How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[jcrichton]

Sorry, you got that wrong. Nowhere does it say that these branches ever abided “in Christ”. The passage speaks of two kinds of “branches”: those that produce fruit, and those that don’t. It is only the branches which abide “in Christ” which produce fruit. Those that do not abide do not produce fruit.

“Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away that’s the branch that does NOT produce fruit]: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.obviously, this is the branch that produces fruit]” (John 15:2)

Notice that Jesus says: “If a man DOES NOT abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

Christ does not cast branches off that abide in Him, or that produce fruit. If they NEVER produced fruit, then they are cast off. If they only produced a little bit at the beginning, then they would never be cast off, because Jesus says that He won’t let that happen. He states that those branches that do bear fruit (no matter how small), “he purgeth it [trims it and prunes it] that it may bring forth MORE fruit.” Jesus doesn’t cut away a branch that stopped producing, because none of the branches which He grafts onto the tree stop producing - that’s because he trims and prunes those branches in order to produce even MORE fruit.

Are you aware that you are producing your own line of argument? It is you have have stated that there were branches producing fruit that later did not produce fruit!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Amen brother. Even if he did adhere to the heresy of sola scriptura, it would be in reference to the ENTIRE Bible, all 73 Books. In The Confessions of Saint Augustine he quotes the “Apocrypha,” or the seven deuterocanonicals, 21 times, with him being a BIG fan of the Book of Wisdom, which he cites 17 of those 21 times. Personally, I love it when protestants, especially evangelicals, use St. Augustine in a debate, considering he believed in infant baptism, baptismal regerneration, the fact that you can fall away from Grace after becoming a believer, purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc. Gosh! I just love it because he was a Roman Catholic!

Does anyone know when this idea of God being some kind of puppet master ever became popular. If He controlled our will, then why on Earth would he let “true believers” sin?

…which begs the question, why whould St. John speak about sin (1 St. John 1:5-10) as a condition that is not surpassed by the Believers?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mikeledes]

St. Augustine
For what Christian would dare to deny that the righteous man, if he should be prematurely laid hold of by death, will be in repose? Let who will, say this, and what man of sound faith will think that he can withstand it? Moreover, if he should say that the righteous man, if he should depart from his righteousness in which he has long lived, and should die in that impiety after having lived in it, I say not a year, but one day, will go hence into the punishment due to the wicked, his righteousness having no power in the future to avail him,— will any believer contradict this evident truth? newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm

Will any believer contradict this evident truth, asks Augustine? Unfortunately, many do. Thank you una fides for this wonderful quote from Saint Augustine! I find it ironic that many Calvinists invoke Augustine as if he were an ancient Calvinist and some of them even refer to Calvinism as “Augustinianism.” I would also like to share the Council of Orange’s exegesis of John 15:

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Many respectable Calvinist websites - such as the one above - include the Council of Orange because they believe its historical evidence of their teachings in the early church. That is untrue. In fact, the Council of Orange, for example, explicitly identified regeneration with the sacrament of baptism, as did Saint Augustine and every other early Church Father.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Tanner9188]

Honestly, I don’t find the argumentation here very convincing at all. It seems that you are interpreting the passages to fit your preconceived beliefs concerning predestination, etc. I admit that I interpret them according to Catholic teachings, for which I cite not only modern people living 1500-2000 years later, but I can also cite the early fathers who were instructed by the apostles who interpreted the Scriptures the same way. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere because you are still interpreting “in Christ” in this passage to mean someone who has never actually be placed in Christ despite the passage saying that the person was in Christ, not producing fruit, and then would be taken away from the vine.

I’m also curious how you interpret this passage that was cited earlier? If the Scriptures are clear, then there should be no need to consult other theologians who agree with other doctrines you profess. It should be enough to read the passage and explain it in the context, correct? Nevertheless, to help, I cited Augustine’s explanation of that passage in the next post here. Since Calvin claimed Augustine agreed with him on the predestination issue, I figure you would feel comfortable consulting this holy man of God on this matter.

No one in Christ is taken away from Christ…basic Christian/Biblical principle. If they are cut off from the root, then they were exposed to the Word, then became an apostate or a heretic. Similar to
1 John 2:19 -
They went out from us, but they were not {really} of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but {they went out,} so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. There are many examples in the Bible of disciples of Jesus turning and leaving when things got too hard. Another example:
John 6:66 -
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

May God bless the reading of His word!

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The issue is NOT how I interpret God’s Word compared to “many protestants who interpret God’s Word. . . quite differently” but how I interpret God’s Word differently than an Arminianist (such as what you teach.)

Was that supposed to be an insult?? It almost sounded like you tried to insult me by calling me an Arminianist.

LOL No, not an insult, just an observation.
una fides:

First, your understanding of Catholicism and Arminianism is quite lacking.

That is always a possibility.
una fides:

I suggest studying both more before making such claims.

Well, if I muck it up, I’m sure that you’ll show me where.
una fides:

Just because I hold that man can fall from grace, as Luther also did, does not make me Armenian, and if it did, then that would make the Armenians correct.

It’s “Arminian”. Armenians are from Armenia.

It’s much more than that. Arminius’ teachings are a mirror image of what you have been sharing on this forum. Arminius taught that there is no irresistible calling from God; that man is not so completely depraved that his will is not free to choose; that man’s election was conditioned upon his willingness to choose Christ (in other words, that God chose man according to His foreknowledge); that Christ died for the whole world, not for the elect only, even though not all accept it and therefore fail to receive its benefits; that man is not preserved by God’s power and grace, but that man can fall from salvation, back into depravity, and quite possibly never re-attain salvation.

Please tell me how that is different from what you have been sharing?

 

[mikeledes]

LOL No, not an insult, just an observation.

That is always a possibility.

Well, if I muck it up, I’m sure that you’ll show me where.

It’s “Arminian”. Armenians are from Armenia.

It’s much more than that. Arminius’ teachings are a mirror image of what you have been sharing on this forum. Arminius taught that there is no irresistible calling from God; that man is not so completely depraved that his will is not free to choose; that man’s election was conditioned upon his willingness to choose Christ (in other words, that God chose man according to His foreknowledge); that Christ died for the whole world, not for the elect only, even though not all accept it and therefore fail to receive its benefits; that man is not preserved by God’s power and grace, but that man can fall from salvation, back into depravity, and quite possibly never re-attain salvation.

Please tell me how that is different from what you have been sharing?

1. The Catholic Church denies irresistible grace, but teaches that grace is infallibly efficiacious in His elect. We affirm that the will is truly free under the influence of grace. The fact that grace is resistable is shown by Scripture:

Galatians 1:6

**6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; **

Galatians 5:4

**4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have

**.

1. Predestination in official Catholic teaching is not mere or simple foreknowledge of what we chose. God’s role is far more active then a mere observer.
2. The Catholic Church teaches that if anyone perseveres and enters eternal glory, it is precisely because God has given them the gift of final perseverance and this gift is unmerited.

Also, there appears to be some fundamental and substantive differences between Calvinist and Arminian Protestants regarding anthroplogy, predestination, and the nature of faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

Here is some more Chrysostom in case you doubt which side of the heresy fence he rested. . .

Well, I’m not really interested THAT much. I read some of him, but I felt that he labored to get to the point, and I quickly lost interest. It doesn’t really matter what Chrysostom or Pseudo Chrys wrote, or any of these theologians. All that matters is what does the Word of God state.

“What is the meaning of “[faith]
working through love?” Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. It is as if he had said, Had ye loved Christ as ye ought, ye would not have deserted to bondage, nor abandoned Him who redeemed you, nor treated with contumely Him who gave you freedom. Here he also hints at those who have plotted against them, implying that they would not have dared to do so, had they felt affection towards them. He wishes too by these words to correct their course of life.”

Read this one carefully a couple times and really consider what argument he is making:
Ver. 19, 20, 21. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wrath, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you even as I did forewarn you, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Answer me now, you that accusest your own flesh, and supposest that this is said of it as of an enemy and adversary. Let it be allowed that adultery and fornication proceed, as you assert, from the flesh; yet hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft, these arise merely from a depraved moral choice. And so it is with the others also, for how can they belong to the flesh? You observe that he is not here speaking of the flesh, but of earthly thoughts, which trail upon the ground. Wherefore also he alarms them by saying, that they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If these things belonged to nature and not to a bad moral choice, his expression, they practice, is inappropriate, it should be, they suffer. And why should they be cast out of the kingdom, for rewards and punishments relate not to what proceeds from nature but from choice?

newadvent.org/fathers/23105.htm**
**

Well, I disagree with him. No surprise there, I suppose. But all evil thoughts proceed from the flesh, not just those which find their fruition in the body. That’s because "hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft arise from moral choices which serve the flesh, instead of serving the spirit.

 

[PEPCIS]

John 15:2

Every branch in Me that bears not fruit the Father takes away.
Here He alludes to the manner of life, showing that without works it is not possible to be in Him.

It’s unfortunate, but this is a misinterpretation which is the same error that you make. Now I now where you got your error from. He mistakes “in Him” with “abiding in Him.” It’s also unfortunate that the Greek language did not have the nuances and pool of words to choose from as the English language does.

Currently, there are well over 500,000 English Words to choose from. The average educated person does well with a vocabulary of about 50,000 words. Even with English words, it is difficult to choose words to convey the thought that you can be “in Him” without being “in Him.” The concept (with only those word choices) leads one to face a conundrum.

But the difference is seen in understanding, as I pointed out in a recent posting, that parables and analogies are only meant to convey one basic truth. The problem that you are encountering is that you are attempting to pass off the WHOLE analogy as several distinct truths - which may or may not stand up under scrutiny. The only truth that is intended to be conveyed is the “one basic truth” that if you don’t abide in Him, you will not produce fruit.

What I see you doing is trying to extend the parable to incorporate the understanding that residing in the tree (in Him) is the same as abiding in Him, and you do this by extending the parable to demonstrate that the branch grew in Him. But the parable was never intended to portray this “truth,” which is not really a truth. It was only intended to portray the “one basic truth.”

“And every branch that bears fruit, He purges it.”
That is, causes it to enjoy great care. Yet the root requires care rather than the branches, in being dug about, and cleared, yet about this He says nothing here, but all about the branches.

Exactly as I noted. Christ says nothing here, because He never intended to speak of any other “truths” 'cept this one: if you abide in Me, you will produce fruit. But notice what this verse DOES state: “Every branch which bears fruit, I will prune it so that it will produce more.”

Showing that He is sufficient to Himself, and that the disciples need much help from the Husbandman, although they be very excellent. Wherefore He says, that which bears fruit, He purges it. The one branch, because it is fruitless, cannot even remain in the Vine, but for the other, because it bears fruit, He renders it more fruitful. This, some one might assert, was said with relation also to the persecutions then coming upon them. For the purges it, is prunes, which makes the branch bear better. Whence it is shown, that persecutions rather make men stronger.

Amazing that we get all that from this portion of Scripture which says NOTHING about that. Where is persecution spoken of? The ONLY thing that meets with a proper interpretation is when he says: “The one branch, because it is fruitless, cannot even remain in the Vine, but for the other, because it bears fruit, He renders it more fruitful.” Yet you would tell me that the one branch, because it is fruitless, must have produced some fruit at one time in its “life.” Yet you cannot offer any Biblical justification for this notion.

 

[PEPCIS]

1. The Catholic Church denies irresistible grace, but teaches that grace is infallibly efficiacious in His elect. We affirm that the will is truly free under the influence of grace. The fact that grace is resistable is shown by Scripture:

Galatians 1:6

Well, so you’re confirming what I said to una fides, that the Catholic Church, and by proxy you and una fides, teach the exact same things as Jacobus Arminius? Here, you confirm that the Church, alongside Arminius, teaches that there is no such thing as irresistible grace.

2) Predestination in official Catholic teaching is not mere or simple foreknowledge of what we chose. God’s role is far more active then a mere observer.

And here you confirm that the Church, alongside Arminius, embraces the concept that God chooses according to His foreknowledge.

3) The Catholic Church teaches that if anyone perseveres and enters eternal glory, it is precisely because God has given them the gift of final perseverance and this gift is unmerited.

Which is NOT the same as teaching Preserverance of the Saints, but is exactly the same as Arminius’ teaching that there is no such thing as preserving of the Saints, but of a system of cooperation that ensures that we are saved. It is all about what man can do. (You can’t say it’s all about what God can do!)

Now, what about Limited Atonement and Total Depravity?

 

[mikeledes]

It’s unfortunate, but this is a misinterpretation which is the same error that you make. Now I now where you got your error from. He mistakes “in Him” with “abiding in Him.” It’s also unfortunate that the Greek language did not have the nuances and pool of words to choose from as the English language does.

Currently, there are well over 500,000 English Words to choose from. The average educated person does well with a vocabulary of about 50,000 words. Even with English words, it is difficult to choose words to convey the thought that you can be “in Him” without being “in Him.” The concept (with only those word choices) leads one to face a conundrum.

To be “in Him” without being “in Him?” No offense, but that is semantic gymnastics. It’s a conundrum created by Calvinism, not Christ or Scripture. "In Him "( including its variants) is a very specific phrase that has one specific and uniform meaning in the Bible, namely, a salvific union with Christ that can only be enjoyed by one who has truly been justified. Moreover, “in Him” or “in Christ” in Scripture uniformly refers to a spiritual reality or state, not to a physical one. Just because a person sits in a pew does not make that person “in Him.” He is physically present in a congregation, but His spiritual state remains the same (he is not “in Christ”). Nowhere in the Bible does it equate mere church attendance with being “in Him” and that’s because mere church attendance does not necessarily mean you are “in Him.” Please cite a* single *passage in Scripture where “in Him” is used to refer to someone who is not a true believer and thus substantiate your claim that one can be “in Him” without being “in Him?” Up to now, I have not seen one. But I have seen one that clearly says one can be severed from Christ and fall from grace:

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

All of the highligted is in the past tense and in the Greek aorist tense, which means that the acts in questions have already been accomplished, they have already occured. Paul is not dealing with mere “hypotheticals” here or “rhetorica; devices.” He is dealing with a reality.

The Greek word “meno” simply means to stay, remain, or continue *where you are.*So there is no substantive difference between being “in Him” and “abiding in Him,” just as there is no substantive difference between a branch that is in the vine and a branch that remains in the vine. In both cases, they are “in Him” and “in the vine.” When Christ says to the apostles they must remain in Him (which in the Greek is in the imperative mode (i.e. a command)), He is telling them that they must remain in a salvific union with Him - just as a branch must remain in vital union with the vine - and through this salvific union they have life and vital power. So the apostles are in Him and He tells them that they must stay in Him. That is the plain, logical, and natural reading of the text. When Christ Our Lord says in Him, He means in Him. He cannot be any clearer. Those who do not remain in Him will be cut off from the Vine or severed from Christ. As a branch severed from the Vine cannot continue to have life within it an hence withers, the one who is severed from Christ cannot have life within Him and spiritually withers. Again, the person dries up and that means that at one point the perso had life and if he had life that means he was attached to the Vine. The end of the spiritually withered is eternal damnation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

To be “in Him” without being “in Him?” No offense, but that is semantic gymnastics. It’s a conundrum created by Calvinism, not Christ or Scripture.

Well, it’s a conundrum all right - in the mind of Catholics. But not one that is created by Calvin, or any other man. As I said, it is the lack of proper grammar which fails to present the understanding appropriately.

The phrase, "to be “in Him” without being “in Him” doesn’t mean "to be “in Him” without being “in Him.”

As I stated in the previous post, the lack of words that were available did not allow a proper stating. The “in Him” is not intended to convey “abiding in Christ.” It was intended to convey the understanding that if you are a branch that is scrumping off the Church, and you aren’t producing fruit (which you wouldn’t be if you were not a true Christian), then you would be cut off and thrown into the fire.

In other words, “in Him” (in the context of John 15) is merely a euphemism for “a branch which is attempting to look like a branch of Christ.” It cannot fool Christ, for Christ states that only those who are truly abiding in Him will produce fruit, and therefore, any branch which is found in Him that is not producing fruit, is a branch which is not abiding.

The problem with YOUR thinking is that if you reverse the analogy that you’ve created, you will find that it is ridiculous to assert that someone is abiding in Christ, yet not producing fruit, because Christ states unequivocally that ANY branch which is abiding WILL PRODUCE FRUIT. Yet you want to make the two terms “in Him” and “abiding in Christ” to mean the same thing, which makes a true conundrum by showing that a branch can be “in Him” (abiding) yet not producing fruit. Impossible, according to Christ.

 

[mikeledes]

Well, so you’re confirming what I said to una fides, that the Catholic Church, and by proxy you and una fides, teach the exact same things as Jacobus Arminius? Here, you confirm that the Church, alongside Arminius, teaches that there is no such thing as irresistible grace.

No. In Arminianism, grace is a mere potentiality that absolutely depends on the human will in order to be efficacious. So God merely supplies, and man makes it absolutely possible. In the Catholic view, God has an active role in ensuring that the grace is efficacious.

And here you confirm that the Church, alongside Arminius, embraces the concept that God chooses according to His foreknowledge.

You apparently missed the “not” part. The Catholic Church doe not embrace Armininianism because if that were the case, there would be no Catholics who believe in unconditional election.

Which is NOT the same as teaching Preserverance of the Saints, but is exactly the same as Arminius’ teaching that there is no such thing as preserving of the Saints, but of a system of cooperation that ensures that we are saved. It is all about what man can do. (You can’t say it’s all about what God can do!)

Arminianism does not have a teaching regarding the gift of final perseverance nor do they believe in the *unequal *distribution of efficacious grace, which, by the way, is Catholic dogma. We believe that there are efficacious graces that will only b given to the elect, particularly the grace of final perseverance. The gift of final perseverance is not given on the basis of how much you work and that’s why its unmerited.

Now, what about Limited Atonement and Total Depravity

We do not believe in Limited Atonement, but that does not make us Arminian. Confessional Lutherans do not believe in Limited Atonement and they are not considered Arminian and there are also 4 point Calvinists. Calvinists and Lutherans agree on certain points, but that does not make Lutherans Calvinists and Calvinists Lutherans. We agree with Arminians are certain points, but that does not make us Arminians. We do not believe in Total Depravity as understood by Calvinists. We believe that man is unable by how own natural powers to believe or love God. But we also believe that man’s will remains free under the influence of God’s grace. In other words, God can secure a response while leaving the will free.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Well, it’s a conundrum all right - in the mind of Catholics. But not one that is created by Calvin, or any other man. As I said, it is the lack of proper grammar which fails to present the understanding appropriately.

The phrase, "to be “in Him” without being “in Him” doesn’t mean "to be “in Him” without being “in Him.” .

What is interesting about this is that not all Calvinists agree with your exegesis of this passage which indicates that your interpretation is not as clearly gleaned from this passage as you think. Of course, these other Calvinists give “take away” and John 15:6 another spin, claiming that it does not refer to eternal damnation. Take, for example, these quotes from a Calvinist BAPTIST website:

**“Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.” Many Calvinists have swung to the other extreme, erring in the opposite direction. We greatly fear that their principal aim was to overthrow the reasoning of their theological opponents, rather than to study carefully this verse in the light of its setting. They have argued that Christ was not speaking of a real believer at all. They insist that the words “beareth not fruit” described one who is within the “visible Church” but who has not vital union with Christ. But we are quite satisfied that this too is a mistake. **

The words of our Lord leave us no choice in our application of this passage—as a whole and in its details—no matter what the conclusions be to which it leads us. Surely none will deny that they are believers to whom He says “Ye are the branches” (John 15:5). Very well then; observe that Christ employs the same term in this needed word in John 15:2: “Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit.” To make it doubly clear as to whom He was referring, He added, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit.” Now if there is one form of expression, which, by invariable and unexceptional use, indicates a believer more emphatically and explicitly than another, it is this:—“in me,” “in him,” “in Christ.” Never are these expressions used loosely; never are they applied to any but the children of God: “If any one be in Christ (he is) a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).

pbministries.org/books/pink/John/john_51.htm

No let me clarify that this Calvinist is not saying that this is about loss of salvation. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be Calvinist. But what I find interesting that this Calvinist clearly sees the “branch in Me” as a reference to true believers precisely because the Bible exclusively reserves “in Me” to true believers. Why do two Calvinists draw different conclsuions from the same verse regarding the state of the branch in question? Moreover, he also argues that “bears no fruit” does not mean he never bore fruit, but that he no longer bearing fruit. He bases this on the Greek, but I have to investigate that claim. And, BTW, he is not the only Calvinist to argue this. I have personally seen people who believe in perseverance of the saints/ eternal security (Calvinists and non-Calvinists), argue that John 15:2 refers to believers precisely because of the language Christ uses.

Now you argue that this “fruitless” branch that Christ describes as being “in Him” is not really “in Him.” In other words, you propose that “in Me” or “in Him” can also be used to describe a false professor who is a member of a congregation. As the Calvinist above clearly points out, “in him” is a phrase the Bible exclusively reserves for those who have been truly justified/saved. There is not a single verse, as stated by the Calvinist above, that applies this phrase to anyone that is *not *a true believer. So John 15:2 will be the sole example in which “in Me” is applied to a false professor. Therefore, if you are going to argue that this “in Me” here means anything other than the uniform definition and very specific application of this phrase in the Bible, then you need to substantiate your claim by providing hard evidence of “in Me” being applied to a false professor. Can you please provide a verse in which “in Him” is used as reference to a false professor ? Because if you can’t, then you have absolutely no evidence to prove that “in Me” in verse 2 means anything other than what “in Him, in Me, in Christ” means in every other verse in the Bible, namely, a person who has been truly justified. Until you can provide this evidence, then the plain meaning of the verse still stands.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jcrichton]

No one in Christ is taken away from Christ…basic Christian/Biblical principle. If they are cut off from the root, then they were exposed to the Word, then became an apostate or a heretic. Similar to
1 John 2:19 -
They went out from us, but they were not {really} of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but {they went out,} so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. There are many examples in the Bible of disciples of Jesus turning and leaving when things got too hard. Another example:
John 6:66 -
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

May God bless the reading of His word!

I think that here’s another point on “vocabulary…” it is Christ Himself that warns that those who do not give fruit will be taken away:

*Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt. * (St. John 15:6)

Though it is true that for the most part (as it has happened throughout Christian history) those who fall away from Christ remove themselves from the Body, there is evidence that many still remain withing the fold… these pretenders are the darnel/weed that is allowed to grow with the wheat–these are like ticks/leeches who will be removed/taken away because they do not produce the fruit of the Kingdom (St. Matthew 25:31-46).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tanner9188]

Well, it’s a conundrum all right - in the mind of Catholics. But not one that is created by Calvin, or any other man. As I said, it is the lack of proper grammar which fails to present the understanding appropriately.

The phrase, "to be “in Him” without being “in Him” doesn’t mean "to be “in Him” without being “in Him.”

As I stated in the previous post, the lack of words that were available did not allow a proper stating. The “in Him” is not intended to convey “abiding in Christ.” It was intended to convey the understanding that if you are a branch that is scrumping off the Church, and you aren’t producing fruit (which you wouldn’t be if you were not a true Christian), then you would be cut off and thrown into the fire.

In other words, “in Him” (in the context of John 15) is merely a euphemism for “a branch which is attempting to look like a branch of Christ.” It cannot fool Christ, for Christ states that only those who are truly abiding in Him will produce fruit, and therefore, any branch which is found in Him that is not producing fruit, is a branch which is not abiding.

The problem with YOUR thinking is that if you reverse the analogy that you’ve created, you will find that it is ridiculous to assert that someone is abiding in Christ, yet not producing fruit, because Christ states unequivocally that ANY branch which is abiding WILL PRODUCE FRUIT. Yet you want to make the two terms “in Him” and “abiding in Christ” to mean the same thing, which makes a true conundrum by showing that a branch can be “in Him” (abiding) yet not producing fruit. Impossible, according to Christ.

 

[Tanner9188]

I think that here’s another point on “vocabulary…” it is Christ Himself that warns that those who do not give fruit will be taken away:

*Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt. * (St. John 15:6)

Though it is true that for the most part (as it has happened throughout Christian history) those who fall away from Christ remove themselves from the Body, there is evidence that many still remain withing the fold… these pretenders are the darnel/weed that is allowed to grow with the wheat–these are like ticks/leeches who will be removed/taken away because they do not produce the fruit of the Kingdom (St. Matthew 25:31-46).

Maran atha!

Angel

The falling away from Christ is similar, if not the same, as the person who is exposed to the truth, understands that truth, and may even act on what they know (i.e religious people), but because they have never fully acknowledged or accepted Jesus as both Lord and Savior, they walk away, knowing the truth, but never receiving the Holy Spirit because there hearts were far from Him. As King Solomon said “there is nothing new under the sun”; the same thing has happened in all generations. They were never in the body; they were around the body. If this was not true, then we make Jesus a liar, which we know He is not.

John 10:27-29
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand.

In case you think you can snatch yourself away; you can’t if you are a true child of God.

 

[jcrichton]

The falling away from Christ is similar, if not the same, as the person who is exposed to the truth, understands that truth, and may even act on what they know (i.e religious people), but because they have never fully acknowledged or accepted Jesus as both Lord and Savior, they walk away, knowing the truth, but never receiving the Holy Spirit because there hearts were far from Him. As King Solomon said “there is nothing new under the sun”; the same thing has happened in all generations. They were never in the body; they were around the body. If this was not true, then we make Jesus a liar, which we know He is not.

John 10:27-29
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand.

In case you think you can snatch yourself away; you can’t if you are a true child of God.

But we know that not to be the case… Jesus reveals to Kephas that Satan asked to demolish (my expression) them (the disciples) and that He prayed for Kephas so that his faith would not fail… then Jesus Commands Peter to shepherd the other ten… to suggest that once we have the Holy Spirit none can turn away from God is making God a thug who operates from a power base where his followers cannot leave under pain of death… interestingly enough that is precisely what happens but not because God Kills us but because we chose death rather than the Light (St. John 3:16-20); and St. Peter speaks against those who have abandoned the Body in spite of all that they had learned, experienced, and professed:

12 But these people speak evil of what they do not understand; they are like brute beasts, born only to be caught and killed, and like beasts they will be destroyed, being injured in return for the injuries they have inflicted. 13 Debauchery even by day they make their pleasure; they are unsightly blots, and amuse themselves by their trickery even when they are sharing your table; 14 with their eyes always looking for adultery, people with an insatiable capacity for sinning, they will seduce any but the most stable soul. Where greed is concerned they are at their peak of fitness. They are under a curse. 15 They have left the right path and wandered off to follow the path of Balaam son of Bosor, who set his heart on a dishonest reward, but soon had his fault pointed out to him: 16 a dumb beast of burden, speaking with a human voice, put a stop to the madness of the prophet. 17 People like this are dried-up springs, fogs swirling in the wind, and the gloom of darkness is stored up for them.
18 With their high-sounding but empty talk they tempt back people who have scarcely escaped from those who live in error, by playing on the disordered desires of their human nature and by debaucheries. 19 They may promise freedom but are themselves slaves to corruption; because if anyone lets himself be dominated by anything, then he is a slave to it;
20 and anyone who has escaped the pollution of the world by coming to know our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and who then allows himself to be entangled and mastered by it a second time, ends up by being worse than he was before. 21 It would have been better for them never to have learnt the way of uprightness, than to learn it and then desert the holy commandment that was entrusted to them. 22 What they have done is exactly as the proverb rightly says: The dog goes back to its vomit and: As soon as the sow has been washed, it wallows in the mud. (2 St. Peter 2:12-22)

Kephas is speaking on what was experienced in the early Church; he was not removed from the Living Gospel (Christ Jesus) as we are today and he is not speaking to or about the unbelievers; St. Peter is determined to warn the Believers that once we have been initiated into the Body of Christ and have become active members of the Body we cannot but continue in the path to our Salvation; if we are to turn away (reject Jesus) from the relationship and charge that has been bestowed upon us, we come into a state graver than that in which we were when we were totally ignorant of Christ.

My, friend, God will not force you to remain in His Presence if you wish to rejoin the darkness!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[una_fides]

It’s “Arminian”. Armenians are from Armenia.

spelling was never my strongest subject.

It’s much more than that. Arminius’ teachings are a mirror image of what you have been sharing on this forum. Arminius taught that there is no irresistible calling from God; that man is not so completely depraved that his will is not free to choose; that man’s election was conditioned upon his willingness to choose Christ (in other words, that God chose man according to His foreknowledge); that Christ died for the whole world, not for the elect only, even though not all accept it and therefore fail to receive its benefits; that man is not preserved by God’s power and grace, but that man can fall from salvation, back into depravity, and quite possibly never re-attain salvation.

Please tell me how that is different from what you have been sharing?

It’s close, however, I’d say that I believe that man in fact is preserved by God’s power and grace. If Arminius taught that man was not preserved by God’s power and grace, then I’d have to say that I disagree with him. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the most praised theologian in the history of the Church, we can receive a grace of final perseverence. I’ve heard some blame Aquinas for Calvin’s errors years later. You could say that Calvin was an Augustinian or a Thomist who simply took their teachings to an extreme.

The biggest problem I have with you calling me or other Catholics Arminian (yes I spelled it correctly this time!) is that honestly to me it seems to be an insult of sorts and it honestly doesn’t make much sense. When one is called an Arminian or a Calvinist, inherent in those terms is that one follows the teachings of the founder whether Arminius or Calvin. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and does not trace its view to any other founder. You could call a Catholic a Thomist or an Augustinian to distinguish the teachings of which doctor of the Church he holds to, doctrines on which one can have differing opinions. However, to call a Catholic an Arminian just simply doesn’t work since Protestants were the ones that broke away from the Catholic Church. You could say that Arminians hold to some views more closely with that of the Catholic Church, but you cannot say that the Catholic Church, whose teachings preceded Arminianism by over 1500 years. Catholics also cannot in any way be said to be Arminian because they believe in Luther’s error of sola fide, and Catholics instead hold to the constant teaching of the Church since its founding that “man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

 

[una_fides]

Well, I’m not really interested THAT much. I read some of him, but I felt that he labored to get to the point, and I quickly lost interest. It doesn’t really matter what Chrysostom or Pseudo Chrys wrote, or any of these theologians. All that matters is what does the Word of God state.

…

Well, I disagree with him. No surprise there, I suppose. But all evil thoughts proceed from the flesh, not just those which find their fruition in the body. That’s because "hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft arise from moral choices which serve the flesh, instead of serving the spirit.

The problem is that you disagree with all the early Church fathers on this issue. In the early Church, you are alone in your interpretation of Scripture. Again, you earlier stated that if all Christian men of God held to a different understanding of the Scriptures then you would seriously call your understanding into question. Did you mean what you said?

 

[una_fides]

It’s unfortunate, but this is a misinterpretation which is the same error that you make. Now I now where you got your error from. He mistakes “in Him” with “abiding in Him.” It’s also unfortunate that the Greek language did not have the nuances and pool of words to choose from as the English language does.

Currently, there are well over 500,000 English Words to choose from. The average educated person does well with a vocabulary of about 50,000 words. Even with English words, it is difficult to choose words to convey the thought that you can be “in Him” without being “in Him.” The concept (with only those word choices) leads one to face a conundrum.

But the difference is seen in understanding, as I pointed out in a recent posting, that parables and analogies are only meant to convey one basic truth. The problem that you are encountering is that you are attempting to pass off the WHOLE analogy as several distinct truths - which may or may not stand up under scrutiny. The only truth that is intended to be conveyed is the “one basic truth” that if you don’t abide in Him, you will not produce fruit.

Where does Scripture tell us that “parables and analogies are only meant to convey one basic truth”? This is an assumption on your part that you attempt to use to support your interpretation of this passage. The parable means what it says. You can’t try to just take whatever “basic truth” you want to from a particular parable and ignore or try to explain away the rest. It is all true. Furthermore, how do you get to determine what this “basic truth” is that you take away? You make the rules and then you apply them yourself. These rules of interpretation you are coming up with are “extra-biblical” are they not?

What I see you doing is trying to extend the parable to incorporate the understanding that residing in the tree (in Him) is the same as abiding in Him, and you do this by extending the parable to demonstrate that the branch grew in Him. But the parable was never intended to portray this “truth,” which is not really a truth. It was only intended to portray the “one basic truth.”

The parable teaches what it teaches. When you properly exegete the passage, as the early Church fathers did and understood it, you realize that those who are “in him” can then no longer be “in him” if they do not continue to produce fruit.

Exactly as I noted. Christ says nothing here, because He never intended to speak of any other “truths” 'cept this one: if you abide in Me, you will produce fruit. But notice what this verse DOES state: “Every branch which bears fruit, I will prune it so that it will produce more.”

And if the branch that he prunes then ceases to produce fruit, he removes.

Amazing that we get all that from this portion of Scripture which says NOTHING about that. Where is persecution spoken of? The ONLY thing that meets with a proper interpretation is when he says: “The one branch, because it is fruitless, cannot even remain in the Vine, but for the other, because it bears fruit, He renders it more fruitful.” Yet you would tell me that the one branch, because it is fruitless, must have produced some fruit at one time in its “life.” Yet you cannot offer any Biblical justification for this notion.

Actually, I an others on this thread have offered plenty of biblical justification for this notion; however, you refuse to acknowledge it because it contradicts your preconception. Why don’t you try to exegete the passage cited earlier from Ezekiel and when you do try to avoid reading other commentaries to see how protestants have tried to fit it in with their theologies.