If you wanted to start a new thread with the material I posted, that's fine by me.  I won't be in town for a couple of days so if you want to put it up immediately for discussion that's cool.

Sincerely,
Bill

The main concern I have about the Catholic approach, and maybe many also of the Protestant ones, for that matter, is the jurisdiction that is laid on the individual participant.  That is, in the Catholic, it seems  an indivdiual, or a hierarchy, holds an inordinate amount of control and jurisdiction of the individual believer.  Maybe it's a question of degrees.  But for sure, most every congregation, tends towards a spirit of jealousy, over other congregations, regardless of the creed or stripe.

Actually Authority and the Scriptures was one of the main reasons why I converted.  This is because there needs to be authority in interpreation of scriptures, moral issues and complex doctrinal issues, otherwise there is nothing but chaos and the truth of Christianity becomes nothing but a "fif" (funny feeling inside).

Right now we're praying for a memeber here, tigerlily, who has been a regular contributor, a young mother, and is suffering from an advancing, debilitating illness.  Please join us in prayer for her, and pass the word along to one or more members here, by IM if you can, please, that we are praying for her healing, inJesus' Name...

no problemo!  I'm on it!

Sincerely,
Bill

I have my own theories, but I wanted to ask the general public.  What is Paul's point in Romans 9?  Is it absolute predestination at the choice of God?  Or does Paul's argument about the majority of Jews lost in unbelief point to something different?  One more thing, if Paul is speaking of absolute predestination, why does Paul wrap up his argument by saying "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?  Not at all!"  If the unbelieving Jews were objects of wrath prepared for destruction before the foundation of the world, then why did Paul say they did not stumble beyond recovery?

All responses are sincerely appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill

Howdy! My name is Bill.  I am a recent college grad and convert to the Catholic faith from Evangelical Protestantism.  The main reason I converted was because of a study of what the Church Fathers taught concerning doctrine and finding out how weak the biblical support for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide really is.   I've been a Christian for about 5 years and majored in Broadcasting in college.  I wish all of you great blessings in Christ.

Sincerely,
Bill

11Here is a trustworthy saying:
   If we died with him,
       we will also live with him;
    12if we endure,
       we will also reign with him.
   If we disown him,
       he will also disown us;
    13if we are faithless,
       he will remain faithful,
       for he cannot disown himself.

I’m not sure how this verse proves eternal security because verse 12 pretty much makes it clear that if disown Jesus, he will disown us (counterbalanced by the enduring verse).  Verse 13 is the only thing that could possibly be used in to argue eternal security and  this  is absurd for 2 reasons 1) the proceeding verse and 2) the fact that both believers in eternal and conditional security believe that God is a loving God.  All verse 13 proves is that God loves us with an eternal love, however if we “trample the Son of God under foot” all we can expect is judgement.  Paul pleaded with the Galatians to return to the Gospel and said that they had “fallen from grace.”  Why would Paul desperately warn the Corinthians to be reconciled to God or warn them of falling away, why would the writer of Hebrews contain so many explicit warnings if Christians really had no possibility of falling away from salvation?  

We are members of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22,23, 5:30)
Does Christ cut off parts of his body?

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13,14, 4:30)
Is anyone strong enough to break God's seal?

We are a purchased posession (1 Cor 6:20, 7:23; Eph 1:14)
Does God throw away that which he purchased with his own blood?

We are adopted sons of the Father (Rom 8:15-23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5)
Does God disown his sons?

These arguments all take one statement that is obviously true and wed them to a statement that is false by false comparison.  None of the verses you listed explicitly state that because the Christian enjoys the privileges listed that they can be certain that they won’t fall away.  For example, instead of using imagery of Christ separating parts of his body, he uses imagery of Vines and the branches being cut off and burned (John 15:1-8), Paul also uses this same imagery (Romans 11:11-24).  Just because Christ and the Apostles used the imagery to describe the actual event of becoming a Christian doesn’t mean that the same imagery can be used to refute claims that they explicitly dealt with, either by using literal writing, parables or imagery.

It can be easily seen that salvation cannot be lost since, from beginning to end, it is dependent on the work of Christ, not the works of men. Our works can't get us saved, and our works can't keep us saved.

Where does it say that works can’t keep us saved?  Paul (Romans 2:5-16), Jesus (Matt 25:31-46) and James (James 2:14-26) all say that our salvation is dependent on works.  

But don't scriptures such as Heb 6:4-6, 10:26,27 and 2 Pet 2:20-22 teach that salvation can be lost if we don't continue in good works? Yes, they do! However, these scriptures are not written to the body of Christ in the dispensation of the grace of God. They are written to believers under the Jewish dispensation

At least you deal more honestly with the passages in question than do most believers of eternal security.  However, your only recourse to prevent you from taking these verses to their logical conclusion is to rely on a human tradition invented by John Nelson Darby a little over 100 years ago!  I must ask, how do you know when the Jewish Dispensation ended.  Did a bell toll and all the churches in the ancient world automatically say “thank goodness these verses aren’t part of the scriptures anymore!”?  In addition, how do you rebuke liberal Protestants, Diests and the Jesus Seminar folks when they ignore or toss out scriptures because they don’t agree with their presuppositions.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though, this type of reasoning isn’t new to Protestantism.  Afterall, it was Luther who excluded James from his canon of scripture because it obviously contradicted his man made “faith only” theory.

While I appreciate your concern for me having absolute assurance of salvation, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that Eternal Security is utterly foreign to both Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Sincerely,
Bill

Thank you for your informative post, but I must take issue with your exegesis....

First we must understand the basis of our salvation. Is salvation based on what we do?

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

These scriptures, and countless others, make it clear that salvation is not based on what we do for God. In fact, it is just the opposite. Our salvation is based on what God did for us (Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 15:3,4; 2 Cor 5:21).

This is, at best, selectively quoting the scriptures.  First, there are numerous texts that say we need to do things in addition, to what God has done for us to stay in the grace of God: Baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16,  1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16), Works (10:17-31, James 2:12-26, Matthew 25:31-46) and enduring until the end (Matt 24:13).  All of these verses either mention salvation, justification, the forgiveness of sins etc. and none of them mention faith alone. While they are all done through God's grace, all of these verses necessitate human action.

Since we can't do anything to be saved, how can we be expected to do anything to stay saved? The scriptures teach that we are secure in Christ and that nothing, not even our own unbelief, can separate us from the love of God once we have trusted in Christ's sacrifice for our sin. (Rom 8:33-39; Phil 1:6; 2 Tim 2:11-13)

Because point one is demonstrably false then point two must also be false, and the biblical record bears this out.  First lets look at the verses you quoted:

33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
   "For your sake we face death all day long;
       we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."[1] 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[2] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I must point out that all the things that St. Paul mentions here are things that are external to the believer.  The text does not say "neither adultery, nor murder, nor any other sin can seperate us from God."   In fact, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he mentions things that can specifically seperate us from God:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 (1 Cor 6:9-11)

Paul emphatically declares that although the Corinthians were involved with those activities, but they are now christians and these things are not to be done by them anymore. Unfortunately that's exactly what they had been up to, which necessitated Paul's letter to them.  If they continued in sin, they would not inherit the kingdom.

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

This verse cannot possibly be used to support Eternal Security for several reasons.  First, Paul nowhere says that the Phillipians had a sure ticket to heaven because he only says that he is confident that the good work will carry it on to completion.  Had he known of the Phillipians eternal security, he would've made the language absolutely certain that they would all be in heaven.  

The rest of the letter bears this out because he warns the Phillipians to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling."  Had they been eternally secure, this verse would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Moreover, Paul says explicitly that his salvation had not been attained yet:

I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.  Phillipians 3:10-14

Paul also explains the uncertainty of his salvation to the Corinthians:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor 9:24-27)

Paul's explanation of the apostasy of Israel in the following chapter also gives this warning greater depth.  Although the Israelites had been "baptized into Moses" (like Christian baptism) and ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink that we drink (Holy communion), but despite this fact, God was not pleased with most of them and only Caleb and Joshua made it through the desert.  In addition, to say that these people weren’t “true believers” is ludicrous.  This is because the faith of this generation is mentioned in Hebrews 11 along with a group of the greatest Old Testament saints who were no doubt true believers(Hebrews 11:29).  Paul also mentions doubt of the salvation of another individual in his second letter to Timothy:

16May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus. (2 Tim 1:16-18)

Although Onesiphorus was no doubt a good man of God (since he was dedicated to Paul despite the fact that virtually everyone had abandoned him), but Paul abstains from using language of Onesiphorus’ final destination.  All of this lends a lot more credibility to conditional security than unconditional security.