Sure, the other poster criticized my post claiming I "hitched" "
our salvation to Eph 2:10 which talks about good works being preordained. Seriously? You just crossed back to the RCC. You are getting desperate," but the problem is I have cited several sets of scripture in this thread and NOT just Ephesians 2:10. I "hitch" our salvation on the whole of scripture, and it is my general practice to survey the whole of scripture from the beginning of the OT to the end of the NT, just as I have done here in this thread. Therefore, the idea I hitch our salvation on one verse that is half of a sentence in one paragraph in one letter is not only wrong, it is absurdly wrong and so absurdly wrong it confounds the facts in evidence.
Then there's the claim I "cross back to the RCC." That too is factually incorrect and methodologically incorrect. Not once did I explicitly cite anything RCC and the implication I've implied a Roman Catholic soteriology by proof-texting one verse is just as factually incorrect because in Catholic Soteriology works are causally related to salvation.
HERE,
HERE, and
HERE are three articles from catholic.com that expound on the RCC's approach to works. Everyone will find a lot of common ground with those articles but there are some important differences from the Protestant perspective. For example, one difference would be, "
We also know that works pertain to our final justification, since Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:31-46 that the determining factor for those who go to heaven or hell are those who did and did not do the corporal works of mercy." It's a particularly odd statement, imo, since they elsewhere noted Paul's argument against Judaization, and Matthew 25 is an apocalyptic (eschatological, not soteriological) statement made to Jews about Jews prior to Calvary.... AND it contradicts passages like 1 Cor. 3:9-15 (which states we can exit the final testing empty-handed and still be saved. The point being my use of Ephesians 2:5-10 was not an assertion of RCCism as was claimed.
HERE are a few articles on the RC view of predestination.
More op-relevantly, the point of my using the Ephesians 2 text was to evidence a form or degree of predestination that 1) wasn't considered in this op, that is 2) directly related to our "inheritance," and 3) both aspects of my point were completely ignored with the criticism and false appeal to RCCism. This op asks, "
When does predestination start?" and my position is there is a problem with the question itself because it is temporally based (not eternally based), human centric and not God-centric, uses scripture selectively and is therefore presenting an incomplete understanding of predestination (and inheritance), and should be more accurately worded to ask, "
When did predestination start?" because words like "
before" and "
beforehand" are just as indicative of something being previously destined as are those passages that use the word "
predestined." This op has left all of that scriptural content out. One example is the works that were preordained for us and the implicit necessity those works are party of our destiny and inheritance. When I assert Ephesians 2:5-10, or even just the three verses 8 through 10 I do so in the context of a whole pile of other scriptures
as well as the silence of whole scripture, because not only does scripture thoroughly and consistently support the Ephesians 2 equation of by-through-for, but there isn't a single verse in the Bible that asserts "
saved by faith," or "
saved by works." Therefore, the criticism I've hitched our salvation on a single verse is wrong, it ignores the op-relevant content which has nothing to do with RCCism.
Was your question answered? If not clarify the inquiry for me and I'll try to provide a more cogent and germane answer.