Kindly interpret some of the verses I just provided for you then, and why you do not think they refute osas?

Hebrews6:4 And it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted in the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying the Son of God and our holding him up to contempt.

Revelation3:5 if you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

(Emphasis added)



I did, and assuming the link I looked at is correct, I was right.

Supralapsarianism

1. Elect some, reprobate rest
2. Create
3. Permit Fall
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

Infralapsarianism

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

Isn't this just the same way of saying that God presdestines some to hell, and unconditionally elects others? Maybe you could explain to us which parts of these explanations include the, 'conditional' part?

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm



I am afraid that you are completely missing the point, the point being is that it would seem at certain times people have been endowed with enough grace to be considered, 'saved,' but as a result of their actions have fallen away, hench Paul's explanation in Hebrews which I just quoted for you. This would be in direct contradiction to your assertion that anyone who is damned was never saved to begin with.

I've discussed this subject with Jac at length and I can assure you he is not missing the point. They will simply answer you back that those who you say have been saved were actually not saved at all and were not part of the elect to begin with. This is why Jac rightly argues that unless one believes in FG-OSAS (absolute, unconditional assurance no matter what happens afterwords) then one simply does not believe in OSAS since at the heart of OSAS is absolute assurance. But if absolute assurance can turn out to be false then it's no assurance at all.

There really are two basic positions to consider wrt OSAS, the Catholic postion (no OSAS, moral assurance) and FG-OSAS (absolute assurance no matter what). Anything in between is a watered-down version of one or the other. If you want to refute their version of OSAS then hit them with that (then come back and argue with Jac who holds to the only logical version of OSAS ).

Why? I'm not arguing in favor of OSAS in this thread. You're moving the goal posts. Do you really think that OSAS advocates, whether of the watered down FPS type or the genuine ES/FG type don't have interpretations that don't contradict OSAS? Obviously, you will disagree with those interpretations, but it's no secret that they exist and that people hold to it.

So, again, the issue at hand is how you interpret those passages. So I emphasize my point. If they agreed that those passages contradict OSAS, you're argument would work. But they don't think those passages contradict OSAS as they interpret them (rightly or wrongly) differently than you do. As such, the argument you are making doesn't work.


No, it isn't the same way as saying that at all. In Supralapsarianism, God actively predestines some to Hell. In Infra/Sub-lapsarianism, God passes over the reprobate, which leaves them in their condemned state. That is not at all the same thing as predestination to Hell. The former view is formally condemned by the Church as a heresy (Predestinarianism), because if God actively predestined people to Hell then that denies His universal salvific will.

You can, of course, disagree with the Church if you like. On this, I think she got it exactly right.


What Byblos said.

You are one of them though jac so why can't you give us the clear interpretation of why those verses don't contradict osas. I have already given my interpretation, why do you find it so difficult to do the same?



Dear Lord, there is Infra/Sub-lapsarianism as well, is there caffeinated and non caffeinated too? I feel like learning about Calvinism is like memorizing the menu at Starbucks.



If you can't defend your position by answering my questions that's fine by me.

Of course I don't have a problem offering such interpretations. My point is that it's just a needless distraction. You made a bad argument. You said:

The problem with the OSAS crowd is twofold and maybe more imo, first off it is expressly contradicted in scripture.

But that is obviously not the problem. Or, if it is, it does no good in debate to say that, because OSAS advocates disagree with you. If I said to you, "The problem with Catholicism is twofold and maybe more imo, first off it is expressly contradicted in scripture" you would immediately object. It's no secret that Protestants think Catholicism contradicts Scripture, and vice versa. That assertion is just an assertion. If you had said something like, "One of the most basic problems with OSAS for me is that I don't see how it can be reconciled with Heb. 6:4-6" then you would have had a good and true statement.

As to my own views, if you're curious about them, I've linked to my blog and said in this thread start there. And if you want to have a separate debate about whether or not I am correct then feel free to either start a thread about the verse you think I am mishandling it or find a thread I've defended one of my own views, resurrect it, and we'll discuss it there.

To bring this back to the OP, rather than having a debate with people about what verses mean, show them--when possible--that, regardless of their interpretation, they're really saying the same thing as the Church, and point out that the Church says it better and more clearly. It freaks FPS advocates out to find out that they have what is functionally the same view on "eternal security" as Catholics. More effective and more fun . . . besides, when you debate the interpretation of, say, Heb 6:4, you are playing on their terms. That's just bad apologetics. They all get particular training in interpreting those "difficult passages." All you do when you have that debate is further solidify them in their position.


You make me feel bad here. I hate to be the one to bust your bubble . . . it is unfortunately true that the vast majority of the time we cannot look at people we disagree with and give them a one or two line dismissal. Unfortunately, most people--especially when talking about thinkers who have provided culture shaping intellectual paradigms--are not stupid and have quite a bit of nuance in their thought.

I know it's easier to think of them all as stupid, but that's virtually always not the case.

Of course, this is one of the reasons I made my initial point. Much better to show the FPS styled OSAS folk that he's just a watered down Catholic and doesn't even realize it.


Would you prefer I just copy/paste what he said? I would have said the same thing. Just trying to save us both some time. But if you don't want to interact with the answers provided to your questions, well . . . that's fine by me, too.

But you are a osas advocate, so why can't you give me an interpretaion of the verses I asked for?



Pick any subject in another thread, and debate which specific Catholic doctrine is contradicted in scripture, and I guarantee people will give multiple verses to contradict your assertion. Protestantism can't do that for me.




I don't think of them as stupid. I think that there are so many holes in their arguments when you actually scrutinize them, that it isn't really worth investing too much of my time in learning the intricacies of their beliefs, to be quite frank.



No I'd prefer you to interpret the verses I gave, using other verses if you may to support osas?

I've already told you, if you want my view on those passages, go check out my blog. I've explained my views there.

What good does it do for this discussion to go through my views? You'll disagree with my interpretation. So what? You're just saying that you disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, and I say I disagree with yours. So the issue is NOT that OSAS is contradicted by Scripture. The issue is how Scripture ought to be interpreted.

Now, I'm happy to talk about OSAS if you like, but if you are really wanting to talk about it that much, start a thread on it. As it is, you're (again) moving the goal posts.

As far as not wanting to learn about other positions, then I'd suggest you don't bother critiquing them. It's no better for you to argue against a position you don't understand than it is for non-Catholics to offer silly arguments against the Church like "Rome says we should worship Mary!!1!1" Your "objections" have exactly the same intellectual force. You ought to see that as beneath you.

And that, by the way, is ANOTHER reason you should adopt the methodology I've suggested. When you debate with people over the interpretation of passages, you're just playing on their turf. If you let them explain their positions to you and then you can show them that they're just saying the same thing you are, then you can point out that, whether they know it or not, they're essentially watered down Catholics. That's a better tactic, which is what the OP was asking -- how do you refute OSAS, not "is OSAS true" or "how do OSAS advocates interpret passages like Heb 6:4."

But hey, if you want to stay ignorant of what other people believe and be ineffective as a defender of your faith, that's fine by me.

Ok. Let’s look at that.

You hold to OSAS and to logical assurance. According to you these two cannot be separated from each other. I’m not sure I agree, but I’ll grant that for the sake of argument.

Now I don’t believe in OSAS. And the reason I do so, is because Scripture does indeed warn us that we can loose our salvation. A few verses will suffice for now (RSV-CE):

Rom. 2:5-11:
5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

Heb. 6:4-6:
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Jas. 5:19-20:
19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Now I believe these tell us that we can indeed loose our salvation. If we couldn’t, why would St. James say that someone could ‘wander from the truth,’ and that he could later be brough back and have his sould saved ‘from death’? I’m sorry, but to read that verse and conclude with OSAS just doesn’t cut it for me. It seems to me thar your argument boils down to this: If we hold on to OSAS, we can have logical assurance of salvation. But if we don’t hold on to OSAS, we cannot have logical assurance of salvation.

So what? Granted your view, and in light of the passages I have just referenced, it seems to me that the logical outcome of that is not hold on to OSAS and logical assurance, but to reject both. It seems to me that you are preoccupied by this notion of assurance that you choose to believe an absuridty just to be able hold on to it.

I have never seen anything that amounts to a proof of OSAS. I have seen arguments that makes logical assurance hard (if not impossible) without OSAS, but I fail to see the significance. I will not believe in an absurdity and a logical contradiction just to be able to hold on to logical assurance.

You are right in the main, but you've still not framed the argument correctly, CC. Look again at the argument. The major premise is:

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation

You say you are willing to grant that for the sake of argument, and that's fine. Now, we can only two two things with that premise. We can either affirm the antecedent (modus ponens) or deny the consequent (modus tolens). Which means we have one of these two possible arguments:

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. ES is true
3. Thus one can have logical certainty of salvation

OR

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. One cannot have logical certainty of salvation
3. ES is not true

What you cannot do is deny the antecedent, which would result in:

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. ES is not true
3. Therefore, one cannot have logical assurance of salvation

nor can we affirm the consequent, which would result in:

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation
2. We can have logical certainty of salvation
3. Therefore, ES is true

I've seen too many ES/FG people make the last of these four arguments. They seem to think that just because you can have logical certainty, therefore, ES must be true. In order to make that argument, you'd have to have a stronger major premise. But it seems that you are making the third of the four--namely, you are denying the antecedent. Your scriptural proof seems designed to prove that ES is NOT true, and therefore, we ought to jettison logical assurance. I gather that from your words when you say:


Perhaps I am just misreading you, but again, your argument seems to be that because OSAS is not true, logical assurance is impossible. That's just not true. It's a fallacious argument. Universalists, for instance, can have logical assurance. FPS advocates who hold to the premise that it is impossible to be deceived about the state of your election can have logical assurance, and that just for two instances. Now, I think it's rather evident that both the universalist argument and the FPS+ arguments fail, but they exist, and that's why I phrased the argument as I did.

It seems to me that what you are saying is actually:

1. If we can lose our salvation, we cannot have logical certainty of assurance
2. We can lose our salvation
3. Therefore, we cannot have logical certainty of assurance

This would be valid, but this is the very argument I have been saying since the beginning that you ought not make. Tactically, it's a bad argument, for all the reasons I've laid out. (1) is not obvious (since there are competing positions; (2) will be a never ending debate; and worst of all, (1) allow FPS advocates (which make up the majority of OSASers) to remain in a state of unintentional cognitive dissonance. And further, it throws away your edge, in that most FPS adherents hold to Reformed Theology and, as such, tend to be anti-Catholic; you can use that to your advantage by proving that their own theology is essentially Catholic! All the better for you, because now you are arguing on your terms, not theirs--on your turf, not theirs. What are they going to do, tell you that they understand their faith better than you do?

So I appreciate your Scriptural argument. Its the same one Arminians use in the never ending Calvinism/Arminianism debate. And that, my efriend, is the very reason you would do well to avoid it.

Have you linked your blog, wouldn't it have been simpler just to copy and paste the parts I'm asking for?



No I'm not saying that I disagree with your interpretation of scripture, I am saying that the scriptures themselves disagree with your interpretation of scripture.

Take this guy as an example; Source: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/s ... iever.html



He uses Ephesians4:30 to advocate osas;

But Hebrews6:4-6 contradicts his view, there is nothing in scripture which states that once we are sealed with the Holy Spirit that it cannot depart from us, infact Hebrews6:4-6 would suggest exactly the opposite!

He also quotes this little doosey;



For a start the context of the verse is Israel's covenant with God, secondly;

John15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. 2 He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.

"Every branch in me," would suggest that they were at one time part of the Church and can be removed from it, see also John17:20-21, 1Corinthians12:27.

I also like how he goes through John in chronological order even quoting from John6:40, but skipping out John6:47 which would seemingly support his argument. Except straight after the Jews don't believe when Christ tells them that he is the living bread, and that this bread is his flesh, and whoever eats of it lives forever(John6:51).

I guess this was problematic for the guy so he just skipped over it, because the obvious connotations are that those who didn't eat of Christs flesh don't live forever.

This is why I don't bother with people like this, I could pretty much go through his entire article and tear it to shreds.

Jac what about the question of self deception also concerning OSAS, how do you know for example, with any certainty, that you wont be like one of those people Christ condemns in Matthew7:21-23?

I know I have somewhere, but maybe not in this thread. Anyway, here it is:

http://cmmorrison.wordpress.com

And no, copy/paste would not have been simpler, especially since the material isn't related to the argument at hand.


Now you are just being silly. Your interpretation of Scripture contradicts OSAS. My interpretation of Scripture doesn't.

As far as the Deem article goes, I've read it before. I'm actually a regular member on those forums. Anyway, I'm not all that impressed with it. It's a perfectly typical FPS argument--one I've heard before fifteen trillion times. If nothing else, he gives you several examples of how he interprets those passages you think contradict OSAS. Could he be wrong? Of course. As a matter of fact, on most of them, I think he is. But it doesn't change the fact that such is his understanding.


Because they based their assurance of salvation on their works. I don't.

One question, how do you suppose that we judge which interpretation is correct?

I guess you know what's coming next?

James2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?

Shouldn't your faith be manifest through your works, at least that's what the bible tells me, Matthew7:16, Matthew15:18-20, Luke10:36-37, James2:14-16.

So if Christ based beliefs on the actions(fruits) of the believers, what exatly gives you the assurance that you won't be one of those people Christ condemns? After all self deception is believing that you think something is true when it is not.

Belief alone according to James and Christ doesn't seem to suffice, could you point me in the direction of the scripture that states that belief alone will grant you eternal security?

How many times have we had this argument?

The same way I judge which interpretation of any aspect of life is correct: by reason.


Of course that is what comes next. That's what EVERYONE says to the ES/FG crowd--everyone, whether Catholic, Arminian, or Calvinist. That is why I've been saying from the beginning that you should point out to the FPS advocate that you hold essentially the same theology.

As far as my own views, I've told you repeatedly--if you're so interested in what I think of those passages, you have three options: 1) use the search feature as I've addressed all of that repeatedly here; 2) check my blog; or 3) start another thread.

Could you at least point me to the part of your blog, or the thread where you address this question? I don't want to read through reams of pages to find what I'm looking for.

It's hard to get a direct answer from you, have you ever thought of going into politics?

Click the "problem passages" category on the right. Most of the entries link to each other, but unfortunately, I changed the site address and haven't updated the links, so most of those internal links don't work anymore. I need to spend a few hours on that . . .

I've also got quite a bit of relevant information in the word studies category and the apologetics category. For instance, on the second page of the apologetics category, there's an entry on hermeneutics titled "Isn't that just your interpretation?" and another on assurance titled "Can I know I'm going to heaven?" On the third page is an entry on whether or not a Christian can live in sin.


I guess that's another of many reasons I shouldn't get involved in that arena. We already have too many people who won't give straight answers.

As to getting a straight answer from me, it's exceedingly easy. You just have to ask the right question. For me, the issue is not theology. It's methodology. I don't appreciate conversations that meander aimlessly. I'm a strong C-type personality and prefer to handle one issue at a time. You start moving the goal posts, which most people do, and soon enough you'll find yourself playing in a field without me and wondering where I went when, truth be told, I prefer to stick to the original issue.

I've said it a million times on this forum and I'm sure I'll say it a million more. If you want to bring up material unrelated to any particular argument, I've no problem discussing it . . . in another thread dedicated to that.

Well I at least found your answer to Hebrews6:4-6;

http://acts172.wordpress.com/2010/07/24 ... ebrews-64/



(Emphasis added)

Ah yes it is as mentioned earlier, the passages in Hebrews6:4-6 mention those who have shared in the Holy Spirit, this is a direct reference to salvation as mentioned in Ephesians4:30.



"The loss of ones fellowship with church?" What exactly does that mean, you are either a member of the Body of Christ or you are not. Why did Christ also give the disciples the power to forgive sins(John20:22-23), if those who fell away could, "not be brought back to repentance?"

Why does Christ tell the disciples the procedure for bringing one back into the Church(Matthew18:15-17), if someone could lose, "one's fellowship with the church?"



Again, God does discipline those he loves, but how do you know when your suffering if it is a part of God's discipline, and not just a result of your sin? Also Matthew13:50 and John15:1-6 etc.....may also be seen to contradict your assertion that this burning is a purifying discipline, as the verse states, "it's end is to be burned over." A purifying fire(purgatory) is more accurately described in 1Corinthians3:15.

You say;



The bible says;

Acts3:19 Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

Romans13:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another.

I'm seeing a lot of holes and contradictions in your interpretations Jac, they certainly don't line up with scripture as you claim they do.

You seem to have difficulty listening. I've told you, if you want to have a discussion on my view of the passage, open another thread on it.

But, on topic, it's clear that you disagree with my interpretation. And it should be equally obvious that I disagree with your disagreement. Do you honestly think that I've not considered your objections, that suddenly, after reading your words, I'm going to see that I was wrong all along? Go open a thread and see what happens. We'll go around and around and around and no one will convince the other of anything.

And what will that do for your case? It will leave you feeling like you've shot my argument full of holes and me feeling like you are more interested in preaching than in listening to a different view. Both of us will be more convinced than ever that we were right. So how does that help you refute OSAS?

Answer: it doesn't. You are employing the wrong tactic.

Now, with me, it's going to be particularly difficult, because we have such radically different soteriologies. I'm perfectly content saying that if you are right then I believe a false Gospel and will likely burn in Hell for it. I'm also perfectly content to say that if I am right, you believe a false Gospel. Whether or not you will burn in Hell for it is just contingent on whether or not you've just trusted Christ at ANY point in your life. I don't know the answer to that, so I can't say one way or the other. But either way, one--or both--of us has a false Gospel. You have very little common ground to work with when it comes to debating FG/ES people.

If, though, I were an FPS advocate, you'd find your case a lot easier. While we would still disagree on Heb 6:4-6, we would still hold essentially the same doctrine. I would likely say (like Deem does) that the people in that passage are not real Christians. You could focus on that, and what would it accomplish? Nothing. On the other hand, you could focus on the fact that, on FPS theology, if I go out and live in sin I am going to Hell--and that, you could say, is remarkably consistent with your own theology (not to mention the theology of Arminians). Now you can have a conversation about what Catholics believe and why the Catholic view of perseverance is better than the Calvinist view is. And you would be right!

But as I've said before, you can continue wanting to have your arguments about the text. You're just proving yourself to be very ineffectual in the process.

BTW, I told you to check the problem passages section, not the passage summaries section. I'm trying to be kind here, Jerome, but really . . . you should read more carefully. I have in the problem passages section a more detailed exegesis. The summary is just that - a summary.

By FPS I am assuming you mean Final Perseverance theology, which doesn't teach that if you go out and sin you go to Hell, that is what confession is for. If you die in a state of mortal sin you go to Hell. Even then, what constitutes a mortal sin can be somewhat more nuanced.