I'm not talking about the Catholic doctrine. Read the thread, Jerome. I'm talking about the Reformed doctrine--the fifth point of the TULIP, a particular brand of OSAS.

Oh right, you were using so many acronyms I was getting confused, may I ask why you put it as FPS, did you mean the Final Perseverance of the Saints?

Anyway I stand my my previous statement, you can live a life of debauchery and still be forgiven with genuine contrition and confession, or you can lead a saintly life and die in a state of mortal sin and go to Hell.

I believe it is consistent with Catholic theology to say that you you can fall and be united with the Church again many times, but that you do need the grace of final perserverance to be saved. It isn't a one time deal as Calvinists claim, and as I have already pointed out, I believe the scriptures are consistent with that.

Yes, which I made clear on the first page of the thread. That's what the doctrine is called in Reformed Theology: the Final Perseverance of the Saints.

Here's an article by James Akin that should help you see the relationship between Calvinism and Catholicism.

Read my edit, i'll read your link tomorrow.

Jac,

You focus on the concept of assurance. But why start there? Why not start with the concept of OSAS itself?

And I took a look at your blog, and I have a few questions. Take for instance your exegesis of Hebr. 6:4-6. I can’t see that you actually define ‘repentance.’ You only say that it doesn’t necessarily include salvation. But I can’t see any real definition. And what weight should be put on the history og exegesis? AFAIK, OSAS is a modern idea.

And what about your exegesis of Jas. 2:14-26? You write:

James 1:21-22, while seeming to contribute to the problem, actually offers us the solution and puts 2:14-26 in its proper context. Notice that it says the word implanted is “able to save your souls.” This word “soul” is psuche. It can mean either “soul” or “life.” In this passage, it should be rendered “life,” thus saying, “receive the word implanted, which is able to save your lives.” The word “save” here is the same word for “save” in 2:14. It is soze and means either “to save” or “to deliver.” Thus, the idea both 1:21 and 2:14 is “deliver your life [from death].” Neither of these passages refers to final, eternal salvation by grace through faith alone. What this passage is addressing is the ability of the Christian life to deliver a person from physical destruction!

Isn’t this begging the question? Why assume that psuche doesn’t mean soul? Why assume that ‘save’ doesn’t mean to be saved from damnation? It seems that you are begging the question; that you are reading this by assuming OSAS? You do what you accuse us of doing?

Same non-answer as always, I see. There is often more than one reasonable interpretation of a text.

*sigh*

I'm not going to get into a debate about my interpretation of OSAS passages in this thread. How many times do I have to say it. If you want to have that conversation, open a new one?

In fact, I'll answer my own question. I've said it enough. From here on out, I'll just ignore such comments in this thread.

As to what is actually relevant in your post, I don't start with assurance. I start with eternal security as biblically true and conclude therefore that logical assurance is possible. I'm telling you, though, that when it comes to dealing with OSAS advocates, you should start by discovering which "brand" they are: free grace or reformed (eternal security or final perseverance). The vast majority fall into the latter camp. For them, you can point out that while they insist they have logical assurance, they don't. In fact, all they have is moral assurance.

In other words, you don't have to convince them OSAS is wrong. You can do one better. You can show that even on their definition of OSAS, they still come to agree with the Church's doctrine of assurance. As an evangelical who has spent ten years in formal ministry and has graduated twice (nearly three times) from evangelical seminaries and who paid for college by working in an evangelical theology library, I'm telling you that is a good approach to take, because logical assurance is so very important to us. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Baptist preachers end their sermons with an altar call, saying, "If you don't know that you know that you know that you're saved . . ." I always just roll my eyes. I want to stand up and yell at them: "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU KNOW EITHER! YOUR THEOLOGY DOESN'T ALLOW IT!"

I obviously don't. That would be disrespectful, after all . . . but I've pointed it out in many private conversations with everyone from laity to clergy to professors of theology and always, always, always have found the conversation fruitful and enlightening. The same cannot be said about conversations with anyone in any of those groups that focus on why they've interpreted Heb. 6:4-6 incorrectly.


Same non-answer as always, I see. Interpretations are reasonable given the reasonableness of the assumptions that guide them.

Hey, maybe I'll just agree with you and assume that objective interpretation really is impossible. Of course, that would make it difficult to know what you mean by the words "there is often more than one reasonable interpretation of a text." Maybe I could ask you to clarify! No, wait, that won't work, because you could only answer in words, and we can't objectively interpret words. I know. I'll find a supreme court of sorts to tell me what you really mean. But, no . . . that doesn't work again, because they would have to tell me what you mean using words, too, which I can't objectively interpret . . .

Okay, never mind. I guess I can't agree with you. I tried.

And how is this impasse broken? It would seem only an act of God would do the trick. Oh wait ...

(sorry Jac, couldn't resist ).

I didn't say that. As we have seen many times before, you do not agree with me on the interpretational framework of Scripture. But both your view and mine can be said to be reasonable. But we need to define what is meant by reason.

Reason is a tool, but it is useless unless you apply it to something. That something can be the surrounding culture of a certain text, the other texts of the author in question, the stated beliefs of the group or organization in which the text is written, etc. But to just say that 'I use reason' is to wide. What if the interpreter ignores the way in which the group in question has interpreted the text he is interpreting? And another person do not? Are the one 'using reason' while the other is not?

To simply state 'I use reason' is like sitting down with your son and being asked the question, 'Daddy, how do I solve this equation?' and answering, 'By math, son.'

Well maybe I'm right about Heb. 6:4-6 after all.

edit: or maybe Calvin was!


It was just a pot shot, CC.

As to your point, I broadly agree. That's why I opened the thread I did. In the end, I think that you are wrong because your assumptions from which you work are ultimately rooted in the authority of the Church. The whole thing strikes me as rather circular. My assumptions for biblical interpretation--the framework, if you will--is that it is no different than any other piece of literature. The fact that it is inspired only means that after interpretation, I can now accept what it says to be true.

But that's the argument for the other thread. I won't repeat everything I said there. I responded, so it's perfectly fair for you to rebut. I'll let you have the last word. If you want to continue this, let's take it to the appropriate place, shall we?

Yet one doesn’t have any problem with the Supreme Court interpreting the constitution. Why is that not circular?

Yes, but when you read a text one cannot ignore the context into which it is written. This especially applies to religious texts (and in particular those religious texts that is written within the context of an organized religion).

But how did you find out that they were inspired? This boils down to the question of authority. Let me go back to the idea of the constitution. I would say that Scripture can be likened to the constitution. And here the question of authority is key.

A piece of writing (the Bible, the Book of Mormons, the US Constitution, etc.) cannot be an authority. It just doesn’t work like that. Only persons can have (or be) an authority, but these persons can make (or get others to make) writings (or similar things) authoritative. My point here is that yes, the Bible is authoritative, but not an authority. That belongs to God. But God can vest authority in human beings (for instance, the Apostles). When we read about the first Christians we learn that they, amongst other things, “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). The question, of course, is: Was the authority of the Apostles (or at least some of it) given over those whom they ordained as bishops?

To answer this question one must first as ask another: Was the apostolic authority merely ‘natural’? Did it just mean that they had been eye witnesses, just like a murder witness have a natural authority in a murder trial? Or was the apostolic authority ‘supernatural’? And you do not know that the Scriptures is inspired apart from the authority of the Church.

Ok, but it seems to me that you repeat this in every thread you participate in.

Except that other books weren't written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are infallible, I find your quote quite remarkable, but I'm not surprised by it to be honest.

If the bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as you believe, then it is the authority that is invested with this same guiding inspiration which has been vested with interpreting it's texts. It cannot be interpreted as any other piece of literature, what a ridiculous thing to even suggest.

You claim that your interpretations are purely from reason yet when one actually reads your interpretations it is clear that when one actually reads your interpretations it is obvious that you're assuming your tradition and you have no problem reading that tradition into the texts. IOW, "your assumptions from which you work are ultimately rooted in the authority of your 'church'." At least we have the honesty to admit that we operate within a interpretive community and that we hold ourselves accountable to it. We also have volumes written by Christians from the post-apostolic age to today demonstrating the continuity of that tradition.

I've always been impressed with the person who knows others' motivations better than they do. That's a talent I simply don't have. Use your gift wisely, grasshopper-son.

Jac, forgive me but I have no inclination to hide behind sophistry. I "call it like I see it." The truth has no agenda. What bothers me about your apologetics is that you are pretending that you don't have an agenda when you do. It is obvious in reading your own essays that you commit the same circular reasoning that you accuse us of committing. And you're way to smart not to notice this. So the only other conclusion is that you know that you're doing it and you're just being disengenuous in your treatment of us.

I'm reminded of an old philosophy joke, Mith. What is the difference in a classical, modern, and postmodern umpire?

The classical calls 'em like they are; they modern calls 'em like they see em; the post-modern makes 'em what he calls 'em.

But this premise is flawed in being a tautology, as "ES" by definition contains within it the notion of "certainty of salvation."
The premise is circular.



Actually, JAC, there is a third option.



Of course one can deny the antecedent (that being the third option I mentioned) since it is stated conditionally (i.e., not as an established proposition). Whether ES is true or not (and in what sense it is true and our present knowledge of that truth) is one of the questions under discussion. You can't develop a "proof" which builds off ES being true and then claim that assertion can't be denied.

You're here doing a nice job of window-dressing in the attempt to insulate the inherent circularity from critique.

Brian

(O.K. This makes for post #100. Let's see if I'm no long a "Newbie.")

If I may, for the sake of the argument, grant it that you're correct. I want to know where you draw the conclusion that the Church's interpretation is any less reasonable than your personal interpretation? How do you know that the Church is using not using reason or using reason incorrectly? Or that its interpretations are unreasonable?




But, basing your assumption on that you intepret from the Bible that it is inspired, and that is enough for your reason to accept it divinely inspired, then by what reason do you accept the Bible yet rejct the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Mary Baker Eddy; for all of these also claim divine inspiration?

Premises aren't circular. Arguments are. The premise is analytical. For instance, consider the following:

1. If I am unmarried, I am a bachelor
2. I am unmarried
3. Therefore I am a bachelor

There's nothing circular about the argument. (1) is true by definition, which is exactly the case in my argument. (2) is the observational premise. (3) just makes a determination against the definition.


Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Google it.



I don't know it a priori. I conclude it based on a comparison of my interpretation and theirs. I say John 3:16 teaches ES. The Church says it does not. Since I think John 3:16 teaches ES, I think that anyone who denies that is wrong. The Church denies that. Therefore, the Church is wrong.

Can I be wrong? Of course I can. But I can't accept that I am without being persuaded otherwise. For someone who has accepted the premise that the Church is always right, that's an easy argument to make. I haven't accepted that premise, and therefore I would have to be shown where my exegesis is flawed. Or, alternatively, the validity of the authority of the Church would have to be demonstrated.


Because I understand Heb 1:1-2 to teach that the canon is closed. Since I accept the authority of Scripture, I reject all other Scriptures (e.g., the Koran). Further, those books contradict the teachings of Scripture, and therefore, either (say) the Koran or the Bible is fallible. Since I accept the infallibility of the Bible (based on the authority of Jesus, which I grant based on the historical reliability of the Resurrection), I reject the Koran's claims to infallibility over the Bible's. Such is the same with all other sacred books (including high-school biology textbooks! )

I see a whole lot of great dialog here and I can't say that I follow 100% of what you two are talking about, but I don't see how it is constructive to argue either side of the equation unless you are willing to live by what your personal convictions are. I think there is too much division within the church (church being all believers) and this bickering over who knows better and the whole idea of a Religous site whose purpose is to cause division among believers is evidence enough for me that the Catholic faith is more interested in self-preservation than expanding the Kingdom. So keep on fighting argueing your points. I'm pretty sure that in both of your interpretations, it says something about those who cause divisions.