Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Here are the two immediately relevant verses:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren 30 And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Repetition from the Stuckey prompted* video comment:

1) the first two concepts are if chronologically ordered indication that God foreknew some before He predestined them.
2) because all the following pairs of concepts are chronologically ordered so that the first stated term comes before the next stated one.

All the examples:

• the predestination is from eternity, but the call comes in time, i e God's call to Abraham when he was 75, or God's call to Saulus on the road to Damascus.
• The calling comes before the justification, which involves a yes to the call;
• the justification, being in this life, is prior to the glory in the life to come.

One could reply, the foreknowledge and the predestination are both from eternity, and there is therefore no temporal sequence between them. This doesn't deny a metatemporal or motivational sequence, within God's eternal decision. So, the text is in fact a proof text for scientia media. Luís de Molina's concept of it would be close.

But the Calvinists would use the passage also in another way, namely to deny that any truly justified person could ever get lost. This would be deduced from the last pair:

And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If taken with complete generality and unconditionally, this would spell out the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" ... Two replies.

However, (first), there is a possibility that one or more pairs of concepts may hold the key to this being conditional, on the persons free will.

Whom He called, them He also justified, is this universal?

Jesus called a rich man to poverty, and the rich man walked away sadly. The call was conditional on the rich man's free will.

However, it is possible that the rich man was already justified, and didn't miss out on Heaven, but only on safer and happier ways of getting there with more merits for eternity. It is also possible he later followed the call, like the younger son who at first said no to his father, but then went on to do his bidding.

The other pair is, foreknowledge and predestination. Those who are not predestined to glory are technically in the Catholic Theology not at all known as "predestined to damnation" - that would be heretical, and go against the Council of Frankfurt "Deus neminem predestinat ad malum" - but as "foreknown" (i e foreknown as not making it to heaven). This means, both the predestined and the not predestined are both foreknown by God, so the first pair

whom he foreknew, he also predestinated

is proof that the sequence is in fact conditional, and not automatic and unconditional. Except of course that predestination itself cannot be foiled.

Further, second, one can say, the last pair

whom he justified, them he also glorified

is only validly universally true in the given context of precisely predestination, since this is mentioned before.

The one problem which can be posed is, if predestination cannot be foiled, how is this not irresistable grace? First, because God's offer of grace is extended further than to only the predestined ones. Second, because predestination is never foiled, this is only by grace being unresisted or efficient, not by its being also irresistable. The practical consequence is, one can say "Deus, facienti quod in se est, non denegat gratiam" - God is not refusing grace to anyone doing what he is then and there, with nature and with graces already given, able to do. The very thing the Reformers Luther and Calvin so vehemently denied.

A further confirmation in the previous verses:

25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God. 28 And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

To them that love God ... reminds a little of St. Augustine saying, what Crowley gave a truncated quote of: "have God's love, and do what thou wilt"** - but either way, it makes nonsense of the idea that "the natural man is unable to love God" namely not just "out of his own powers" as we Catholics say, but "totally" as the Reformers say, up to a presumed and always dramatic moment when total hatred of God yields to total love of God motivated only by this remarcable mercy and never by anything else.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* i e Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist ** Habe caritatem, et fac quod vis.

Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has?

Great Bishop of Geneva!: Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has? · somewhere else: Not Hallucinations - Argument II · Creation vs. Evolution Do Flood Stories Around the World Prove Oral Transmission Inaccurate?

Note, not which books, but how many?

Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you towards each other, aboundeth: So that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and tribulations, which you endure, For an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer.

That's the beginning of II Thessalonians.

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

Acts 17

So, if there is one thing which unites Thessaloniki and Veria, it might give us a road.

Veria (Greek: Βέροια or Βέρροια), officially transliterated Veroia, historically also spelled Berea or Berœa,[2] is a city in Central Macedonia, in the geographic region of Macedonia, northern Greece, capital of the regional unit of Imathia. It is located 511 kilometres (318 miles) north-northwest of the capital Athens and 73 km (45 mi) west-southwest of Thessaloniki.

Sorry, a clue. And yes, I think the road is the clue.

73 kilometers - the full Bible has 73 books.
45 miles - miles is an older measure than kilometers, right? - the OT has 45 books.

Wait a minute, 45 + 27 = 72 ...

Well, the official Catholic way of counting it is, "72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremias" ... So, the whole Bible is somewhat fluid between 72 and 73, and the Old Testament, by consequence, between 45 and 46.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Good and Holy Friday
7.IV.2023

PS — the Hackers and other onliners would arguably agree with 73 books for another reason.

50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 4 + 31 + 27 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 150 + 31 + 12 + 8 + 19 + 51 + 66 + 52 + 5 + 6 + 48 + 14 + 14 + 3 + 9 + 1 + 4 + 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 15 = 1077
28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 + 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 260
260 + 1077 = 1337

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

PPS — the informations about the distance vary somewhat, as you can see on these screenshots:

From Burger King to Asking Saints in Heaven for Intercession (a Ramble)

I saw a Burger King restaurant while getting here. It had a very awkward picture of a finger (or two pictures of two fingers) with grill marks on it.

I got reminded of a humouristic verse in Readers' Digest a few decades ago. It's not my own production, but I still am fairly sure of the verses:

To fry the steaks upon the grill

is fraught with risk and tedium:

the beefs are usually quite rare,

the fingers well or medium.

If someone had that kind of experience with grilling, what should he do, as a Catholic?

Well, today he could obviously let the grill be or fry fish on it instead, since it is Lent, but usually, when he has business to feel that "to be a vegetarian is a big missed steak"?

He should pray to St. Lawrence. Now, lots of Prots would at this point start protesting something like "that's idolatry, that's polytheism, that's praying to different god with different functions instead of to one God for all concerns!"

Not so fast, please.

He was a deacon, of Rome, and he was martyred by being put on a grill. He told the executioners when to "turn the steak" ... some pretend that the martyrdoms in Roman law are fantasy, since some versions of the death penalty referred to don't occur in Roman law. And Roman justice obviously went by Roman law. Yes, in some cases it did, like when it said a non-Roman criminal (like the Christian non-Roman Peter, guilty of holding a Bacchanal over 5 participants or of burning down Rome) could be crucified. Or when it said that a Roman criminal (like the Christian Roman ciztizen Paul, also guilty of holding a Bacchanal over 5 participants or of burning down Rome) could be executed by a sword cutting off his head. But this was still before the Codex Iuris Civilis, before Ulpian, and therefore criminal justice in Rome was something of a Wild West affair - except the sheriff was the chief involved in lynchparties. So, yes, very creative executions did occur. That ceased later on, except such as should be codified by law, when Rome became Christian.

So, what's the connexion with his martyrdom and invoking his intercession if you have troubles keeping your fingers totally raw or your steaks turned in time? Well, suppose for a really wild, wild moment of imagination that invoking him isn't spiritism, unlike what some learned in Bible school and he could hear you because God told him ... he would probably see a brother in Christ in a trouble he could relate to (go figure why!) and as he had given his life for Christ, he was arguably in a stronger position to pray about it than the guy who just uttered a cuss word over his fingers getting "well or medium" ...

Isn't that why you go to your pastor and ask him for prayers, and a different pastor depending on the issue? A brother in Christ, who is probably having a closer walk with God than yourself, and who can relate to your issue?

If pagans prayed to any special god about grilling, it would probably be the "god of fire." That one we neither pray to principally, nor ask for any intercession.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Paul of Narbonne
22.III.2023

Narbone, in Gallia, natalis sancti Pauli Episcopi, Apostolorum discipuli, quem tradunt fuisse Sergium Paulum Proconsulem. Hic, a beato Apostolo Paulo baptizatus, et ab eo, cum in Hispaniam pergeret, apud Narbonem relictus, ibidem Episcopali dignitate donatus est; ibique, praedicationis officio non segniter expleto, clarus miraculis migravit in caelum.

Was Peter called Shepherd Already in John 20?

Here is the beginning of this chapter:

[1] And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] She ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. [4] And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.

[6] Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, [7] And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. [8] Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] The disciples therefore departed again to their home.

By allowing Peter to take precedence, despite arriving first as to speed, the Beloved says Peter is the more principal of them.

What were they both?

[8] And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. [9] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. [10] And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

[11] For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: [14] Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. [15] And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us.

[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.

As they heard a message of good tidings, they ran or came with haste.

That's what the shepherds did.

So, in the first announcing of the Resurrection, St. Peter stands out as a principal shepherd. And John the Beloved a subsidiary one./HGL

Questions by Matt Slick

In an oral debate with Rick Akins, he seems to have wanted to get yes and no answers without nuances or qualifications, to each of them.

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation? And when you repent you get it back? Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian; that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

Let's break this down. And this is a type of questioning that could come off as a Gish gallop, if one had any fear that Matt Slick were to interrupt. How I am glad to be answering in writing instead of, as Rick Akin, orally!

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation?

If one breaks the commandments:

• in an important matter (which cheating on the bus isn't for VIII)
• with full knowledge of what one was doing (like not just gliding on a slippery slope into following situation, but knowing exactly what one was in for)
• and full consent (let's not go into details on the one I was thinking of, but for instance, if you are inattentive at Holy Mass because someone else destroyed your sleep, that's certainly not full consent to being inattentive at Holy Mass)

then, yes. If one died before repenting, one would be going to Hell.

And when you repent you get it back?

Again, yes. The not yet baptised may not have had it in the first place, so would get salvation first time over when baptised, but the ones accessing Penance after Baptism with real remorse for sins for a supernatural motive (like one's sin displeasing God or earning and risking Hell), or even before the sacrament of penance, if the motive is God-centered rather than self-centered (one is really more concerned with the offense done to God than with where one goes oneself), one gets it back and a greater state of grace than one had before.

Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian;

To stay a practising Christian, to stay in a state of grace.

that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

We deny this is the only state in which one can be a Christian. A Christian in a state of sin (that is of mortal sin, venial sins do not constitute a state, they just strengthen an already existing state of sin or weaken the state of grace), is still a Christian, and has one huge advantage over the non-Christian (or Protestant semi-Christian) in a state of sin - he knows exactly what to do to get out of the state of sin.

In an oral debate, I would certainly avoid answering the above questions as put, especially if repeated while I am doing an effort to clarify, that is, before I had a chance to make my clarifying point.

He repeatedly ignored the questions and would ask me questions instead. He kept asking me what happens to the soul when we sin

Our Lord gave the example. He did not allow Pharisees to do all of the questioning. He sometimes instead of directly answering a question asked them a question in return. Rick Akin did right to do the same.

Well, I did not know what he meant by that.

This ignorance seems feigned.

So I asked for clarification. I asked what he meant by “what happens to the soul?” Was he saying there was a physical effect, a spiritual effect, an emotional effect, or a relational effect regarding God – or what?

Physical and emotional effects would be very varying from sin to sin. The question is, very obviously, and to me they are the same question:

Do you believe there is a spiritual effect when you sin?
Do you believe there is a relational effect regarding God when you sin?

And as Slick had given these alternatives, it was obvious he had understood the question and his demand for clarification was filibustering. An excuse to interrupt Rick Akin.

It would seem that the consistent version of OSAS would require, either that sinning in a saved person has no spiritual effect, no relational effect regarding God, or that this effect is always below the level of damning one to separation from God. And this would contradict the very words of ...

• John 14 ... vines being cut off (because cut off from God means damnation)
• the three soils (especially what is said about the soils where the seed started to grow, the stony ground and the thistled ground, but didn't make it to harvest)

and it would contradict the implication of St. Paul in Galatians 5:1. If he did not fear a Galatian could relapse under slavery of sin, he would not have had to say the verse like he did.

It is very simple, OSAS security is unbiblical. As applied to individual believers and apart from special cases to whom God reveals they are not going to fall into a state of sin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew Avellini
10.X.2022

Neapoli, in Campania, natalis sancti Andreae Avellini, Clerici Regularis et Confessoris, sanctitate et salutis proximorum procurandae studio praecelebris, quem, miraculis clarum, Clemens Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, Sanctorum catalogo adscripsit.

The page where Matt Slick referenced his debate with Rick Akin

CARM : Matt Slick and Richard Akins debate on Roman Catholicism
by Matt Slick | Jan 12, 2019 | Roman Catholicism, World Religions
https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/matt-slick-and-richard-akins-debate-on-roman-catholicism/

PS - Matt asked - "Can you become a Christian without obeying the commands"

You can become a believer who is still in a state of sin without obeying them at all.

But you cannot become justified, unless you agree to keep them henceforth, with whatever light about what that means that is available to you. Abraham was justified without previous works, but not without upcoming ones. Jacobus Latomus was right, Tyndale was wrong, on Romans 3. Once you are a Christian, and justified, you stay justified by keeping them./HGL

From Live Stream of Chat on a Video by Sungenis

Here is the video, it does not cover this question:

The Catholic view of Scripture | Robert Sungenis & Sam Shamoun
Robert Sungenis, 22 July 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs

Daivon

An interpretation I heard of 2 Thes. 2:14 (2 Thes. 2:15 in other translations) was that what they received that was spoken, was the preaching of the Epistle in defense of Sola Scriptura. Thoughts?

Daivon

In summary: 2 Thes. 2:14/15 is telling people to adhere to the oral teachings of the Epistle itself, not just oral teachings in general regarding the faith.

First, even if 2 Thess. 2, quoted verse, is referring to oral teaching contained in written form in the Epistle, this is just a material, but not a formal coincidence with Scripture alone. That's not sufficient.

Second, one cannot pretend that the whole epistle is in defense of Sola Scriptura. One would have to imagine something other than this epistle's content adding to it orally to say "sola scriptura" and that's not in scripture.

Third, the hypothesis is in fact just a hypothesis. If I hypothesised on 1 Cor 4:6 that "what is written" does not refer to Scripture books at all, but to a written list of clergy, saying that that one be not puffed up against the other for another, refers to the general rule, one should not accept leaders, especially into controversy, and then above that which is written refers to a written list of clergy in Corinth, as exception, yes, we should accept clergy as leaders, even in controversy, this would be a hypothesis.

I could still not claim that my hypothesis were Scripture.

Note, against this one could claim that Paul and Apollo both certainly were clergy, and this would invalidate the hypothesis - except that first part actually says

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn,

meaning according to some that St. Paul was hiding the real names. This doesn't make previous verses, with Paul and Apollo as pseudonyms rather than real names, not inerrant, since the subject of inerrancy is not each verse in isolation, but the passage, where this deviation from literal truthfulness is explained, and the verses in context of the passage.

But these persons are not alone on the field. Calmet actually says the factions are referring to Paul and Apollo.

Now, the point is, this conjecture is conjecture. Like the other one. But the ones that defend "sola scriptura" against passages that aren't saying that or that are sometimes saying the opposite, like this verse ...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

... these ones are in fact incompatible with Scripture. Or with Scripture alone. Or both.

If incompatible with Scripture, they are ipso facto false. If with Scripture alone, they are self contradictory, and false because of that.

So, I was reading a hypothesis which is rather more common among Protestants, namely this one: yes, in St. Paul's day, there was a Church which had direct access to oral tradition from him. Then, one needed to attend to oral traditions as well. But this Church being lost, what we have left of oral tradition is just Scripture.

This is:

• first incompatible with Matthew 28:16-20, where the preservation of the Church is promised, as also in Matthew 16:18 - but in verses 16 to 20 more specifically the Church would be here all days, representing the apostles all days, and teaching all that Christ had taught them all days, with Him assisting Her all days;
• second, incompatible with Sola Scriptura, as it is an explanation added from outside of Scripture. Therefore itself destructive of what it is meant to defend.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hubert of Tongres
3.XI.2022

Eodem die sancti Huberti, Tungrensis Episcopi.

Question on Epistemology

From the chat feed on a video by Matt Fradd:

david cranford

If Roman Catholicism defines what is scripture and tradition how do you know it’s infallible interpretation is true?

Roman Catholicism both does and doesn't define it.

The Pope can say (and a whole council said) "II Maccabees is inspired Scripture" but the Pope doesn't define what words were in II Maccabees, they already were there.

The Pope can say St. Augustine is a Church Father and the consensus of Church Fathers is binding (same council said the latter in same session). But the Pope cannot define what St. Augustine says, it is already there.

It's a bit like Protestants defining 66 books as binding, tradition as just advisible, at Augsburg. The difference is that it's very unclear where Augsburg got any authority to define the Bible as 66 books or to pretend all Church Fathers could agree and still be in error. They still have some kind of test insofar as they don't write the 66 books at Augusburg, and when they go by Church Fathers which they also don't write. Except when they forge them as Wylie did, when pretending St. Ambrose had denied the Real Presence. Or when they forge translations, like when using "repetitions" in the translation of Matthew 6:7. It isn't there in the Greek, it isn't there in old translations to Latin, Syriac or Coptic, it comes from some Protestants' personal dislike for the Rosary.

Protestantism also doesn't get away without collective definitions.

Like if you don't define at least 66 books (out of the real 73) as inspired, you have no test to go by and can invent whatever you want.

You can also do that by inventing hermeneutic principles like "a prophetic day means a year" in order to make Apocalypse 13:5 compatible with seeing the historic papacy as Antichrist.

The two supports for that "principle" don't refer to hermeneutics, but to exchanges - a year of continued exile for each day in punishment for a sin committed those days, a day of fasting for each year of punishment, in a prophet's participation in the sufferings of his people. Either passage, it is about exchange, not about meaning. The 42 months mean 42 months. Not 1260 years.

But the wider problem is, how do we know any Scripture is true?

The Protestants themselves would refer to the earliest Church, we just claim to be continuing that Church and to be continuing its witness and to have the 73 books as the main consensus of the early Church. As soon as it has a consensus about the New Testament.

And whether a book is just stamped as "true story" or stamped as "divinely true" (story or wisdom or whatever), it is so stamped by a community. The Jews don't agree Matthew is divinely true and the Moslems don't agree its story of the Crucifixion is true, any more than that of the Resurrection. Accepting Matthew as divinely true and true story means to belong to a community other than Jews or Muslims. Even in secular history or science, if you don't belong to the communities involved in a war, you depend on them for your story of the war, and if you don't belong to the scientific community and don't travel to high mountains, you depend on the scientific community for "water boils at 100° C at the air pressure normal for sea level, and at lower temperatures in air pressures that are lower and are found higher up in mountains." Even if you don't belong to the community, you depend on it (until you maybe get an occasion to see it for yourself, but I never boiled potatoes in Cuzco, and am not likely to do so).

It is not a question of dictatorship for a community, it is a question of the community being a safer depository for truths than an individual mind.

However, the Catholic test very much does allow the definitions purporting to come from the community to be tested.

For instance, in 1994 a document was released in the Vatican, and tested by actual both Scripture and Tradition (as defined by Trentine Council) that document is not Roman Catholic.

New blog on the kid : John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/10/john-shelby-spong-and-joseph-ratzinger.html

At least this is the case for the section condemning Fundamentalism, the one I looked into. It sounds Catholic to say "we must respect the incarnation of Truth, the real humanity of people who had limited resources" - so, does this mean that we having less limited resources (by implication) have ceased to be human? Well, if not, why not accept the hagiographers had adequate resources, humanly speaking, not limited to direct prophetic visions or auditions, though including those, for knowing for instance true history? And if you accept they had adequate resources, or could have, why not accept the history of a book you purport to accept as part of the word of God?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Raphael
24.X.2022