Does Jeremiah 32:39-40 support "once saved, always saved?"

[PSUCath]

Catholic teaching on salvation has been clear since Jesus founded the Catholic Church: a person who is saved at one point may not be saved at a later point as result of his own free will. A Calvinist apologist used Jeremiah 32:39-40 as a means of supporting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, claiming that it shows that when God “truly saves someone, not even the saved person can reject God.”

Jeremiah 32:39-40 reads, “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.”

It would seem that the Calvinist would be right in his interpretation. This passage seems to support the argument that a person who has the fear of the Lord in their heart cannot later turn away from God, thus removing free will and the possibility for personal apostasy. The Calvinist later claims that a person who does turn away from God was never “truly saved” in the first place.

How can these claims be refuted?

 

[pohandes]

Well God can save every one, even infidels. What’s the problem?

 

[PSUCath]

The Calvinist-Catholic contention over this verse does not surround whether or not God can save everyone.
The contention is over whether or not this verse suggests that a person has free will to reject God after initial salvation (as a Catholic would assert) or whether God changes that person’s heart so profoundly that the person cannot possibly reject God in the future, making his final salvation a guarantee (as a Calvinist would assert).

 

[pohandes]

Of course we have free will, but God is just. We may do mortal sins and lose the Salvation. Lord Jesus promised Judas a great place, But he betrayed Lord Jesus and lost his great place.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

This passage of Jeremiah is clearly not talking about individual people, but the fate of the Jews after the Babylonian exile (or the ideal, at least). Apologist conveniently left out all context so that’s not able to be seen, right?

 

[BartholomewB]

If you read the whole passage, beginning at verse 36, you will see that it’s not about “saving” individual believers in the Calvinist sense, it’s about saving the Israelites from their enemies, the Babylonians, whose armies are besieging Jerusalem.

36 “Now therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, ‘It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’: 37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Jeremiah 32 RSVCE - - Bible Gateway

 

[Vico]

…

How can these claims be refuted?

Catholic teaching is that mankind has free will, and that the grace given by the Holy Trinity is necessary, but that it can be resisted with free will. Without this freedom there could be no expression of charity through which one is crowned with the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.”[66]

66 2 Tim 2:5. “For he also that striveth for the mastery, is not crowned, except he strive lawfully.”

 

[Veritas6]

This passage seems to support the argument that a person who has the fear of the Lord in their heart cannot later turn away from God, thus removing free will and the possibility for personal apostasy. The Calvinist later claims that a person who does turn away from God was never “truly saved” in the first place.

If you read Romans 11, where Paul discusses the salvation of the Gentiles, they are the wild olive shoot that was grafted in place of the broken branches of unbelievers from the holy root of God’s chosen people. In verse 22 & 23:

Note the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

Even if you have the fear of the Lord in your heart, you still have a chance to fall away (if you give in to unbelief). Also those who did turn away from God still have the ability to be saved or “be grafted [back] in” to the holy root.

 

[Dan_Defender]

If the Jeremiah passage were about once saved, always saved, where is the evidence that Jews have interpreted it that way? probably even to this day Jews don’t interpret it that way.

 

[fhansen]

Throughout Scripture for all such hyperbole and encouragement there is an “if” to counterbalance it. If you remain in Me, if you live by the Spirit and not the flesh, if you wash your robes, if you purify yourself, if you are holy, if you invest your talents, if you do good, if you obey the commandments, if you love, you will inherit eternal life. Can’t do it without grace, without relationship with God IOW entered into by faith, but we can still always refuse to do it.

 

[PSUCath]

Interesting points. How would a Catholic respond to the claim that this is an Old Testament parallel though? The Calvinist claims that in the same way that God saved the Isralites from the danger of the Babylonians by not allowing them to reject him, God saves us from the dangers of sin by not allowing us to reject him.

 

[fhansen]

People make lots of Scripture-based claims. But God certainly works on our wills. He simply does not totally overwhelm them when it comes to an individual’s salvation but rather, patiently, appeals to and draws them, seeking to elicit right choice without forcing it. The entire Bible, beginning with the Fall of man and continuing down through the centuries with God cultivating and preparing humanity through His chosen people to bring man to a point where we might begin to choose and embrace the light when the time was ripe for Him to appear on earth makes no sense to begin with if His will was always to simply save a portion of His worthless wretched creation and damn the rest without any recourse to their wills. If His will is just to predetermine everything from the beginning He may as well have simply stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the reprobate then, and precluded all the sin and evil and suffering that ensued down through the centuries.

 

[fhansen]

We also need to consider who “they” are. Would the prophecy of Jer 32 necessarily apply to each and every Israelite? Similarly with 1 Cor 1:18:
“And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

Does this mean that every person who heard those words at the time they were written or later on down through the centuries and perhaps applied them to themselves was necessarily saved? And if those who left the fold weren’t really saved to begin with, how could we/they even know? Who can predict their own perseverance to the end? Yes, the elect are the elect-but only God knows with 100% certainty who they are, whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not-so that concept of election becomes an almost academic point for us here on earth-from our perspective we don’t know. We must strive, we must work out our salvation with He who works in us, we must make our calling and election sure, we must persevere, be vigilant, keep oil in our lamps, invest our talents, and trust. These concepts are all Scripture-based as well. We can have a guarded assurance combined with humility in light of our weaknesses, limitations, and sin, even a strong assurance based on God’s promises together with our responses, our fruit. We just can’t have perfect certainty.

 

[bob4]

The Calvinist claims that in the same way that God saved the Isralites from the danger of the Babylonians by not allowing them to reject him, God saves us from the dangers of sin by not allowing us to reject him.

Here are some verses and a short summary:
Lk 9:23 Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

1 Cor 9:26-27 Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

1 Cor 10:12-13 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.

Phil 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Were not the Ephesians and Colossians established Christian communities when St. Paul wrote letters to them? Can not the same be said of the communities in the diaspora written to by Sts. Peter and James? If they were prevented from falling into the various sins warned against in these letters what purpose was served in urging them to persevere?
All of this has within it the element of struggle, contention and the possibility of failure allowing of a free will choice to accept or reject God’s grace which I believe is incompatible with the idea that God saves us by not allowing us to reject him.

 

[Genesis315]

If you read the whole passage, beginning at verse 36, you will see that it’s not about “saving” individual believers in the Calvinist sense, it’s about saving the Israelites from their enemies, the Babylonians, whose armies are besieging Jerusalem.

Just to add, it also prophecies/promises the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church. It refers to the people as a whole, not individuals. Contra the Calvinists, it does not mean individual Christians will not fall away, just as not every single Israelite benefited from this promise. Rather the Church as a people or a body will persevere in the one way.

From the Haydock commentary:

What is here said must be understood of the captives, yet in such a manner that Christians are more particularly designated, for the Jews never enjoyed such perfect security, nor followed one way, nor enjoyed the eternal covenant, (ver. 39, 40., and chap. xxxi. 31.; Calmet) except those who embraced the true faith of Christ. At all times one religion alone can be pleasing to God, (ver. 39.) and those who were saved under the old law, must have believed in a Redeemer to come, as we must do in one already past. (Haydock) — God would not suffer true believers to become extinct under the old law; much less will he since Christ’s coming. (Worthington)