The Paradox

This is a most profound set of questions I have asked for years and years without a whit of a good reply.

Brother Adam, I think you are a very perceptive fellow!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Dear Adam

Hope all is well in Michigan.

I don't know if I can answer your question satisfactorily or not, since we don't believe that salvation comes the same way. -- That accepting Christ is the way to Salvation. To explain, I believe that salvation comes from the Spirit of God, not in coming to some intellecutal acceptance of the Bible. In fact I think it is intellectually impossible to accept the Bible as true. That is faith, and faith is a gift of God. Did that make sense? It does to me, but I am not you. Did I tell you I was a Calvinistic type person.

At any rate, since Salvation (grace through faith) is a gift of God, and not some intellectual pursuit of man, and God changes not, I can't see Him taking it away.

If however, one can not accept that salvation is other than by accepting Christ, then it is only logical to assume that one could reject Him. I don't believe that is what the scriptures teach however. I suppose we could turn this into another Calvinism-Arminian debate, but that isn't what I would particuarly care to do. I think it is nearly impossible to discuss scripture without seeing the person face to face. But, I don't think you are someone who gets upset if things aren't clear.

If you want/need scriptural references I can provide them, but I would think that you have already studied that line of writings.

So, I guess that I would have to say that in order to accept OSAS one must necessarily become a 5-point Calvinist, those that would protest that notion notwithstanding. I don't know what broad theological camp you have your tent pitched in, so I don't know if it would be fruitful to proceed or not. If you haven't decided where to pitch your theological tent, then maybe it would be. Let me know.

 

Hi Jeff,

You wrote, "in order to accept OSAS one must necessarily become a 5-point Calvinist"

An honest 5-Point Calvinist (holding to TULIP) will acknowledge that he/she cannot know whether they are one of the elect at any point in time before their death, for they may never have been one of the saints who persevere to begin with. The existential knowledge as to whether one is of the elect or the reprobate is a knowledge that the honest Christian cannot claim to have.

As an aside, I would suggest checking out the following article. It explains how a Catholic can get very close to Calvinism and still remain a faithful Catholic. It's quite revealing.

A Tiptoe Through TULIP by James Akin <-- click

 

Carson

I acknwoledged that is it impossible to know the state of ones salvation with 100% certainty. This is due, however, to the weakness of the human mind, not to God. (Those who would state they 100% sure of their salvation nowithstanding).

As for Catholicism and Calvinism, one of the best advocates of Cavlinism (or as we really should put it -- the doctrines of grace) was Augustine as you no doubt well know. This is one of the key reasons I believe Baptists to be Protestant, rather than some other nebulous variant.

Jeff

 

Aren't there enough threads dealing with that, already ? And some of them are even waiting for responses.

 

"some of them are even waiting for responses."

Well Curtis, perhaps the problem is that no one can sufficiently answer the questions.

 

Hi Adam, it is good to struggle with issues some as it makes us take them more seriously. Based on the parable of the soil I say it is obvious that the person who openly rejects Christ is not and never was saved. The word never rooted, like the second seed. Sure there was interest and study and even a lot of talk but when push came to shove for the person there was no grounded trust in Christ, no root. You see Adam, there is no time in heaven. If a person never roots and they last for 1 week or 30 years before being "blown away" it makes no difference. The proof of being saved is that the person endures to the end, that is scriptual. If a person is on fire for the Lord and loses his zeal he could be just be backslidden. Some would argue the third soil represents this. The faith and "root" is in the soil but the plant bears little or no fruit for a season. The person is waiting for you or I to restore them, again that is what scripture says. Adam, always remember that when a person is "saved" God grabs on to the person, the person does not grab on to God. A person who grabs on to God WILL fall but a person who God grabs on to is in His hand forever. God is 100% faithful. He would not be if he let go. The ones who never "root" are like those who grab on to some aspect of God they like but when things change in their life they let go and God is not important anymore, because God never had them they were never saved.

I don't know if that will help or not, I hope it does. Keep running the race Adam and fight the good fight!!

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Y'all heard about the Baptist preacher who decided to splurge and get a shave with his haircut? In his town, the barber's wife (Grace)was renowned for her close, comfortable shaves, and the preacher enjoyed the experience.

The shave remained close, even the next morning. In fact, three days later, there was no sign of stubble! Knowing that this was not normal, the preacher called the barber.

"Oh, Grace gave you the shave, did she?" the Barber asked. "Well, once you've been shaved by Grace, it's once shaved, always shaved."

 

Hi Jeff,

You wrote, "As for Catholicism and Calvinism, one of the best advocates of Cavlinism (or as we really should put it -- the doctrines of grace) was Augustine as you no doubt well know."

It should be noted that Catholics may hold to unconditional election (all Thomists and some Molinists such as Bellarmine and Suarez), in tune with Augustine's statement:

"'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." (Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2).

While Augustine held a high view of predestination (as did Aquinas and most all Thomists today, including the author of this post), Augustine held to the idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course (i.e., be given the grace of final perseverence). Augustine's faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.

Calvin's view of predestination is a variation of Augustine's view, but the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverence of the saints" and neither did the Augustinian tradition.

That understanding was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis's article "Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine," in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of Calvinist doctrine.

Another article I would suggest for your personal benefit would be St. Augustine: Which Christian Body is Closer Theologically to His Teaching?: Reformed Protestants or Present-Day Catholics? by Dave Armstrong <-- click

 

The paradox comes from trusting you own very limited understanding over what the Bible says. The very first recorded incident of reasoning with God's word ended up in Adam's removal from the garden. And over and over in the Bible we are commanded to trust God.

And even the carnal Christians at Corinth are addressed as "saints"., and "bretheren". If they had their salvation revoked, would Paul call them by these names ?

The Bible teaches eternal security. Over and over. 1Corintians 2 is a great chapter dealing with the futility of trying to understand God.

 

If they had already fallen out of fellowship, then you'd have a point.

 

I don't understand...

looking at 1Corinthians

It looks to me like the Church at Corinth had fallen out of fellowship. They were carnal, (chapter 3), they threw out the doctrine od eternal security (3:13-15), they trusted their own understanding (3:18-21), they were immoral, (5:1 & 2), fellowshipped with idolatry, (10 14-22),...

Two of these sins, according to RCC doctrine, would result in loss of salvation.

But Paul still calls them saints.

 

The Bible does teach eternal security, but you don't have to believe it. The paradox is supposed.

 

I honestly believe we look at salvation too much as a man-centered thing and not a God-centered thing. If it is man-centered of course we can mess it up. If it is God-centered, well, I would never claim I could mess it up.

Who is salvation more for? God or man?

All Praise, Honor, and Glory to the Keeper of My Soul!

Neal

 

Neal

I preached on that once, and got taken to the verbal woodshed, but I agree with you on this point. (Probably other points too, but this being the issue at hand)

Jeff.

 

Hi Brother Curtis,

In order for you to have cognitive assurance of your personal Eternal Security, you must claim that no matter what you do in the future, you will remain saved; this includes the explicit rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. From the very fact alone that you do not know your actions between this present moment and your death, you cannot have such a cognitive, infallible assurance of your personal Eternal Security. It is logically untenable, and I do not know why you are an advocate of something so fundamentally flawed.

You may very well claim - in the realm of sanity - TULIP (that is, once saved, always saved), but you cannot claim the infallible knowledge that you are one of the elect. Even then, you would be a heretic, of course.