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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.