Thanks for that. It may be that my OP wasn't clear either. What I was primarily driving at is our faith us "doing something" for our salvation. I believe the rise of reformed doctrine in America is centered around this question.

It seems like you would answer that, yes, we are required to "do something". That can be taken to different levels, but it appears that the base level of "doing something" is choosing to place that faith in Him once His call/grace is heard/received by us.

This would lead to the question: if we can choose to answer yes or no, can we potentially leave the faith later in life?

The Banned said:

---

Thanks for that. It may be that my OP wasn't clear either. What I was primarily driving at is our faith us "doing something" for our salvation. I believe the rise of reformed doctrine in America is centered around this question.

It seems like you would answer that, yes, we are required to "do something". That can be taken to different levels, but it appears that the base level of "doing something" is choosing to place that faith in Him once His call/grace is heard/received by us.

This would lead to the question: if we can choose to answer yes or no, can we potentially leave the faith later in life?

---

I am not trying to derail this discussion so please forgive me if it comes across that way, but it seems that the scriptures are clear that it is God's call and God's grace that is effective initially regardless of the merits/actions/"works"/etc. of the individual.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44, RSV-CE)

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

The Banned said:

---

Thanks for that. It may be that my OP wasn't clear either. What I was primarily driving at is our faith us "doing something" for our salvation. I believe the rise of reformed doctrine in America is centered around this question.

It seems like you would answer that, yes, we are required to "do something". That can be taken to different levels, but it appears that the base level of "doing something" is choosing to place that faith in Him once His call/grace is heard/received by us.

This would lead to the question: if we can choose to answer yes or no, can we potentially leave the faith later in life?

---

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

The answer lies in how you view Ephesians 2:8. I think we would both agree that grace is a gift that we are given and that is out of our control. Perhaps the question is, "Is faith included with that?". I would say, "no". Faith is the action we take to accept that gift. I understand some, would argue the two come together. To each his own.

I don't want to derail the thread but I want to address your question. I'm Catholic so I am not in the "Once saved, always saved" crowd. Through sin we stain our soul and those actions can jepordize us from entering Heaven. As such, it is necessary to continually seek forgiveness. The sterotype of "Cathlic guilt" doesn't exist without reason. LOL.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

---

How can it be both synergistic and guaranteed? I can't find a way to make this logic. He is working in us as the effective agent, but we sin. So He has to desire this sin in some way or another or He, as the effective agent, would have stopped it. And we only don't sin to such a degree that we lose our faith because He alone holds us in the faith.

This is the whole reason Arminius and later Wesley moved away from monergism. There's really no room for both to work together.

FIDO95 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Thanks for that. It may be that my OP wasn't clear either. What I was primarily driving at is our faith us "doing something" for our salvation. I believe the rise of reformed doctrine in America is centered around this question.

It seems like you would answer that, yes, we are required to "do something". That can be taken to different levels, but it appears that the base level of "doing something" is choosing to place that faith in Him once His call/grace is heard/received by us.

This would lead to the question: if we can choose to answer yes or no, can we potentially leave the faith later in life?

---

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

The answer lies in how you view Ephesians 2:8. I think we would both agree that grace is a gift that we are given and that is out of our control. Perhaps the question is, "Is faith included with that?". I would say, "no". Faith is the action we take to accept that gift. I understand some, would argue the two come together. To each his own.

I don't want to derail the thread but I want to address your question. I'm Catholic so I am not in the "Once saved, always saved" crowd. Through sin we stain our soul and those actions can jepordize us from entering Heaven. As such, it is necessary to continually seek forgiveness. The sterotype of "Cathlic guilt" doesn't exist without reason. LOL.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't see room for this idea in Protestantism, which is why I'm trying to dig in here. I truly believe, the more I inspect it, the formula "faith alone" requires Calvinism/reformed doctrine.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

---

How can it be both synergistic and guaranteed? I can't find a way to make this logic. He is working in us as the effective agent, but we sin. So He has to desire this sin in some way or another or He, as the effective agent, would have stopped it. And we only don't sin to such a degree that we lose our faith because He alone holds us in the faith.

This is the whole reason Arminius and later Wesley moved away from monergism. There's really no room for both to work together.

---

I'm not sure why you use the term "desire". He permits us to sin and He uses our sin to bring about good. Joseph makes that very clear in Genesis 50.

Jesus' work on the cross is either fully effectual or it's not. Saying we can lose our salvation makes His work the latter.

Philippians 2 calls us to work out our salvation but also says God is at work as well - that's synergism.

Your last line - is that what you believe or that's the conclusion to my beliefs? Because I agree, we can never sin so deeply that we are no longer saved. We have eternal security. Jesus said we would have eternal life; if we can lose our salvation, then it was never eternal. The Holy Spirit seals us and is our guarantee we will receive our inheritance.

The idea that we can be sealed and then unsealed and then sealed again and so on and so forth just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea that one could become lost again while the Holy Spirit resides within them seems unfathomable. It makes a lot of scripture sound like lies.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

---

How can it be both synergistic and guaranteed? I can't find a way to make this logic. He is working in us as the effective agent, but we sin. So He has to desire this sin in some way or another or He, as the effective agent, would have stopped it. And we only don't sin to such a degree that we lose our faith because He alone holds us in the faith.

This is the whole reason Arminius and later Wesley moved away from monergism. There's really no room for both to work together.

---

I'm not sure why you use the term "desire". He permits us to sin and He uses our sin to bring about good. Joseph makes that very clear in Genesis 50.

Jesus' work on the cross is either fully effectual or it's not. Saying we can lose our salvation makes His work the latter.

Philippians 2 calls us to work out our salvation but also says God is at work as well - that's synergism.

Your last line - is that what you believe or that's the conclusion to my beliefs? Because I agree, we can never sin so deeply that we are no longer saved. We have eternal security. Jesus said we would have eternal life; if we can lose our salvation, then it was never eternal. The Holy Spirit seals us and is our guarantee we will receive our inheritance.

The idea that we can be sealed and then unsealed and then sealed again and so on and so forth just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea that one could become lost again while the Holy Spirit resides within them seems unfathomable. It makes a lot of scripture sound like lies.

---

I want to lay it all out in another post when I can make it clear, concise and easy to tear apart by those who disagree with me, so I'll keep this response short by asking: what do you mean by Him being the "active agent" in our synergistic sanctification. Just how heavy of a role does He play?

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

---

How can it be both synergistic and guaranteed? I can't find a way to make this logic. He is working in us as the effective agent, but we sin. So He has to desire this sin in some way or another or He, as the effective agent, would have stopped it. And we only don't sin to such a degree that we lose our faith because He alone holds us in the faith.

This is the whole reason Arminius and later Wesley moved away from monergism. There's really no room for both to work together.

---

I'm not sure why you use the term "desire". He permits us to sin and He uses our sin to bring about good. Joseph makes that very clear in Genesis 50.

Jesus' work on the cross is either fully effectual or it's not. Saying we can lose our salvation makes His work the latter.

Philippians 2 calls us to work out our salvation but also says God is at work as well - that's synergism.

Your last line - is that what you believe or that's the conclusion to my beliefs? Because I agree, we can never sin so deeply that we are no longer saved. We have eternal security. Jesus said we would have eternal life; if we can lose our salvation, then it was never eternal. The Holy Spirit seals us and is our guarantee we will receive our inheritance.

The idea that we can be sealed and then unsealed and then sealed again and so on and so forth just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea that one could become lost again while the Holy Spirit resides within them seems unfathomable. It makes a lot of scripture sound like lies.

---

I want to lay it all out in another post when I can make it clear, concise and easy to tear apart by those who disagree with me, so I'll keep this response short by asking: what do you mean by Him being the "active agent" in our synergistic sanctification. Just how heavy of a role does He play?

---

He is God. He will play whatever role necessary to fulfill His promises.

Romans 8: 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It doesn't say: nothing except your own self.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The Banned said:

---

This word "initially" is the key to me when faith alone is held in conjunction with once saved always saved

---

Can you elaborate?

---

That's what I'm trying to ascertain myself in this thread. I'm flow charting it now to make it quick and easy to read and critique. Right now i get very long winded in my arguments.

To try and one line it: how can I choose something that I'm not capable of rejecting, should my opinion later change?

---

I may regret taking a stab at this, but I'm going to try because I feel your sincerity…

Regeneration is monergistic. The Lord gifts us faith, freely, with no merit. However, our continuing sanctification and preservation following justification is synergistic. However, that's not to say that we may fail at that point, because it's the Lord working and willing in us as the effective agent. Jesus is our guarantor and everyone who the Lord has chosen to save WILL BE saved.

---

How can it be both synergistic and guaranteed? I can't find a way to make this logic. He is working in us as the effective agent, but we sin. So He has to desire this sin in some way or another or He, as the effective agent, would have stopped it. And we only don't sin to such a degree that we lose our faith because He alone holds us in the faith.

This is the whole reason Arminius and later Wesley moved away from monergism. There's really no room for both to work together.

---

I'm not sure why you use the term "desire". He permits us to sin and He uses our sin to bring about good. Joseph makes that very clear in Genesis 50.

Jesus' work on the cross is either fully effectual or it's not. Saying we can lose our salvation makes His work the latter.

Philippians 2 calls us to work out our salvation but also says God is at work as well - that's synergism.

Your last line - is that what you believe or that's the conclusion to my beliefs? Because I agree, we can never sin so deeply that we are no longer saved. We have eternal security. Jesus said we would have eternal life; if we can lose our salvation, then it was never eternal. The Holy Spirit seals us and is our guarantee we will receive our inheritance.

The idea that we can be sealed and then unsealed and then sealed again and so on and so forth just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea that one could become lost again while the Holy Spirit resides within them seems unfathomable. It makes a lot of scripture sound like lies.

---

I want to lay it all out in another post when I can make it clear, concise and easy to tear apart by those who disagree with me, so I'll keep this response short by asking: what do you mean by Him being the "active agent" in our synergistic sanctification. Just how heavy of a role does He play?

---

He is God. He will play whatever role necessary to fulfill His promises.

Romans 8: 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It doesn't say: nothing except your own self.

---

That's true. It doesn't say that. But this is yet another example of very different understandings of free will. It's interesting that nine of the ten things listed are explicitly referring to something external to the believer that the believer has no control over. A believer cannot control, for example, whether he is born or will die ("death . . . life"). Nor can he control what angels and demons do ("angels, principalities"). He's definitely not in control of time ("things present . . . things to come") or the cosmos ("powers . . . height . . . depth").

Just a few verses before, in verse 35, Paul gives a similar teaching and another list of items, all of which are external to and beyond the control of the believer: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

A believer's sins are not external to and beyond his control. They're internal inasmuch as they are the product of his will. They're not beyond his control; otherwise, sin wouldn't be a free action, which is really the heart of the matter.

Then there are the other scripture passages that support the ability of a believer to freely separate himself from God. The broader context of the epistle to the Romans doesn't support the permanence of salvation. Just two chapters earlier in the same letter, Paul warns the Christians in Rome, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness" (6:12-13). It doesn't make sense that Paul would warn Christians about letting sin "reign" over them if he didn't think it were possible for Christians to be re-enslaved to sin and return to their former way of life when they weren't justified.

Paul gives a similar warning to the Christians in Corinth. In the beginning of chapter six of his first letter, he chastises the Corinthians for having lawsuits with fellow Christians (vv. 1-8). Immediately following this chastisement, he writes, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (v. 9).

Paul then says, "Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 9-10).

That Paul says, "Do not be deceived" suggests that he is speaking directly to Christians who think their salvation is guaranteed.

Lastly, the words of Jesus himself in the Gospel of John are clear that sin can separate us from Christ's and God's love. Jesus says in John 15:9-10:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

That Christ makes keeping his commandments a condition of abiding in his love implies that sin (acts that violate the commandments) can cut us off from his love.

How much sin cuts us off?

Is there anything you do that is truly good?

This debate always reminds me of the chicken or the egg conundrum.

How much seems like the wrong question. It's pretty clear what we should do. Go do it.

But you don't, so what happens when you don't?

Frok said:

---

How much sin cuts us off?

Is there anything you do that is truly good?

This debate always reminds me of the chicken or the egg conundrum.

---

Isn't that for the most righteous, judicious, fair, and loving being to ever exist to decide?

It seems to me that my Protestant brothers make this so much harder than it has to be. The grace is in the trying. If you are truly trying (truly being the key) your "numbers" don't matter, because they can never add up to your salvation. It's your cooperation with God's will that accepts the gift of salvation.

SOME (probably not any on this board who are quite intelligent) act as if any human cooperation with God's will cheapen's Christ's sacrifice. As if the holier we become, the less we needed Christ's sacrifice. It's sad.

Zobel said:

---

How much seems like the wrong question. It's pretty clear what we should do. Go do it.

---

Exactly this. "How much sin cuts us off" is a response to the traditional faiths using a faith alone framework. We place our faith in Him AFTER He chooses to initiate it with us. We can choose to keep our faith in Him or remove our faith from Him. Our works follow that free choice. ETA: one of our actions is repenting after we've done wrong. So the only way to cut yourself off from Him is to do wrong and stay resolutely in that wrongness.

I see plenty of Protestants say we have good works BECAUSE we believe in Him, which I would agree with. But if we are incapable of leaving that faith, then it was never "our" faith the begin with. It's His faith in us that has overwhelmed us to the degree we can't stop. This has all sort of implications that most Protestants don't like, but Calvin ended up embracing. Hence the OP. Or you embrace cheap grace theology, which most all Protestants have rejected after a brief spate of popularity.

I ask that question because if I can lose my salvation then it's logical to wonder what loses it. IMO that is the weakness of the faith plus works view. Sure you can repent, but how much repentance? What if I have a bad week and then die unexpectedly?

At the same time, if there are no works (or fruit), then it's likely there is no faith.

Like I said, it's like debating what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

Frok said:

---

I ask that question because if I can lose my salvation then it's logical to wonder what loses it. IMO that is the weakness of the faith plus works view. Sure you can repent, but how much repentance? What if I have a bad week and then die unexpectedly?

At the same time, if there are no works (or fruit), then it's likely there is no faith.

Like I said, it's like debating what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

---

Literally everyone believed you could lose your salvation for about the first 1,500 years of Christian history. And the overwhelming majority have continuously believed this since the Resurrection.

how much repentance? all of it. there's not enough, there's no bar. as the liturgy says, we present ourselves and each other and our whole lives to Christ our God. the entire premise of "how much" is minimalism.

what if you have a bad week? yeah - so you should repent. and also know that our God loves mankind.

Zobel said:

---

how much repentance? all of it. there's not enough, there's no bar. as the liturgy says, we present ourselves and each other and our whole lives to Christ our God. the entire premise of "how much" is minimalism.

what if you have a bad week? yeah - so you should repent. and also know that our God loves mankind.

---

Zobel, don't you also agree that this is why Jesus teaches us not to judge others because only God truly knows what's in each person's heart?

Clarification: we are to judge correctly, not refrain from judging at all.

But I agree we do not know others hearts so we should be careful.

Frok said:

---

I ask that question because if I can lose my salvation then it's logical to wonder what loses it. IMO that is the weakness of the faith plus works view. Sure you can repent, but how much repentance? What if I have a bad week and then die unexpectedly?

At the same time, if there are no works (or fruit), then it's likely there is no faith.

Like I said, it's like debating what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

---

Again, it is my opinion that this view is only possible with a "faith alone" framework. Because it is faith alone, anything that seems to deviate from that is seen as faith plus works.

In reality, we are asked to have faith. Not faith alone. Not faith plus works. Faith. You will not see a Catholic or EO teaching on faith plus works as if it is a math equation. It's just what the faith looks like.

So what does faith look like? We turn to the Bible, the apostles, the church fathers and our church history to see what the faith looks like. Then we try to live it out. We repent when we don't. We do not boast when we do.

With this view of what true faith looks like, we can see that it is truly possible that we can lose it. We place the trust, and therefore can remove the trust. Any framework in which we cannot choose both the bad to its ultimate end or the good to its ultimate end means we are not free actors. If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge. I believe both of those to have severe theological issues with both church history and scripture, but I have chosen not to dive into those here.

Frok said:

---

I ask that question because if I can lose my salvation then it's logical to wonder what loses it. IMO that is the weakness of the faith plus works view. Sure you can repent, but how much repentance? What if I have a bad week and then die unexpectedly?

At the same time, if there are no works (or fruit), then it's likely there is no faith.

Like I said, it's like debating what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

---

I think the issue is that things are viewed as a one time event instead of a process.

Repentance reaches a threshold and becomes viable. Salvation is effected and bulletproof.

I see all of them as lifelong processes. Salvation happens once, but that's when we die, throughout our entire life we are working towards salvation or are falling away from it. Same with repentance, repentance is a state of being more than a one time event.

Quote:

---

If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge

---

That's not what I believe, I'm probably a 3pt calvinist. I think the responsibility is on us to repent and accept the gift of salvation. Beyond that I think we are sanctified to look more like Christ to bring glory to God and participate in the building of his kingdom.

Zobel mentioned earlier in this thread that it seems silly to try to segregate faith and works. I understand that view because they are inseparable if one has faith.

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge

---

That's not what I believe, I'm probably a 3pt calvinist. I think the responsibility is on us to repent and accept the gift of salvation. Beyond that I think we are sanctified to look more like Christ to bring glory to God and participate in the building of his kingdom.

Zobel mentioned earlier in this thread that it seems silly to try to segregate faith and works. I understand that view because they are inseparable if one has faith.

---

Another angle to ponder: let's imagine Mother Theresa of Calcutta was a raging, Dawkins-esque atheist. What merit would her good works have in God's salvation calculus?

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge

---

That's not what I believe, I'm probably a 3pt calvinist. I think the responsibility is on us to repent and accept the gift of salvation. Beyond that I think we are sanctified to look more like Christ to bring glory to God and participate in the building of his kingdom.

Zobel mentioned earlier in this thread that it seems silly to try to segregate faith and works. I understand that view because they are inseparable if one has faith.

---

Which was the point of the thread. If we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it? The logical implications of being able to choose one and not the other means that one was never actually free to choose.

What you're saying is that we synergistically choose Christ but then must be monergectically held in Christ. If God isn't doing the holding AND we can't leave Him, then it must be us, through our efforts, staying in the faith. Even trying to bypass this by saying that He gives us just enough to make sure we never leave is back to monergism, and we'll eventually get back to Calvin.

I know I need to pair this down and make it clearer. I know this sounds like rambling, but it's finally been made clear to me why once saved always saved hasn't made any sense to me. It's because the only major reformer claiming such a thing never thought we had the choice in being saved to begin with. That was Calvin.

Quote:

---

f we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it?

---

I think we can choose to leave it. That's a controversial view in my circle of course. I just don't think I can sin my way out of it. If that even makes sense.

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

f we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it?

---

I think we can choose to leave it. That's a controversial view in my circle of course. I just don't think I am sin my way out of it. If that even makes sense.

---

If every Protestant church felt this way, we could begin working on getting the band back together. Some definitional terms and we're on the road to recovery.

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge

---

That's not what I believe, I'm probably a 3pt calvinist. I think the responsibility is on us to repent and accept the gift of salvation. Beyond that I think we are sanctified to look more like Christ to bring glory to God and participate in the building of his kingdom.

Zobel mentioned earlier in this thread that it seems silly to try to segregate faith and works. I understand that view because they are inseparable if one has faith.

---

Which was the point of the thread. If we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it? The logical implications of being able to choose one and not the other means that one was never actually free to choose.

What you're saying is that we synergistically choose Christ but then must be monergectically held in Christ. If God isn't doing the holding AND we can't leave Him, then it must be us, through our efforts, staying in the faith. Even trying to bypass this by saying that He gives us just enough to make sure we never leave is back to monergism, and we'll eventually get back to Calvin.

I know I need to pair this down and make it clearer. I know this sounds like rambling, but it's finally been made clear to me why once saved always saved hasn't made any sense to me. It's because the only major reformer claiming such a thing never thought we had the choice in being saved to begin with. That was Calvin.

---

I think you're saying the same thing but I will say that I don't understand how people believe in Arminian freewill and OSAS - so you're utterly free to choose God but not free to walk away. That sounds to me like God taking away free will; contradicting to a belief they are quite adamant about.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

If we are not free actors, then Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the only refuge

---

That's not what I believe, I'm probably a 3pt calvinist. I think the responsibility is on us to repent and accept the gift of salvation. Beyond that I think we are sanctified to look more like Christ to bring glory to God and participate in the building of his kingdom.

Zobel mentioned earlier in this thread that it seems silly to try to segregate faith and works. I understand that view because they are inseparable if one has faith.

---

Which was the point of the thread. If we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it? The logical implications of being able to choose one and not the other means that one was never actually free to choose.

What you're saying is that we synergistically choose Christ but then must be monergectically held in Christ. If God isn't doing the holding AND we can't leave Him, then it must be us, through our efforts, staying in the faith. Even trying to bypass this by saying that He gives us just enough to make sure we never leave is back to monergism, and we'll eventually get back to Calvin.

I know I need to pair this down and make it clearer. I know this sounds like rambling, but it's finally been made clear to me why once saved always saved hasn't made any sense to me. It's because the only major reformer claiming such a thing never thought we had the choice in being saved to begin with. That was Calvin.

---

I think you're saying the same thing but I will say that I don't understand how people believe in Arminian freewill and OSAS - so you're utterly free to choose God but not free to walk away. That sounds to me like God taking away free will; contradicting to a belief they are quite adamant about.

---

Exactly what I'm saying, which is why Arminius didn't believe OSAS. And if you take that Arminian approach, I still struggle to see how this fits true "faith alone".

In my opinion, you can choose the traditional faith perspective, Calvinism or free grace theology. Anything in between seems, to me at least, to be stopping short of one of these ultimate ends.

Frok said:

---

How much sin cuts us off?

Is there anything you do that is truly good?

This debate always reminds me of the chicken or the egg conundrum.

---

Anything I do is truly good to the extent it is done in cooperation with God's grace. While our good works are rewarded, they are only meritorious through God's grace (Romans 2:6-11, Galatians 6:6-10).

Early Church Fathers, like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, emphasized that rewards are given according to one's actions and struggles (First Apology 43, Against Heresies 4:37:7). This understanding reflects the belief that our efforts, aided by grace, lead to eternal rewards, symbolized by a "crown" (1 Corinthians 9:25).

As Augustine said, when God rewards our merits or works, he crowns his own gifts to us.

If Mother Teresa had been a raging Dawkins-esque atheist all her good works would have merited nothing for her salvation.

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

Quote:

---

f we are doing the choosing, why is it that we can't then choose to leave it?

---

I think we can choose to leave it. That's a controversial view in my circle of course. I just don't think I am sin my way out of it. If that even makes sense.

---

If every Protestant church felt this way, we could begin working on getting the band back together. Some definitional terms and we're on the road to recovery.

---

If everyone agreed with me this would be much easier