’t your faith do as He prescribed?

Jesus set up a way for men to forgive sins.

The church Jesus founded would recognize this.
Does yours?

michel

Please help me understand your version of Roman Catholicism. Are you saying that a sinner must be forgiven through Roman Catholic Priests who alone have the abililty to forgive sins? Remember, I am not Roman Catholic; therefore I may not follow your line of reasoning. Please try to understand my presuppositions such as the invisible church which includes redeemed sinners from all tongue, tribes, nations and denominations.

 

[cazayoux]

Please help me understand your version of Roman Catholicism. Are you saying that a sinner must be forgiven through Roman Catholic Priests who alone have the abililty to forgive sins? Remember, I am not Roman Catholic; therefore I may not follow your line of reasoning. Please try to understand my presuppositions such as the invisible church which includes redeemed sinners from all tongue, tribes, nations and denominations.

Since you do not regard the Catholic Church as true, let’s step back and look at the bible.

Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to men.
Is this power from Jesus fulfilled in your church?

michel

 

[Gamera]

I believe this is the heart of our division: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. I personally don’t see much faith and confidence in most Roman Catholics in regards to this one simple truth. This needs to be received to grow in affections for our amazing Triune God. I particpate on this forum so all of us will grow together in our love for God through the truth of His Holy Word. Our religious affections is the key in our Christian battle within ourselves. We remove religous idols of our hearts through the sanctifying truths of God’s Holy Word (John 17:17). Embrace the truth of no condmenation for those who are in Christ Jesus. The real soul searching question should be “have you really been united to Christ”? That is a question all professing Christians should ask themselves, regardless of your church affiliations. To examine yourself to see if you are truly in the faith is taught in the Bible.

Here is the verse in context:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

• Rom 8

Right, there is therefore now no condemntation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Only those who leave Christ Jesus by sinning risk condemnation. That’s exacly what Catholics believe.

 

[Gamera]

Please help me understand your version of Roman Catholicism. Are you saying that a sinner must be forgiven through Roman Catholic Priests who alone have the abililty to forgive sins? Remember, I am not Roman Catholic; therefore I may not follow your line of reasoning. Please try to understand my presuppositions such as the invisible church which includes redeemed sinners from all tongue, tribes, nations and denominations.

Confession to God through a priest is the normative (usual) method of forgiveness, but no, it is not the only method in the Catholic view. A person can confess to God in prayer with perfect contrition and receive forgiveness, without benefit of sacramental confession. However, only imperfect contrition is needed for confession to God through a priest, which makes confession through a priest easier.

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, the standard Protestant syllogism would apply to Calvinists. For Lutherans, the syllogism would be:

Major premise: Christ told me, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
Conclusion: I am baptized (i.e., I have new life in Christ).

The major premise here is based on a Scriptural promise (Matt. 28:19) but is also a sacramental word, spoken at a particular time and place under very particular sacramental circumstances. This makes it profoundly different from the standard Protestant understanding of the Gospel promise, a difference that is subtle but makes a huge logical difference in the outcome. Note the crucial but familiar point that it is Christ who speaks the baptismal formula through the mouth of the pastor, so that this is nothing less than the word of Christ spoken to me in particular. What I want to dwell on is how we get to this “me in particular”—what Luther calls the pro me of the Gospel. I suggest that what makes this possible is that this sacramental word of Christ is an external word in a deeper sense than the major premise of the standard Protestant promise. For it is tied to *external *circumstances, a particular place and time of utterance (e.g., the baptism of baby Martin in Eisleben in 1483, or my baptism in Brooklyn, New York in 1977, and so on) in such a way that the word “you” it contains means me.

Logically, it’s not a conditional statement. It lays down no conditions about what I must do or decide or even believe in order to make sure the promise applies to me. The promise applies to me because it says so: Christ says “you” and he means me. So the promise of the Gospel, on Luther’s reckoning, is inherently, unconditionally, for me. Faith does not make it so but merely recognizes that it is so, a recognition that happens because we dare not call Christ a liar when he tells us, on that one momentous occasion, “I baptize you…” That is why the minor premise is not about my faith but about the truth of Christ. This is absolutely essential; God is true, faith acknowledges God’s truth, and unbelief calls God a liar.

Now to say that God speaks the truth is, of course, to make a kind of profession of faith, but not in the Calvinist mode, because it is not reflective. We’re not required to talk about our faith, to know we have faith, to profess, “I believe.” We are required, of course, to believe. We must believe that what God says is true, and we must stop calling God a liar (and furthermore, not incidentally, we must believe that Christ who makes the promise is God). But that, of course, is what faith essentially does: it believes in the truth of the Word of Christ. The problem with reflective faith is that it must do more: if reflective faith is required, then believing in God’s Word is not quite enough, because we must also believe that we believe.

I’m sorry if I’m asking a stupid question, but do you believe you have faith because you have been baptized? And this distinguishes Lutherans from Calvinists, who do not believe in baptismal regeneration?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Please help me understand your version of Roman Catholicism. Are you saying that a sinner must be forgiven through Roman Catholic Priests who alone have the abililty to forgive sins? Remember, I am not Roman Catholic; therefore I may not follow your line of reasoning. Please try to understand my presuppositions such as the invisible church which includes redeemed sinners from all tongue, tribes, nations and denominations.

The following is from the Catholic Encylopedia’s article on the Sacrament of Penance/ Confession/ Reconciliation:

No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God

God Bless,
Michael

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m sorry if I’m asking a stupid question, but do you believe you have faith because you have been baptized? And this distinguishes Lutherans from Calvinists, who do not believe in baptismal regeneration?

God Bless,
Michael

Well, baptism gives faith, yes. My salvation, however, is based on the atonement; the benefits won for me by and through the work of Christ were applied to me in baptism. They are not dependent on my faith. I believe these things about the atonement and my baptism. My justification, however, is not based on my faith in them but upon them alone.

 

[JoeyWarren]

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!!!

Yes there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. but the moment you sin you are no longer IN Christ. This thread is just another perversion of “Once Saved Always Saved” under the guise of "ONCE IN CHRIST ALWAYS IN CHRIST"

---

**Hope this helps:tiphat: **

 

[Reformed]

Yes there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. but the moment you sin you are no longer IN Christ. This thread is just another perversion of “Once Saved Always Saved” under the guise of "ONCE IN CHRIST ALWAYS IN CHRIST"

---

**Hope this helps:tiphat: **

Interesting and insigtful post. So…how long do you go without sinning against God?

 

[mikeledes]

Well, baptism gives faith, yes. My salvation, however, is based on the atonement; the benefits won for me by and through the work of Christ were applied to me in baptism. They are not dependent on my faith. I believe these things about the atonement and my baptism. My justification, however, is not based on my faith in them but upon them alone.

So after being baptized, how do you know you haven’t lost your faith?

God Bless,
Michael