Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

[Hentenza]

Truth is, I have been responding reasonably well.

You hold a high opinion of yourself.

But I'm kind of getting to the end of this party..

‘Yep. Not surprised.

Part of the problem is that you really don't know that of which you speak. If you've ever studied Catholicism, Catholic and early Church theology as stated at councils or in the writings of great thinkers and the huge wealth of Christian thought in general going centuries back before the Reformation and then up through today in various resources: catechisms and works of theology, you'd know that scripture is not only highly revered but also expertly exegeted by the church and also probably quoted more often than tradition which is also held in high esteem as it's nothing more or less than the lived legacy or experience of the church froon the beginning: the beliefs and practices as received, not as simply speculated about based on the written word alone centuries after the fact.

Which surprises me because you cant exegesis a verse to save your life. Just about every time that I post scripture you don’t address it but instead offer your discourse. I have thoroughly studied the ancient writers, councils, and your catechism. The scriptures are indeed highly regarded but semantically abused and trumped by tradition.

For myself, there's a very good chance that I've spent more time in the Bible than you have.

I doubt that.

And again I used to buy into a lot of the reformed stuff before I got led deeper by a series of circumstances. Before then, I was quite anti-Catholic. Either way, I'm not expecting you to care about my story or be moved to take any deeper look at this point in time.

I do care about your story but I don’t care about the arrogance and pride that you bring to your posts with regards to Catholic teachings. I hate to tell you but ex-Catholics are ex-Catholics for a reason. We don’t just wake up one day and leave the Catholic church for no reason. You deal with it as you will. I don’t want to make you doubt your decisions but you have to understand that the body of Christ extends outside of your church.

 

[fhansen]

You hold a high opinion of yourself

Not really, but I have a high opinion of the faith, which I know pretty well.

‘Yep. Not surprised.

Yes, it gets frustrating to deal with folks who are more certain of themselves than they have good reason to be.

Which surprises me because you cant exegesis a verse to save your life. Just about every time that I post scripture you don’t address it but instead offer your discourse. I have thoroughly studied the ancient writers, councils, and your catechism. The scriptures are indeed highly regarded but semantically abused and trumped by tradition.

And that's all just your opinion. But I'm surprised, You've really immersed yourself in the ancient teachings, councils, etc. That would be a bit hard to believe based on your positions. But stranger things have happened I'm sure.

I do care about your story but I don’t care about the arrogance and pride that you bring to your posts with regards to Catholic teachings.

That's what I used to think about the Catholic church in general, until I began to really study her teachings for myself, and not with a view to oppose them. I mistook simple confidence in knowing and holding to the truth for arrogance. The Church simply doesn't need to look outside to anyone else for an understanding of the basic faith. And understand that your posts by and large come across the same way.

I hate to tell you but ex-Catholics are ex-Catholics for a reason.

I was an ex-Catholic, raised in it all through my early years, part of that in parochial school. I was an altar boy pre-Vatican II. And I was very surprised to find myself returning to it some 25 years after leaving, and after many years as a conservative Protestant.

 

[Hentenza]

Not really, but I have a high opinion of the faith, which I know pretty well.

And yet…..

Yes, it gets frustrating to deal with folks who are more certain of themselves than they have good reason to be.

Nope. All I’ve asked of you is to exegesis scripture but you have not.

And that's all just your opinion.

Not all all. Just follow your responses. All are here for you to see.

But I'm surprised, You've really immersed yourself in the ancient teachings, councils, etc. That would be a bit hard to believe based on your positions. But stranger things have happened I'm sure.

I have indeed read and studied the ECF’s but you have to understand that they are not like scripture which is inspired from God. Your literary criticism should take that into consideration.

That's what I used to think about the Catholic church in general, until I began to really study her teachings for myself, and not with a view to oppose them. I mistook simple confidence in knowing and holding to the truth for arrogance. The Church simply doesn't need to look outside to anyone else for an understanding of the basic faith.

I have never studied anything with the view to oppose them. That would be a histeriology problem. I go where the evidence takes me. In the case of the Catholic church it was evident that the errors, hunger for power, disregard for their congregants, and other fundamental problems historically removed them from a viable option.

I was an ex-Catholic, raised in it all through my early years, part of that in a parochial school. I was an altar boy pre-Vatican II. And I was very surprised to find myself returning to it some 25 years after leaving, and after many years as a conservative Protestant.

That’s were God took you then more power to you. As I’ve always said Im not here to derail your faith but to stop the arrogance of those in your church. After all, your faith in the Catholic Church does not in any way change both of our salvation. When we meet in heaven there will be no difference in your beliefs of mine. Jesus should be the object of your faith as it is mine. Both of us are Christians so who is greater means nothing.

 

[Clare73]

Ok so do you believe that God wanted His people to to be free and also didn't want them to be free? Maybe some kind of divine schizophrenia at play?

Do you believe that God did want Pharaoh to disobey (Ex 4:21) and also didn't want Pharoah to disobey (Ex 4:22-23)?

 

[Clare73]

Truth is, I have been responding reasonably well. But I'm kind of getting to the end of this party.. Part of the problem is that you really don't know that of which you speak. If you've ever studied Catholicism, Catholic and early Church theology as stated at councils or in the writings of great thinkers and the huge wealth of Christian thought in general going centuries back before the Reformation and then up through today in various resources: catechisms and works of theology, you'd know that scripture is not only highly revered but also expertly exegeted by the church and also probably quoted more often than tradition which is also held in high esteem as it's nothing more or less than the lived legacy or experience of the church froon the beginning: the beliefs and practices as received, not as simply speculated about based on the written word alone centuries after the fact.

For myself, there's a very good chance that I've spent more time in the Bible than you have. And again I used to buy into a lot of the reformed stuff before I got led deeper by a series of circumstances. Before then, I was quite anti-Catholic. Either way, I'm not expecting you to care about my story or be moved to take any deeper look at this point in time.

Is it possible that some of these objectors to Catholicism have come from within that deeper look into Catholicism in the light of Scripture?

 

[fhansen]

Do you believe that God did want Pharaoh to disobey (Ex 4:21) and also didn't want Pharoah to disobey (Ex 4:22-23)?

I believe that, from the foundations of the world, God's will would be to set His people free as part of His plan of salvation. And I believe He related that desire truthfully to Pharaoh-and His will was done. He also obviously wished to briefly delay the fulfillment of that desire for some reason that wasn't revealed.

 

[ARBITER01]

The majority of Pentecostal types believe that it is up to man to stay in relationship with Jesus. It's not just GOD's responsibility to hold onto man, but man's responsibility to hold onto HIM.

I don't believe an actively "believing" Christian is going to easily fall, but scripture does have examples of those that did. Earliest possible example is satan, the latest "noted" example would probably be Judas. These two examples were individuals that specifically and purposefully betrayed GOD, Judas actually being hand-picked by Jesus as a disciple.

Now,.................. can a believing person miss out on salvation? In other words, can they miss the mark and not receive it in the end? I do believe it is possible, but only because of what Jesus said here,....

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Only Christians are commanded to do The Fathers will here, not unbelievers, so there is the possibility according to these passages from Jesus that a person(s) can be too invested in their own will instead of The Fathers and eventually lose out on salvation.


Also,.............. I know this particular subject is very contentious with some, and people love to battle scripture with scripture in support of their own personal beliefs, but these examples in scripture, as well as the sayings from Jesus are to be properly understood by us born again Christians, not fought over. We can't run on the idea that salvation is a "one and done" thing, not when we are to be actively involved in a ongoing relationship with Jesus.

Many relationships die between people, but the one with Jesus better stay fresh,... or else.

 

[Clare73]

I believe that, from the foundations of the world, God's will would be to set His people free as part of His plan of salvation.

That would be set his people free from condemnation of sin (Jn 8:36).
Political freedom is not necessary for freedom in Christ.

 

[fhansen]

Many relationship die between people, but the one with Jesus better stay fresh,... or else.

Yes, any relationship can be violated, dismissied, uncared for, rejected. And man's vital relationship with Jesus, with God, is what the Christian faith is all about.

 

[fhansen]

That would be set his people free from condemnation of sin (Jn 8:36).
Political freedom is not necessary for freedom in Christ.

Sure it was in this case. Because it was all part of God's plan to get us to Christ, or get Him to us. None of it can or need be left out. He's the Planner, not us.

 

[Clare73]

Sure it was

There are those in Chist who do not enjoy political freedom.

in this case. Because it was all part of God's plan to get us to Christ, or get Him to us. None of it can or need be left out. He's the Planner, not us.

Freedom in Christ does not require political freedom.

 

[fhansen]

There are those in Chist who do not enjoy political freedom.

Freedom in Christ does not require political freedom.

This is silliness. Tell God He shouldn't have done it that way, then. If speculation is the order of the day now, He could've just forgone the need for an incarnate Savior altogether for that matter, and just prevented or forgiven sins to begin with-or just stocked heaven in the beginning with whomever he wished if He was going to predetermine the whole affair anyway.

 

[fhansen]

Is it possible that some of these objectors to Catholicism have come from within that deeper look into Catholicism in the light of Scripture?

Probably not from a truly serious look, with all factors understood IMO. But it takes time and experience and seeking in any case. And life also has a way of teaching us lessons we didn't know or think we needed to learn, for one thing. Anyway, I received general catechesis for 12 years and then left the church. A few years later I would begin a sort of Truth-quest, sometimes more, sometimes less intensely. I read works from many different religions and philosophies, etc, over the years, and, almost as an afterthought (since my first thought was that I already knew it), I read the bible. And while they all had some degree of truth and profundity, little by little the rest dropped away as I fell in love with Scripture, to my surprise, which I ended up reading through many times, along with doing specific studies in it as is the norm for most. And that “look” led me towards Protestant teachers and literature, attracted to a fresher looksee since I also thought I already knew Catholicism which seemed overly mechanical as well as legalistic. But I hadn’t yet really taken much of a serious look at the sources of doctrine or the catechism or the early fathers or the ecumenical councils (21 by Catholic count), or truly encountered Augustine or Anselm or Abelard or Aquinas or Erasmus et al. And I hadn’t yet parsed out the true differences between the concepts on justification, the law and grace, free will, etc. Anyway, I’d have to be Catholic or EO at this point, whether or not I like the vestments or rituals. Related to this I never really held to a belief in the topic of this thread, assurance of salvation, just as many non-Catholic Sola Scriptura adherents also reject it along with their having other doctrinal disagreements based on Scripture alone.

And I know that everyone has their own stories-and the right to them. But I don’t happen to mind the fact that mine means God didn’t make a mistake or abandon His church to the gates of hell for 15 centuries.

 

[fhansen]

I have indeed read and studied the ECF’s but you have to understand that they are not like scripture which is inspired from God. Your literary criticism should take that into consideration.

No one doubts that. It's just that their opinion, from their vantage point of nearness in time to Christ, discipleship of an apostle in some of the earliest cases, and very close unanimity on such issues as the topic of this thread is far more likely to be correct than your own.

And there's much more to it than that. Most all of them write profusely and knowingly about love and its central role in the faith and in defiining true righteousness for man. They just get it, while so many modern theologians don't, as Scripture doesn't happen to elaborate on love nearly as much as it does faith, especially via Paul, of course, so Sola Scriptura adherents often end up gravitating towards a myopic obsession on faith rather than seeing it as a vital part of a much greater whole. The gospel becomes skewed, out of balance and weighed heavily towards hyper-rationalism and little more than some intellectual concepts they've contructed from a handful of passages..

And then the fact that, aside from catechesis which was better or worse throughout church history, basic theology is cemented into the sacraments, themselves, of the churches in the east and west, so that no one need be a bible scholar in order to understand the gospel let alone even literate, as so many weren't down through the centuries. My semi-literate grandmother from the foothills of the Italian alps had a simple, beautiful and well-practiced faith that I'd wager as superior to just about any who endlessly debate Scripture, believing they have some take on it superior to the original understanding. The simplest, crudest of folk can know and live out the basics of the faith-what it means to please God- based virtually on the sacraments alone.

 

[Hentenza]

No one doubts that. It's just that their opinion, from their vantage point of nearness in time to Christ, discipleship of an apostle in some of the earliest cases, and very close unanimity on such issues as the topic of this thread is far more likely to be correct than your own.

Unfortunately that kind of reliance leads to misinterpretations and biases. The accuracy of a witness statement can vary greatly because human memory is not like a video camera and is susceptible to distortions, biases, and external influences, rather than being a perfect, unchanging record of an event. Contextual analysis, exegesis, and the correct use of the hermeneutic circle is necessary to weed out the biases and inaccuracies of the writer. In addition our own philosophical objectivity could cause a relative understanding rather than an objective understanding which could lead to presentism.

I see Christians from churches that rely on tradition give the ecf’s a cult like recognition to the point that a quotation from one becomes their only proof to prove an argument up above scripture. The only corpus of knowledge that is infallible and inspired are the Holy Scriptures not the writings of the ECFs.

And there's much more to it than that. Most all of them write profusely and knowingly about love and its central role in the faith and in defiining true righteousness for man. They just get it, while so many modern theologians don't, as Scripture doesn't happen to elaborate on love nearly as much as it does faith, especially via Paul, of course, so Sola Scriptura adherents often end up gravitating towards a myopic obsession on faith rather than seeing it as a vital part of a much greater whole. The gospel becomes skewed, out of balance and weighed heavily towards hyper-rationalism and little more than some intellectual concepts they've contructed from a handful of passages..

‘And this would be your interpretation of the ECFs that you have read. In fact, I am willing to suggest that, only from their famous quotes and some paragraphs here and there, you have not read their works in their entirety. I find their writings to be essential both for historical context and edification but they are not united as one in many issues. Their understanding is consistent with the times in which they wrote where communication was limited by several factors including distance.

And then the fact that, aside from catechesis which was better or worse throughout church history, basic theology is cemented into the sacraments, themselves, of the churches in the east and west, so that no one need be a bible scholar in order to understand the gospel let alone even literate, as so many weren't down through the centuries. My semi-literate grandmother from the foothills of the Italian alps had a simple, beautiful and well-practiced faith that I'd wager as superior to just about any who endlessly debate Scripture, believing they have some take on it superior to the original understanding. The simplest, crudest of folk can know and live out the basics of the faith-what it means to please God- based virtually on the sacraments alone.

Amazing what semi literate people accomplish. My grandmother did not speak English or drove a car or finished high school and yet became a devout Christian just reading her devotionals and Holy Scriptures. God leads as He wishes.

 

[Clare73]

This is silliness. Tell God He shouldn't have done it that way, then. If speculation is the order of the day now, He could've just forgone the need for an incarnate Savior altogether for that matter, and just prevented or forgiven sins to begin with-or just stocked heaven in the beginning with whomever he wished if He was going to predetermine the whole affair anyway.

Not seeing how the above is related to my post.

 

[Clare73]

Probably not from a truly serious look, with all factors understood IMO.

Sounds like a self-serving view. . .

Martin Luther was a monk "with all the factors understood."

 

[fhansen]

Not seeing how the above is related to my post.

God initated His plan of salvation in Eden and the Israelites were an integral part of that plan and man does not dictate how He should do it. And what would be your point anyway? That it doesn't matter if God lied because the freedom of the Israelites was unnecessary? Or that the Israelites didn't need to be freed in order for God to work out His plan, according to His wisdom?

 

[fhansen]

Sounds like a self-serving view. . .

Martin Luther was a monk "with all the factors understood."

Obviously not. And based on Scripture alone he disagreed signifcantly with other Reformers also going by Scripture alone even if Luther remained closer to the truth than many. Erasmus definitely understood all the factors, however.

 

[Clare73]

Obviously not.

I understand that would be your viewpoint.