How to punish a Calvinist (1 Cor 11:32) - Part II

I love to spring 1 Cor 11:32 upon Protestants, especially Calvinists, because of the reaction it gets from them: But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. The plain teaching of this passage is that Christians are not "eternally secure" but rather must be disciplined to be kept from turning to sin, falling away, and being damned. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE). 

In this post, I want to call up one of my favorite Catholic apologists, John Calvin, for his thoughts on this verse:

But when we are judged Here we have a consolation that is exceedingly necessary; for if any one in affliction thinks that God is angry with him, he will rather be discouraged than excited to repentance. It is an inestimable consolation that the punishments by which our sins are chastened are evidences, not of God’s anger for our destruction, but rather of his paternal love, and are at the same time of assistance towards our salvation, for God is angry with us as his sons, whom he will not leave to perish.

When he says that we may not be condemned with the world, he intimates two things. The first is, that the children of this world, while they sleep on quietly and securely in their delights, are fattened up, like hogs, for the day of slaughter (Jeremiah 12:3.) For though the Lord sometimes invites the wicked, also, to repentance by his chastisements, yet he often passes them over as strangers, and allows them to rush on with impunity, until they have filled up the measure of their final condemnation. (Genesis 15:16.) This privilege, therefore, belongs to believers exclusively - that by punishments they are called back from destruction. The second thing is this - that chastisements are necessary remedies for believers, for otherwise they, too, would rush on to everlasting destruction, were they not restrained by temporal punishment.

The reason why John Calvin is one of my favorite Catholic apologists is because he often proves the Catholic case for us, so that his beloved followers (Protestants/Calvinists) cannot object without looking silly. For example, many Protestants would try to dodge this verse by saying Paul isn't talking about real Christians (but rather fake Christians) and/or that Paul isn't talking about damnation. Both of these (weak) objections are denied by Calvin.

Here we see that not only does being chastised not mean that God is angry with you, it is for your own good, since God only disciplines His sons. This means that His Son, Jesus, could not have been punished in some manner equivalent to eternal damnation, such as how Protestants think Jesus endured in our place while on the Cross. Next, we see that we cannot be "covered by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," as Protestants think, nor are we eternally secure, since by acting sinfully God sees this and inflicts temporal punishments so that the Christian will reform their life and not be damned. Thus, God is not looking at the Imputed Righteousness of Christ instead of us, but rather God looks at us (Paul says we are "judged" by God) and rewards/punishes us accordingly, to keep us on the right track, since it is by our behavior as Christians that determines if we are saved. This verse is a dagger against Faith Alone.

Did the OT Animal Sacrifices "pay the price" for your sin? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

People who frequently read this blog know that I have many posts clearly explaining why the animal sacrifices in the Bible were not 'taking the punishment the sinner deserved' (Penal Substitution). In this brief post I want to share a most significant aspect that is typically overlooked entirely. 

Many folks think the animal's getting slaughtered for sacrifice were 'paying the price' for the individual's sins, so that the individual would not have to 'pay the price'. But the simple fact is, animals were not free (cf 2 Sam 24:24). Whether you raised animals or whether you had to buy them, there was a noteworthy cost. I estimate that a lamb would cost around $300 dollars. Because finances were a factor in whether someone could meet their obligation, the Law makes room for those who could not afford a lamb, e.g., those who could only afford two pigeons (Lev 5:7), or even those who could only afford a sack of flour (Lev 5:11). The point remains though, even if scaled down, the person who sinned (unintentionally) was going to take a financial hit of $300 dollars (or equivalent) each time. That's not chump change, and it can add up. 

Imagine getting a $300 speeding ticket every month of the year (which is like a monthly car payment). That would be around $3,600 in fines per year. Thus, if you're an Israelite paying a few thousand dollars for animals each year, that's definitely a significant punishment. Financial punishments are no joke. And in the context of Penal Substitution, we can see that an Israelite taking the financial punishment, not to mention the time investment, means they were the one 'paying the price' for their sins. It makes little sense to think the animal being killed was being punishment in your place when just prior to the slaughter you had to pay $300 which you worked hard to earn. If someone was making minimum wage and working 40hrs per week, then to sin within the Levitical system meant you lost wages for basically a whole week of work! You definitely didn't escape personal punishment as an Israelite. And Leviticus 6:5 (Lev 5:16) explains that if you defrauded a neighbor, you had to pay back that amount, plus an additional 20%, plus offer a sacrifice! Ouch!

In closing, I should add that such a system seems unjust for God to put people under. The fact is, this 'burden' was not originally part of what God expected of them, but rather many of these rules and regulations were placed upon the Israelites only after they kept turning to sin. St Thomas Aquinas and other theologians explain that by putting all these expectations upon them, God was trying to not leave them with any time or resources to turn back to idolatry. But, this was only a temporary fix, as the real problem was an interior one, of the soul, which requires the Sacrifice of Jesus to heal.

How Mary became the Redeemer of Jesus - More Problems with Penal Substitution

The following is passage provides a quickie argument against Penal Substitution* as well as some other gold nuggets. In Luke 2:22-24, we read: 

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Here are the fascinating gold nuggets that are worth knowing.

First, the Protestant notion of the Cross & Atonement (what they call "Penal Substitution") is that a sinner's guilt is 'imputed' to an innocent substitute, which then takes the death penalty in place of the sinner. But in this case, what was Mary's (grave) "sin" here that had the death penalty hanging over Her head, which She had to then transfer onto two turtledoves? The obvious issue here is that Mary had given birth to the Messiah, Jesus. But this certainly was not a sin in any sense. Thus, Mary's sacrifices couldn't have been about imputing the guilt onto an innocent animal substitute, much less was the animal receiving the death penalty. Thus, an animal being killed in sacrifice should not be assumed to be modeling Penal Substitution. 

That said, a Protestant might object at say that this Mary situation doesn't affect Penal Substitution at all, since some sacrifices weren't about atoning for sin but rather simply about ritual purification. While there is truth to this claim, this Protestant "objection" actually backfires. The passage which Luke is referencing is Leviticus 12, a short chapter on childbirth ritual purification. (I brought this up in an older post, HERE) The plain fact is, Leviticus 12:6-7 explains it as "a turtledove for a sin offering, and the priest shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood." Notice the explicit mention of "sin offering" and "make atonement". This is yuge because it means the sacrifice Mary had offered was not something distinct from the standard "sin offering" which Leviticus 4-5 tells us about. In other words, this is clear proof that "sin offering" and "making atonement" don't need to involve Penal Substitution.

Note that Leviticus 12-15 are about various types of ritual purification, not having to do with guilt for actual sins, yet all involving "sin offering" to "make atonement". Also noteworthy is that these purification chapters come, right before Leviticus 16, which is the Day of Atonement ritual (centered on purification, see HERE and HERE). 

*   *   *

Did Jesus teach Salvation by Faith Alone? Yes, but not how you might think.

One thing I love about interacting with Protestants, especially the more intelligent ones, is how often their own claims against Catholicism end up turning into some of my most powerful apologetics tools against Protestantism. Here's a great quick example that I recently came across. A Protestant was trying to point out how Jesus taught the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the situation with Jarius in Luke 8. The passage is as follows: 

40 Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him. 41 And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. 

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

Now, first of all, contrary to the Grand Protestant Strawman, Catholics fully believe that faith alone saves us. Heretics love to steal orthodox teaching and twist the doctrine and terminology. In fact, it is Protestantism which teaches we are saved by works alone, apart from faith, grace, etc. That's because their completely unbiblical doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness" is based on their bad logic which teaches man gets to heaven by living a perfectly sinless life. They say that since Adam sinned man can no longer 'work his way into heaven', showing that in the Protestant mind, works alone are what saved from the very beginning. Protestants compound this error by thinking that in order to be saved, Jesus had to live a perfect life and 'impute' this perfect life to the sinner, so that God can see the sinner as if the sinner lived a life of 100% perfect works. All faith does in the Protestant mind is transfer Christ's perfect obedience to their account. See how works alone, at the very root, is really what the Protestant believes? The Catholic side doesn't believe this terrible logic one bit, and I've written for years against it. 

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" (A 'new' insight on Romans 4 and Romans 2)

The other day I was thinking about Genesis 15:6 and felt I had gained a new insight. Even though I've held to elements of this before, I think this 'new' insight will help tie things together. I'm not saying I'm the first to do this, only that this was a sort of 'aha' moment for me.

The first time the term "righteousness" appears in the Bible is in Genesis 15:6. The big question is: what is righteousness? We all have a general intuitive idea, and I wrote a post on this (HERE), but I think in this case Paul was getting at something important that we end up overlooking. 

While many think of righteousness/unrighteousness in a generic sense, that's not how we should approach the Bible. It is crucial to realize that Paul's opponents saw righteousness as synonymous with living in conformity with the Mosaic Law, which was God's Law (the Torah). But Paul noticed something fascinating: Abraham was counted as righteous before God's law formal standard (the Mosaic Law) even existed. But how can Abraham be considered righteous without there being a law from which to measure his righteousness? Paul is apparently teasing out the fact that some law/covenant must have existed prior to the Mosaic Law, and that by God counting Abraham's faith/faithfulness as righteousness means God counted Abraham as living in conformity to this 'mysterious' pre-Mosaic law/covenant. 

If that's the case, then reducing our view of Romans 4 to the popular apologetics claims like "Genesis 15:6 wasn't the first time Abraham believed" (cf Gal 3:6-9; Heb 11:8; Gen 12:1-4; Rom 4:17-22) kind of miss the bigger point, even if they are true claims. What our emphasis should be on is that Paul is not  concerned about God crediting Abraham's faith as some generic righteous deed, but more specifically Abraham was righteous per some real covenant than preexisted Moses' Covenant. This means that Genesis 15:6 is saying God either was right there establishing a new unnamed covenant, or God was affirming Abraham was already living a righteous lifestyle under this unnamed covenant. 

This conclusion would fit perfectly with Paul calling Abraham "ungodly" (Rom 4:5), since this term would be referring to sinful/uncircumcised living per the Mosaic Standards. Similarly, Paul brings up David as a secondary example of "ungodly" because he gravely sinned under the Mosaic Standards, which puts one out of the Mosaic Covenant, 'nullifying' their circumcision (Rom 2:25). So in Romans 4:6-8, Paul is saying David prayed Psalm 32 (and Psalm 51) and received forgiveness under some other covenant, since the Mosaic Covenant did not forgive murder (Num 35:33).  Furthermore, David says nothing about 'faith' or 'works' in Psalm 32, meaning we shouldn't have some generic view of 'faith' or 'works' in mind. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE and HERE). 

Baptism according to Scripture. (Do Protestants Really care about the Bible?)

In the course of my apologetics, I've come to the astonishing conclusion that it doesn't seem Protestants really care about what the Bible has to say. They don't do this intentionally, but when it comes to many Biblical doctrines, I've found in my own interactions and with reading their major theologians, that they have a very bad habit of leaving out key details when formulating doctrines. And when you confront them, they just shrug it off and have no real interest in what the Bible says. In this post, I will list all the Biblical verses that refer to the Sacrament of Baptism and let readers see what the Bible plainly has to say on the matter. I have yet to find any Protestant who has actually sat down for half an hour and read through the 25 or so verses that mention Baptism to see for themself what the Bible says. Rather, they will only quote a few verses and just go with whatever their denomination or pastor says. When I ask them to just read these verses, they act like I've asked them to deny Christianity.

I think the best way to educate yourself is to actually read the Bible for yourself, and since there are only about 25 short verses to read (texts with a * indicate the term "baptism" isn't used), this should take you less than 30 minutes to get fully informed on the matter. I will then briefly analyze the data. In the Conclusion, I will speak about the general Protestant view of Baptism contradicts the Bible, while showing that the Catholic view is fully in line with Scripture.

Why "calling upon the name of the Lord" to be saved refutes Justification by Faith Alone (Romans 10:9-10).

Protestants are fond of quoting Romans 10:9-10 as 'clear Biblical proof' that we are saved by faith alone. Yet a careful look at the verse doesn't actually say this, and in fact suggests the opposite. I've posted about this in the past (HERE), but after some recent discoveries I'd like to build on what I originally said. The passage in question says:

Romans 10: 9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that this text explicitly says you must do two things: believe and confess. This, taken plainly, refutes salvation by faith alone. If you bring this up, Protestants will squirm and make excuses, but it really does expose a flaw in their thinking. The more they try to explain, the less convincing faith alone sounds. 

Also worth noting is that the only place where "believe" and "confess" appear in the same passage (that I was able to find) are found in John 12:42, which is quite helpful here: "many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue". Based on this Scripture-interprets-Scripture situation, it is clear that believing alone is not enough. Many believed in Jesus but were too afraid to openly confess Him. So this confessing before men refers to affirming you're a Christian and be willing to 'suffer the consequences'. Obviously, this is very devastating to Protestant theology, because if someone denies Jesus, that is not confessing him before men, they wont be saved per Paul's argument (cf Matt 10:33; 2 Tim 2:12). But I've come across something more fascinating to add to the above. 

The Good Thief and Bad (Protestant) Apologetics

Here's my brief Catholic response to the Good Thief "trump-card" some Protestants use, and which I turned into a cut-n-paste response since I encounter it often enough:

The “Good Thief” (Lk 23:39-43) is often cited as the star example of getting saved by faith alone. But here’s why the mature Christian wouldn’t say that: (1) We don’t know his faith background, e.g., if he was ever baptized in the past or if this was his first time meeting Jesus. His prayer “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” shows he had some knowledge of the Gospel, since no such “kingdom” details are given in this passage. (2) Terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are not used in this passage, so there’s no reason to think ‘faith alone’ is even the focus, just as the Parable of the Pharisee & Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) doesn’t use such terms, but rather highlights the virtue of “humility”. In fact, we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone. (3) This was a unique situation, it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits. For example, Jesus had not yet Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so Dismas probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t even given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of ‘not needing baptism’ is kind of moot. Plus, can we take this one example as an excuse to ‘not really have to’ obey the many teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, including getting baptized, gathering to worship with others, being subject to your pastor, sharing our possessions, etc? (4) Lastly, Catholics highly honor the Good Thief, Saint Dismas, on March 25 every year, and many Catholic Saints have preached on his beautiful testimony for us. So it’s not like St Dismas (whom we have the decency to call by his actual name) is some surprise that theologians have missed all this time. For example, St Augustine preached on how this is the only death-bed repentance in the Bible, teaching us that while there’s always hope, we also shouldn’t be too presumptuous about waiting until the last minute to repent. And some saints have preached that the thief was partially converted by the prayers and testimony of Mary and the holy women and John, standing at the foot of the Cross praying for both criminals, showing us that we have a role in helping others come to Christ. 

UPDATE 5/4/22 - I would add that many Protestants think that Dismas went immediately to heaven, but the reality is heaven was not open yet until after Jesus was Resurrected and Ascended, which means Dismas went to Hades/Purgatory when he died, and Jesus only came down a few hours later when Jesus died. This is the "today you will be with me in Paradise" and what Acts 2:27-31 shows, that Jesus died and went to Hades. So Dismas was at minimum in Hades and possibly suffered some temporary Purgatory if Dismas's crucifixion suffering didn't do sufficient penance.

Protestantism's most embarrassing strawman (Catholic Justification)

I think the most embarrassing strawman of Protestantism is how it sees the Catholic view of Justification. In the Protestant's mind, the Catholic position entails a person starting off a little bit righteous, then has to work his way up to fully righteous. It's as if the Catholic had to fill up a gas tank, with the tank starting off at 1% full, and with each good work they increase the tank by 1%, until they get to the end of their life and the tank is 100% full. With this view in mind, the Protestant thinks the Catholic is never actually Justified in this life. As such, this "Catholic Gospel" hardly sounds like good news at all, and in fact is (understandably) seen as quite troubling. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic view, and if you can point this strawman out to Protestants it will completely pull the rug from under them. 

The actual Catholic view is that a Catholic is instantly 100% Justified the moment they convert. This then means that works have nothing to do with a Catholic getting Justified. So it is a complete strawman for the Protestant to say the Catholic view of Justification is a "process" while in 'contrast' the Protestant claims to stand firm on "the finished work of Christ". In the Catholic view, the moment one is baptized (usually as an infant, who obviously doesn't do any work at all), through the merits of Jesus, the individual is instantly 100% forgiven of their sins and instantly becomes an Adopted Child of God. Period. There's no "work" to be done. There isn't really such a thing as "initial justification," so such language should be avoided by all sides, since Baptism is not the start of some progressive life-long filling up of a 'righteousness gas tank'. 

Romans 9 like you've never heard it before

When we read the Bible with the wrong glasses on we will often miss some otherwise obvious themes and lessons. I think this is especially true with texts like Romans 9, which have become collapsed (usually by Calvinists) into a bare show of God's (seemingly arbitrary) display of His Power. But I want to propose that Paul had something more fascinating in mind than what any Christian already knows, i.e., that God is Providentially in control of all human events. 

I'm coming to believe that Romans 9 isn't so much focused on salvation/heaven as it is about first-born (priestly) status being lost to the younger born. Not only is there no clear talk about heaven, hell, etc, in this chapter, but there is a pretty clear First-Born theme when you know what to look for. Consider Paul's object lessons: 

• Paul's first example is Isaac being chosen over first-born Ishmael. When you read the actual story carefully, Ishmael was expelled as an illegitimate child, who mocked Isaac for being second-born (Gen 21:9-10; cf Paul says Ishmael "persecuted" Isaac, Gal 4:29-31). It is hard for us to grasp the significance of first-born status to the ancient mind, but it meant the world to them, especially when it comes to priesthood status.

• Paul's second example is of first-born Esau and second-born Jacob. God says "the elder will serve the younger," which isn't a reference to being sent to heaven/hell, but rather to supplanting birth order. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, and later on his father’s “blessing,” which likely was also a form of ordination (Gen 27:26-30).

• Paul's third example is when God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." This is not as obvious, but if you consider the context, the situation is quite striking. The context is of the Golden Calf incident, wherein the nation of Israel lost its collective priesthood status and was relegated to the Levites alone to offer sacrifices (Ex 32:25-29). The first-born son high-priest Aaron was said to be the Golden Calf ringleader (Ex 32:35), which meant it was up to second-born Moses to take upon the intercessory role of Atonement (Ex 32:30; Deut 9:18-20; Ps 106:19-23). It is within this context that God says because Moses' priestly intercession found favor in His sight, He would honor Moses' request to spare the Israelites. God was not ‘randomly’ showing mercy here as a demonstration of how He can show mercy on a whim whenever He feels like it.

• Paul's fourth example is that of Pharaoh, which was the head of the strongest nation in the world, Egypt. In some sense, Egypt/Pharaoh was first-born among the world, likely because their pagan gods were considered the strongest. The stated goal of Moses was told in Exodus 4:22-23, "You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son. Let my son go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son." We know Egypt had smothered God's first-born son, and God wasn't going to let this continue. The express instructions each time Moses confronts Pharaoh is to let the Israelites go "so that they may offer sacrifices" to God (Ex 5:1, etc). It was liturgical warfare, true religion versus false, pagan God against true God. By striking down Pharaoh's first-born son, this was effectively striking down Egypt's priesthood, and thus humiliating their gods, and vindicating Yahweh as the True God.

• Paul's final example is that of the Jews versus the Gentiles. Obviously, the Jews were to be the "chosen race, royal priesthood," first-born among the nations. Yet in rejecting Jesus, they lost their status, which triggered the influx of the Gentiles into the Body, who would then become God's priests for the world, under the heading of Jesus (the Father's first-born). Hence Paul's quote from Hosea: "Those who were not my people [the Gentiles], I will call ‘my people’" (Rom 9:25).

I think there's an undeniable 'first-born son supplanted by sin' theme here that Paul is making, and it ties all the chapter together, unlike lifting a few verses here and there without any coherent thread, and missing the richness of it all. What lesson is there for God to show mercy on Moses (who was a righteous man)? If the theme was really about God showing mercy unconditionally, we should expect the major sinners like Pharaoh to be shown mercy. In each case, there is sin involved by one of the parties. It is not a 'both are sinners so let's show mercy to one of them' theme. Paul is telling the Jews of his time that all these other first-born sons lost their status, and rejecting Jesus can lead to the same for you Jews. The first-born status also being tied to priesthood also means the undercurrent is that of True Worship, which makes the real issue about glorifying God liturgically, and only secondarily about saving men. (Side note: this is why for Catholics, when Scripture is read at Mass, it is first of all a prayer to God, and only secondarily a lesson to us. This is why the Protestant “worship” being nothing more than a Glorified Bible Study is the ultimate attack on Christianity, because it removes worship of God from the main equation and shifts focus subtly onto man’s quest for knowledge.)

Who shall bring an accusation against God's elect? (Romans 8:33) - Not who you might think.

Continuing on with my look at the Biblical term "elect," the first 'controversial' text I want to look at is Romans 8:33 where Paul famously asks: Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Before diving into that, it's important to recall what the Biblical term "election" (and "calling") refers to, particularly that the Bible doesn't use it to refer to someone who is unconditionally elected to make it to heaven. With that, we can quote the context and I'll present my case for "who" Paul has in mind here. 

³² He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 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.

This passage is often read by Protestants (typically Calvinist/Reformed types) to mean that the Christian is Eternally Secure. That no sin can separate us from God. Catholic apologists are right to point out that this list of dangers which Paul lists are not sins but rather persecutions. This is important because it means Paul is not at all saying that "no sin can separate us," because the fact is sin can separate us from God. That's the whole point of Adam & Eve falling into sin. They were in communion and the fell from communion with God. (I've not really heard a coherent explanation from Protestants as to how Adam & Eve could fall from communion with God if salvation is eternally secure.) What I want to do here is go one step further. 

What does "election" and "calling" mean in the New Testament?

Following up on my last post dealing with the OT definition of “election,” I’ve compiled my own finding of how the New Testament speaks of “election” and “calling” (both terms seem to be used similarly). In this study, the main themes to consider are whether the NT speaks of election/chosen/called as something that is (1) unconditional, (2) able to be lost, (3) unto salvation, and (4) corporate or individual. Going through all the verses where these terms have been used, to the best of my ability, here is how I’ve organized the ways the terms are used:

Speaking of Jesus choosing the Apostles:
Luke says that Jesus called many disciples, but only “chose” twelve of them by name to be Apostles (Lk 6:13; John 15:16; 15:19; Acts 1:2). From Judas being one of those “chosen” Apostles (Lk 6:13; Jn 6:70; 13:18), we can conclude this election was not unto (final) salvation, and could be lost (Lk 6:13; cf. Jn 17:12; Acts 1:25). The choice for these specific men was seemingly conditional, as it doesn’t seem anyone famous, rich, or powerful was chosen. Instead, from what we do know, Jesus picked four fishermen and a tax collector. And when it came to replacing Judas, candidates were selected based upon having personally walked with Jesus and saw Him Resurrected (Acts 1:21-26), with God being said to do the “choosing” among the final two candidates (Acts 1:24). Similarly, Jesus “called” apostles and Lazarus, but none of this was unto final salvation in and of itself (Mat 4:21-22; John 12:17). 

Similarly, the Apostles are said to have “chosen” certain qualified men to be deacons (Acts 6:5), to serve the poor, so neither unconditional nor about (final) salvation (cf Acts 6:2-3). And the same general conclusion can be said when the Church “chose” Barnabas and Silas (Acts 15:22; 15:25; cf Acts 13:1-3; Heb 11:8), because they were “leading men among the brothers” (cf Acts 15:32, 15:40).

Quickie Apologetics: Sola Fide & Losing Salvation

My "election/calling in the NT" article as a follow-up to my last post is taking longer than expected, so here's a brief post (on a different subject) for now.

One line of argument I use against Protestants is to ask them early on in the discussion if they believe salvation can be lost through (grave) sin. About 'half' of Protestant denominations do believe salvation can be lost if we turn to sin, fall away, lose faith, etc. But this raises an interesting dilemma: how can you say we are saved by faith alone if salvation can be lost? If faith is what saves you, then your works obviously cannot play a role. If your works do play a role in saving you (including keeping you saved), then obviously it's not faith alone saving you. You would be surprised how many Protestants get stumped by this question - and indeed they should, since it's a blatant contradiction. 

I've found this argument is especially useful against Lutherans, since they believe salvation can be lost through grave sin. In fact, Luther himself taught that salvation could be lost:

When holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. (Smalcald Articles #43).

Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles and Lutherans formally accepted them in their Confessional Book of Concord, so this is official Lutheran teaching. It is interesting that Paul himself quotes this example of David having lost his salvation and having to repent to become re-justified in Romans 4:6-8 (quoting Psalm 32). 

Recognizing this contradiction, we get the other 'half' of Protestants who logically hold that salvation cannot be lost. These require a different line of approach, but can still easily be exposed as well. Those who do believe salvation can be lost typically (rightly) appeal to the clear passages of Scripture indicating salvation can be lost (see HERE and HERE for some examples), and in this case they sacrifice logical consistency for Scriptural testimony. On the flip side, those who believe salvation cannot be lost are forced to explain away those many texts of Scripture, and in doing so they sacrifice God's Word for logical consistency. In reality, you shouldn't have to sacrifice either one, and that's why the Catholic Church is obviously correct in rejecting salvation by faith alone.