Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

[mikeledes]

I understand that there is a marked difference between Augustine and Calvin. Consider this passage:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5).

Now also consider:

*On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:20-22).*

When I look at the idea presented here, I believe it teaches the following:

1. God knew (foreknew) the elect, personally, before we were even conceived (in fact when taken together with Eph. 1:4-5 we can say He foreknew us before He even created the earth or mankind).
2. God shapes or builds the elect, even in the womb, as an engineer builds a machine. We can no sooner resist grace than a machine built for producing rolls of paper can fly.
3. The reprobate were not built in such a way, rather they were passed over, and by doing so were made for the benefit of the elect. So that God could use them to make His power known to us, the elect. They are vessels created for destruction.

I mean this is what the Bible states isn’t it?

Not when you read passages like John 15 or Hebrews 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Always_For_Him]

sola scriptura,

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are requiring the Catholic Church to prove it’s beliefs, to defend it’s teachings/interpretation of Scripture as it has always been since the apostles. You are using your Bible and your interpretation of it, that was originally written by the Catholic Church to preserve Christ’s Deposit of Faith for all generations, against our Bible and asking us to prove our Bible/Scripture interpretation as the correct one over yours.

It is not an elitist statement. It is just the truth. It sounds elitist to those who don’t like hearing it. The Church’s longevity means everything. It means that it has withstood heresey over time because Christ has protected His Church like He said He would. It means everything in the face of the chaos of varying beliefs that make up hundreds/thousands of different Churches founded by men.

What does circumcision have to do with what we are discussing. Circumcision was under the old Mosaic Law - the Old Covenant and not a requirement in the New Covenant.

I am saying “my Church says so” because WE ARE Christ’s Church. What HE says goes! No other Church has that authority - NONE! Your continually pointing out that I have not backed up claims with out showing by authority or Scripture is avoidance of facing Truths that you don’t want to think about. Many people have provided that information for you. Is it that you want me to re-write it? It has already been presented over and over again. I couldn’t possibly include all the “proof” that you are wanting in these last few posts. Others have already done so much of that, yet you have discounted that and want us to continue providing it all for you, which you will probably continue to immediatly refute because you are closed to teachings contrary to what you already believe. You say you aren’t, but it is apparent that you are. We will continue to try to share it with you. If you discount it, read it with your Protestant glasses on, that is your choice. That is what I was referring to when I wrote about “pre-conceived notions”. You HAVE to be open to the possibility that there may be Truth out there that has not been taught/shared with you. Considering the Catholic Church is as old as it is and has always maintained that it is Christ’s Church, there is a great possibility that you don’t know the Truth yet because you are a member of another Church. You have been taught the Truth. What you do with it is YOUR CHOICE. On the other hand, you haven’t provided anything to show us how your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one. Every thing you have specifically mentioned (which hasn’t been much to go on) has been answered by very knowledgable and caring people for your benefit. The “point” of all of this is to get to the Truth, is it not?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Not when you read passages like John 15 or Hebrews 6.

God Bless,
Michael

It is firmly established that the elect were predestined from before the founding of the world. Both of our respective churches would agree with this foundation. I believe it is further established by Scripture that condemnation has also been decreed. However, indeed the chapters you cite must be considered alongside this doctrine.

John 15 is an excellent chapter for discourse. I suspect the reason for mentioning this chapter is to debunk the idea of perseverance. First, the relevant portions reads:

*I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

"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.

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

"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.

"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.

"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 (John 15:1-6).*

Here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary, which I find useful in understanding this chapter:

*Jesus Christ is the Vine, the true Vine. The union of the human and Divine natures, and the fullness of the Spirit that is in him, resemble the root of the vine made fruitful by the moisture from a rich soil. Believers are branches of this Vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree, diffuses sap to it, and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all true Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, meet in Christ. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and unable to stand but as they are borne up. The Father is the Husbandman. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must prosper. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes, and from a Christian we look for a Christian temper, disposition, and life.

We must honour God, and do good; this is bearing fruit. The unfruitful are taken away. And even fruitful branches need pruning; for the best have notions, passions, and humours, that require to be taken away, which Christ has promised to forward the sanctification of believers, they will be thankful, for them. The word of Christ is spoken to all believers; and there is a cleansing virtue in that word, as it works grace, and works out corruption. And the more fruit we bring forth, the more we abound in what is good, the more our Lord is glorified. In order to fruitfulness, we must abide in Christ, must have union with him by faith. It is the great concern of all Christ’s disciples, constantly to keep up dependence upon Christ, and communion with him. True Christians find by experience, that any interruption in the exercise of their faith, causes holy affections to decline, their corruptions to revive, and their comforts to droop.

Those who abide not in Christ, though they may flourish for awhile in outward profession, yet come to nothing. The fire is the fittest place for withered branches; they are good for nothing else. Let us seek to live more simply on the fullness of Christ, and to grow more fruitful in every good word and work, so may our joy in Him and in his salvation be full.*

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=51&source=2&seq=i.50.15.1

With regard to Hebrews 6. First we must read this chapter along side the parable of the prodigal son. It cannot be that if a Christian sins then we are broken off with no hope. This is not the meaning of this chapter (although it is often abused in such a way). Also we are taught that if we do sin we may confess our sins or ask a brother (fellow Christian) to pray for us (see 1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 5:16-17).

Again, I think Henry does a wonderful job explaining this chapter:

*Every part of the truth and will of God should be set before all who profess the gospel, and be urged on their hearts and consciences. We should not be always speaking about outward things; these have their places and use, but often take up too much attention and time, which might be better employed. The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of. Nor does it prove that any one who is made a new creature in Christ, ever becomes a final apostate from him. The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel. Such have nothing to fall away from, but an empty name, or hypocritical profession. Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings.

Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.

Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it. If those who through mistaken views of this passage, as well as of their own case, fear that there is no mercy for them, would attend to the account given of the nature of this sin, that it is a total and a willing renouncing of Christ, and his cause, and joining with his enemies, it would relieve them from wrong fears. We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostasy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent. *

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=66&source=2&seq=i.65.6.1

Perseverance is generally the most tenuous doctrine espoused by John Calvin. However, it’s important to note, in the first instance, the methodology of this doctrine. It essentially traces backwards. It asserts that those who do not ultimately endure could not have been predestined to begin with. This is obviously true, since predestination was for all intents and purposes an eternal decree.

However, I suspect your biggest objection to this doctrine is the idea that the Christian can have eternal assurance. In other words you object to the idea that a Christian can profess faith but not yield fruit and still have an expectation of salvation – simply stated I object to this as well, and so did Calvin. This notion does great injustice to the doctrines of the Magisterial Reformers. However, none of the reformation churches (i.e. Presbyterian or Lutheran denominations) hold this view – this is a contemporary manifestation of mass marketed Christianity by the Evangelical community (people like Joel Osteen, who IMO is more of a motivational speaker than a Pastor – much less anything resembling a theologian).

It’s not as if these people are necessarily heretics, but I never hear them once discuss the consequences of sin or our duty as Christians. Essentially, it’s made for TV Christianity. Not worth the electricity you spend in watching it. If it’s any conciliation I would rather watch EWTN over these sorts of programs any day of the week. It’s no wonder why the Evangelical community is always in so much flux. New people coming and going, like leaves on a tree. No solid theological foundation, no mention of a healthy fear for God, essentially to them God is Santa Clause. Even better because God doesn’t put coal in our stockings.

 

[mikeledes]

It is firmly established that the elect were predestined from before the founding of the world. Both of our respective churches would agree with this foundation. I believe it is further established by Scripture that condemnation has also been decreed. However, indeed the chapters you cite must be considered alongside this doctrine.

John 15 is an excellent chapter for discourse. I suspect the reason for mentioning this chapter is to debunk the idea of perseverance. First, the relevant portions reads:

*I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

"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.

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

"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.

"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.

"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 (John 15:1-6).*

Here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary, which I find useful in understanding this chapter:

*Jesus Christ is the Vine, the true Vine. The union of the human and Divine natures, and the fullness of the Spirit that is in him, resemble the root of the vine made fruitful by the moisture from a rich soil. Believers are branches of this Vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree, diffuses sap to it, and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all true Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, meet in Christ. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and unable to stand but as they are borne up. The Father is the Husbandman. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must prosper. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes, and from a Christian we look for a Christian temper, disposition, and life.

We must honour God, and do good; this is bearing fruit. The unfruitful are taken away. And even fruitful branches need pruning; for the best have notions, passions, and humours, that require to be taken away, which Christ has promised to forward the sanctification of believers, they will be thankful, for them. The word of Christ is spoken to all believers; and there is a cleansing virtue in that word, as it works grace, and works out corruption. And the more fruit we bring forth, the more we abound in what is good, the more our Lord is glorified. In order to fruitfulness, we must abide in Christ, must have union with him by faith. It is the great concern of all Christ’s disciples, constantly to keep up dependence upon Christ, and communion with him. True Christians find by experience, that any interruption in the exercise of their faith, causes holy affections to decline, their corruptions to revive, and their comforts to droop.

Those who abide not in Christ, though they may flourish for awhile in outward profession, yet come to nothing. The fire is the fittest place for withered branches; they are good for nothing else. Let us seek to live more simply on the fullness of Christ, and to grow more fruitful in every good word and work, so may our joy in Him and in his salvation be full.*

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=51&source=2&seq=i.50.15.1

With regard to Hebrews 6. First we must read this chapter along side the parable of the prodigal son. It cannot be that if a Christian sins then we are broken off with no hope. This is not the meaning of this chapter (although it is often abused in such a way). Also we are taught that if we do sin we may confess our sins or ask a brother (fellow Christian) to pray for us (see 1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 5:16-17).

Again, I think Henry does a wonderful job explaining this chapter:

*Every part of the truth and will of God should be set before all who profess the gospel, and be urged on their hearts and consciences. We should not be always speaking about outward things; these have their places and use, but often take up too much attention and time, which might be better employed. The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of. Nor does it prove that any one who is made a new creature in Christ, ever becomes a final apostate from him. The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel. Such have nothing to fall away from, but an empty name, or hypocritical profession. Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings.

Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.

Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it. If those who through mistaken views of this passage, as well as of their own case, fear that there is no mercy for them, would attend to the account given of the nature of this sin, that it is a total and a willing renouncing of Christ, and his cause, and joining with his enemies, it would relieve them from wrong fears. We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostasy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent. *

biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=66&source=2&seq=i.65.6.1

Perseverance is generally the most tenuous doctrine espoused by John Calvin. However, it’s important to note, in the first instance, the methodology of this doctrine. It essentially traces backwards. It asserts that those who do not ultimately endure could not have been predestined to begin with. This is obviously true, since predestination was for all intents and purposes an eternal decree.

However, I suspect your biggest objection to this doctrine is the idea that the Christian can have eternal assurance. In other words you object to the idea that a Christian can profess faith but not yield fruit and still have an expectation of salvation – simply stated I object to this as well, and so did Calvin. This notion does great injustice to the doctrines of the Magisterial Reformers. However, none of the reformation churches (i.e. reformed or Lutheran denominations) hold this view – this is a contemporary manifestation of mass marketed Christianity by the Evangelical community (people like Joel Osteen, who IMO is a motivational speaker not a Pastor much less anything resembling a theologian).

It’s not as if these people are necessarily heretics, but I never hear them once discuss the consequences of sin or our duty as Christians. Essentially, it’s made for TV Christianity. Not worth the electricity you spend in watching it. I would rather watch EWTN any day of the week over that stuff if it’s any conciliation.

I like Matthew Henry’s Commentary, though I don’t agree with how he interprets certain Scripture passages. Personally, I have more respect for Calvinism’s perseverance of the saints then for the antinomian version of OSAS. Regarding John 15, I disagree with Matthew Henry’s analysis and I responded to that in the OSAS thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=251750&page=47

However, Matthew Henry’s “false professor” argument is not the only argument used by Calvinists. In fact, as I have seen in this thread and in other Protestant commentaries, there is an alternative interpretaion that accepts that these “branches” cannot be false professors and interpret “cast into the fire” as meaning something else. I also find that the following Arminian website does a very good rebuttal of the Calvinist intepretation of John 15, Hebrews 6, and similar passages:

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/perseverance-of-saints-part-5-hebrews_07.html

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/perseverance-of-saints-part-4-again.html

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I also find that 1 Corinthians 9:27…

27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

… contradicts the Calvinist understanding of perseverance. If all of the justified are assured perseverance, then why does Paul even raise the possibility of disqualification? Doesn’t perseverance mean that all true Christians will complete the “race” and hence receive the “prize?”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[distracted]

There is nothing in the Creed that states baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. In fact, there is nothing in the Creed about baptism. .

you’re right… it’s in St. John 3:3

 

[distracted]

This statement is nonsensical.

why the need to insult people?

this rudeness tends to prove that… as mentioned in another thread… you Protestants (the rude ones anyway) will spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics… :hypno:

 

[distracted]

, it pays me no heedance to begin with puffery, purporting to feel my pain and empathize with my alleged theological confusion, and then attack through the back door.

Again, you are proving the point, through your rude behavior… that Protestants really do spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics… (they don’t seem to want to be purged in the here & now…)… Your rudeness (& other traits exhibited here on the forums) indicate to me that you… well… i won’t say (don’t want to be considered “rude” myself… )…

Anyway, i don’t read beyond rude statements… (which means i don’t read much of your posts…) and so, maybe many other posters or potential ones don’t bother either… So if you want to be listened to & taken seriously, i would suggest refraining from the rude remarks… It turns me totally off… & i believe i speak for many others as well…

 

[sola_scriptura]

I like Matthew Henry’s Commentary, though I don’t agree with how he interprets certain Scripture passages. Personally, I have more respect for Calvinism’s perseverance of the saints then for the antinomian version of OSAS. Regarding John 15, I disagree with Matthew Henry’s analysis and I responded to that in the OSAS thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=251750&page=47

However, Matthew Henry’s “false professor” argument is not the only argument used by Calvinists. In fact, as I have seen in this thread and in other Protestant commentaries, there is an alternative interpretaion that accepts that these “branches” cannot be false professors and interpret “cast into the fire” as meaning something else. I also find that the following Arminian website does a very good rebuttal of the Calvinist intepretation of John 15, Hebrews 6, and similar passages:

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/perseverance-of-saints-part-5-hebrews_07.html

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/perseverance-of-saints-part-4-again.html

God Bless,
Michael

Michael:

Thanks for the links. I actually think your rendering of John 15 does make a great deal of sense, however, I wonder how it fits in with other areas of Scripture. Take for instance Matthew 7:21-23, when Jesus says: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (at verse 21). I’ve heard commentators opine that this refers to non-Christian theists (i.e. other Abrahamic religions, or even theists more generally speaking). However, this notion seems to be debunked by the text. Jesus here states that not all who say to “Him” Lord, Lord . . . . Anyone who refers to Jesus as Lord can only be Christian. So there is a distinction here drawn, seemingly between professing Christians and the true faithful. The question is can this idea extend into John 15.

I actually have my own thoughts regarding this doctrine, which I’ll throw out. This goes to the idea of “secret providence” as espoused by Calvin. The most common objection to predestination theory is that it has God giving commandments in futility. For instance, God commands us to choose between life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19). However, there is an interesting twist here.

The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them (Deuteronomy 30:16).

In this verse God tells Moses, notwithstanding the commandments given to the Hebrews, He foreknew they would forsake Him and break covenant. Indeed God knew He was giving orders that would not be obeyed. So we might ask why did God give these commandments in the first place knowing they would be ignored?

The answer could be that God gave all an equal chance at redemption and let them fall by their own means. However, this explanation seems inadequate when we read it along side the idea of predestination, unless we think that God was looking down the tunnel of time as He made His elective choices. In this area I strongly agree with Calvin. I’ve spent a great deal of time considering this question and have concluded that it’s absurd to think foreknowledge precedes providence. This narrow question is really where the split in soteriology occurs.

We see Paul identifying the elect and revealing that God did not choose all the Jewish people, rather only the remnant saved by grace. Here’s an example:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:1-6).

So God will never reject His people whom He foreknew. The question now becomes how can we know if we’re one of those people. Essentially those who reject perseverance say we cannot.

The following verse I think provides strong evidence for perseverance:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

These are profound words by Paul. So what did Christ mean in John 15?

I took a look at Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on John 15, and to summarize his points (he cites Augustine extensively) he believes this chapter evidences “conditional election.” I quote:

Ver. 7. On account of our being in this world, we sometimes ask for that, which is not expedient for us. But these things will not be granted us, if we remain in Christ, who never grants us any thing, unless it be profitable to us. (St. Augustine, tract. 81. in Joan.) — If we abide in Christ, by a lively faith, and his words abide in us by a lively, ardent charity, which can make us produce the fruits of good works, all that we ask, will be granted us. (Bible de Vence) — These conditional expressions, if you remain in the vine, if you keep my commandments, &c. give us to understand, that our perseverance and salvation are upon conditions, to be fulfilled by us. — (St. Augustine, de cor. & gra. chap. 13.)

haydock1859.tripod.com/id108.html

Whatever can be said of election, it must be noted that Paul felt confident in both his election and the election of those within the church at the time (see Romans 8:38-39 & 1 Thessalonians 5:9). The same can be said of Luke, as expressed in Acts 13:48.

There can be no doubt that those who reject Christ cannot have been elected – therefore from that standpoint we can say election is conditional. However, it is also clear that only those elected by God will be saved. Moreover, if there is a way of knowing we were elected by God – perseverance must logically follow. The question then becomes can God give saving grace and allow us to destroy it? It also begs the question how can we know we are even given saving grace?

Paul gives us a simple test to know if the spirit is dwelling in us:

Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).

However, is the Holy Spirit the only manifestation of grace? If so then in order for irresistible grace to be true the workings of the Holy Spirit must be always efficacious. However, we know it is not (see Acts 7:51). Some people resist the persuasion of the Spirit. Thus, your rending of John 15 would make sense. In other words people can be in Christ (that is have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and confess Christ) yet not fall within the elected people of God. Therefore, we must assume that the Holy Spirit is one of multiple aspects of grace.

• How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:14)*

By caveat of birth some will be born in a geographic location and into socio economic circumstances that prevents them from ever hearing the Gospel message. They are therefore denied one aspect of grace, hearing the word God.

However, there is a broader message here. God arranges the order of things. Nothing happens without the will of God concerned, either good or bad (see Isaiah 45:7). God creates even the wicked for a purpose (see Proverbs 16:4). God declared the end from the beginning (see Isaiah 46:10).

Just by caveat of you and I studying Scripture and sitting hear discussing these things we know that we will not be saved if our faith does not endure. We also know that we do have an affirmative role in keeping our faith. We cannot remain out of fellowship with other believers for an extended period, we must always keep God in our thoughts, we must always ask Christ for forgiveness and guidance, etc. If we fail to do these things it is very likely our faith will die – and so will we. However, why do you think we study these things and remain so diligent? Indeed the Holy Spirit is guiding us, but we can resist the Holy Spirit so it’s even more than that. God created every circumstance in our life. Every interaction we had since infancy, every bad event that seemed like bad luck, every good event that we credited ourselves for, everything was made possible and indeed decreed by God.

In sum I see no reason why we cannot have the confidence of Paul (see also Phil. 1:6, 2 Tim. 4:18, and Ephesians 2:10).

I think OSAS represents people looking for a unilateral contract between the and God, only obligating God to save them, while relieving them of any affirmative role. I actually think this desire could indicate one is not actually saved.

 

[Mickey]

No – I do think man has a certain level of “will” but it’s not completely free.

Are there passages in Scripture that speak of this “level of will”? Are there passages that point to a free will that is “not completely free”?

Without saving grace we can do no good, in God’s eyes.

Correct. And we have the free will to cooperate with and accept that grace.

I know plenty of atheists who by all accounts are great people. Are they saved? No they’re not.

How do you know that they will not accept Jesus Christ at a later time?

Free will is an interesting fallacy.

Free will is a reality.

Try telling the 35 year old guy who grew up in the ghetto to a crack addicted mother and no father

Now let’s look at the African in the desert of Ethiopia. How many choices does he really have?

Do you believe that with God, all things are possible?

Now the question becomes who deals the cards? If you believe as I do that God deals the cards then the logic of my doctrine, in my view, becomes clear.

I believe that God deals the cards. But I do not see the logic of your doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them (Deuteronomy 30:16).

This is Chapter 31 verse 16.

Let us look at Deut 31:16-17 more closely.

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, you will sleep with your fathers; and this people will rise and commit fornication with the gods of the foreigners of the land where they go to be among them; and they will forsake me and break My covenant I made with them. Then I shall be aroused in anger against them in that day; and I will forsake them and turn My face from them. So he shall be a prey, and many evils and troubles shall find him; and he will say in that day, 'These evils found me because the Lord my God is not with me.'

Why does the Lord say, "I will forsake them, " when He said in verses 6-8 that He would not forsake them? Because it is customary in Scripture to call God’s permission His action. He permits people to forsake Him because man has free will, and virtue is not forced.

Let us now look at Chapter 30 verse 19:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you: I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. There fore choose life, that both you and your seed may live and love the Lord your God, obey His voice and cling to Him.

 

[Mickey]

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:1-6).

Jewish unbelief in Christ raises the question of whether or not God cast away His people. The answer is, Certainly not! If He had done so, not one would have been saved. But Paul himself was being saved (v.1), and there is a remnant (v.5) of Jews who believed. Elijah prefigured this remnant when he thought that he alone followed God (v v 2-4). As only a few heeded Elijah in his day, so only a few heed Jesus and His apostles. God’s grace saves the willing. Israel is not willing, for she seeks (v.7) righteousness on her own terms through works of the law and not through faith in Christ. God has given them a spirit of stupor (v. 8) as a result of their refusal to believe, not as the cause of it.

(OSB)

 

[Mickey]

we will not be saved if our faith does not endure.

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

We also know that we do have an affirmative role in keeping our faith.

Accepting and cooperating with grace.

we must always keep God in our thoughts

Remembrance of God.

we must always ask Christ for forgiveness and guidance

Repentance

If we fail to do these things it is very likely our faith will die

Saved by grace through faith. Our good works are the fruit of this faith.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[sola_scriptura]

This is Chapter 31 verse 16.

Let us look at Deut 31:16-17 more closely.

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, you will sleep with your fathers; and this people will rise and commit fornication with the gods of the foreigners of the land where they go to be among them; and they will forsake me and break My covenant I made with them. Then I shall be aroused in anger against them in that day; and I will forsake them and turn My face from them. So he shall be a prey, and many evils and troubles shall find him; and he will say in that day, 'These evils found me because the Lord my God is not with me.'

Why does the Lord say, "I will forsake them, " when He said in verses 6-8 that He would not forsake them? Because it is customary in Scripture to call God’s permission His action. He permits people to forsake Him because man has free will, and virtue is not forced.

Let us now look at Chapter 30 verse 19:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you: I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. There fore choose life, that both you and your seed may live and love the Lord your God, obey His voice and cling to Him.

I dealt with 30:19 in an earlier post. However, 30:6 is God telling the Jews that He will go ahead of them across the Jordan and destroy the nations that exist there so the Jews could take possession of their land.

Then God later reveals that the Jews will break covenant with Him and He will forsake them. There is no relation between these verses that is pertinent to the reason why I used it. I simply used it to show that God does give commands when He already knows they will not be obeyed. So I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to prove here? Yes God commanded the Jews to choose between life and death (at 30:19) but like all the other commands He knew they would disobey it. This is my point!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Are there passages in Scripture that speak of this “level of will”? Are there passages that point to a free will that is “not completely free”?

Sure, there are plenty. Here’s one for starters:

In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

Correct. And we have the free will to cooperate with and accept that grace.

Because of grace yes, not because of ourselves – or do you not agree with this?

Free will is a reality.

Not in this world

Do you believe that with God, all things are possible?
I believe that God deals the cards. But I do not see the logic of your doctrine.

I do not see the logic of a view that actually imagines people have total free will? Do you even think we’re at least constrained by our lot in life?

 

[Mickey]

Yes God commanded the Jews to choose between life and death (at 30:19) but like all the other commands He knew they would disobey it. This is my point!

Of course God knows everything. Sheesh! But He does not eliminate our free will to choose in His omniscience. That is my point!

 

[sola_scriptura]

I like Matthew Henry’s Commentary, though I don’t agree with how he interprets certain Scripture passages. Personally, I have more respect for Calvinism’s perseverance of the saints then for the antinomian version of OSAS. Regarding John 15, I disagree with Matthew Henry’s analysis and I responded to that in the OSAS thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=251750&page=47

However, Matthew Henry’s “false professor” argument is not the only argument used by Calvinists. In fact, as I have seen in this thread and in other Protestant commentaries, there is an alternative interpretaion that accepts that these “branches” cannot be false professors and interpret “cast into the fire” as meaning something else. I also find that the following Arminian website does a very good rebuttal of the Calvinist intepretation of John 15, Hebrews 6, and similar passages:

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/perseverance-of-saints-part-5-hebrews_07.html

arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/perseverance-of-saints-part-4-again.html

God Bless,
Michael

I want to add to my earlier post. I see a relation between John 15 and the Parable of the Sower. In fact I think it sends the exact same message:

Jesus tells the “parable of the sower” (v. 18) in verses 3-9; in verses 18-23 he provides the interpretation, in which only one who “hears the word and understands it”! perseveres to eternal life (v. 23).

Link to commentary here.

So in retrospect I see no deviance from the Reformed position.

 

[Neal]

OP,

Yes


thank you

okay, back to serious debate.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with Peter’s commission by Christ, I just disagree with your rendering of it.

And the rendering of 1500 years of Christendom. How do you suppose the whole first and second generation of Christians misunderstood that?

How is it that the Holy Spirit, who was sent to lead them into all Truth, was so weak (impotent), ineffective, or disinterested in allowing them to stray from the Truth?

I believe the reformation to have been an act of divine providence.

God does allow sin, that grace may abound. He also allows factions, so that the True can be recognized.

God never approves of disobedience.

In what way? Can you show how the RCC produces better Christians than Protestant churches?

I think there are probably more Catholic and Orthodox saints because they have been producing them longer. It is very possible for a person to be saintly, even when they only know part of the truth. God works through all these ecclesiastical communities to bring people to himself. Those who have been separated from perfect unity with the Church He founded cannot be faulted for the sins of separation of their spiritual ancestors.

I’m not sure what you mean? My overall opinion is that any critique of the Latin Church is considered an attack rather than simply disagreement & opinion. For the most part I’m defending against an onslaught of heavy anti-protestant bigotry on this board, and am not the purveyor of bigotry.

It may seem like an attack because such critique is often based upon misunderstanding, or outright lies about the Church.

I agree that there is bigotry here, coming from both Catholics and Protestants. I think the title of this thread represents such bigotry. I don’t think that the OP is intending to pander bigotry. On the contrary, I think he is very proud of his faith and believes in it with all his heart. It is only a lack of experience and exposure that results in “leaving out” the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church who are in union with the bishop of Rome. However, this type of ignorance and small mindedness is at the root of all bigotry.

You have demonstrated quite a bit of anti-Catholic sentiment in your posts. It seems to me that much of it is based upon error that you have been taught. I prefer to assume that you are acting in ignorance. However, bigotry coming from ignorance is no less bigotry.

Half my family is Roman Catholic … I love them, like them, but disagree with their religious views, end of story.

Clearly it is not the “end of story” or you would not be here!

 

[Mickey]

Sure, there are plenty. Here’s one for starters:

In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

That is not a passage that tells us that our free will is restricted or limited. You are reaching now.

Because of grace yes, not because of ourselves – or do you not agree with this?

Because of grace. Do you not agree that we must cooperate and accept this grace by our free will?

Not in this world

Yes. This world.

There is no need to descend to sarcasm once again.

I do not see the logic of a view that actually imagines people have total free will?

That is amazing to me–that there are those who believe we are completely bereft of free will.