I did not mean to imply that the part from you that I quoted in 5048 was representing your beliefs. I simply tried to indicate the part of your 5001 that I was responding to. My sentence, "I think that the Protestant belief would be ..." agrees with the Protestant concept of election, as far as "from the foundation of the world" goes.
I try to quote something when I am responding, so that the reader can catch the meaning by reference. But I try not to re-quote the entire post. Sometime, and this time, my quoting of the relevant part of the post becomes misleading, and I apologize.
I agree with everything I underlined.
In other words you disagree that the final particular Judgement at the end of one's life is secure, and you don't like to call it particular. But this is a major difference. While God knows His elect form the foundation of the world, we don't; we are given hope, but not firm knowledge. This is why the gospel is also a book of exhortations to good behavior (as well as, of course, the Good News of Christ's salvific work). The scripture is with me, and my prooftext is the opening passage of 2 Peter: "brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election".
Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity?
Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion. The Protestants dropped the teaching on the sinfullness of contraception; they allow remarriage after divorce, -- and I am not bringing up the proabort and pro-gay marriage Protestant groupings that you rightly consider beyond the pale. These two, contraception and remarriage, are not matters of interpretation of the scripture or matters of tradition, they are solidly scriptural, yet the Protestant teaching en masse caved in under the modernistic cultural pressure.
I agree that no pastor calls for total depravity when he himself understands it as such. My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.
Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity?
Well, I know of Luther who broke his vows by marrying a nun, a horrid thing in my humble opinion.
Many a Catholic pope, bishop, and priest has broken many a vow (commiting acts much more horrid than marriage) ... without any promise of OSAS.
I then said I agreed with everything I underlined.
In other words you disagree that the final particular Judgment at the end of one's life is secure, and you don't like to call it particular. But this is a major difference. While God knows His elect from the foundation of the world, we don't; we are given hope, but not firm knowledge.
I'm sure you well know our position that while we can know for sure about ourselves, we cannot know for sure about anyone else. ... I had never heard the term "particular judgment" before, so I looked it up. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it:
"A. Dogma of Particular Judgment -- The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), ..."
Based on only this, I didn't underline "particular" because ultimate destiny is decided from the foundation, etc. So, the Judgment concerning salvation is secure in my view. We also believe there is another Judgment that concerns rewards in Heaven and is related to works.
BTW, the above confused me because it used both "doctrine" and "dogma". Can you explain?
This is why the gospel is also a book of exhortations to good behavior (as well as, of course, the Good News of Christ's salvific work). The scripture is with me, and my prooftext is the opening passage of 2 Peter: "brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election".
That's interesting. I could see myself using the same passage to prove my position. :) POTS recognizes the scriptural truth that all of God's elect are specifically called to do good works. Those works are an evidence of true faith. So, Peter is saying that as we do good works in love for Christ, that we may be sure of our salvation. Doing the good works is a confirmation, for our benefit, that we were previously called to do them, and previously elected.
These two, contraception and remarriage, are not matters of interpretation of the scripture or matters of tradition, they are solidly scriptural, yet the Protestant teaching en masse caved in under the modernistic cultural pressure.
On contraception I have to give credit where credit is due and say that the Catholic Church has really towed the line better than we have on this subject. As far as I know, the RCC has held a steady and consistent position on this (as well as on abortion).
HOWEVER, :) to say that the issue of remarriage is not a matter of tradition really did have me laughing out loud. I well remember when we covered this on the other thread, and I'm sure you know how I feel about annulment. :) Premature dissolution of marriage is always a tragedy in any Christian faith.
My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.
I agree with Blogger that with any sort of correct teaching, this doesn't happen. All Bible-believing churches I can think of teach that believers are all called to do good works. We are to be about God's business. Further evidence is that for a new believer to even understand that he may have confidence, he is most often taught. Presumably, that same teacher will correctly follow up with what Christians are supposed to do as Christians. That was my own experience. In the alternative, if the person discovers that he may have confidence simply by reading scripture, then presumably he will have read the other scripture telling us what Christians are supposed to do.