S
sandusky
Guest
Your misunderstanding is also your loss.
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
- Status
Your misunderstanding is also your loss.
M
mikeledes
Guest
First of all, the Greek word for “snatch” in that passage generally means to take by force. We see this perfectly illustrated in
Matthew 12:29
**Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off (harpazo)his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. **
In other words, snatching is something done against a person’s will and it basically means to overpower. Nothing and no one can overpower God and nothing catches God by surprise. Everything that occurs is because God has actively willed it or because He allowed it to occur. Therefore, those among the just who fall away are not overpowering God or catching Him by surprise. Their falling away is in accordance with the permissive will of God.
However, those whom God has elected for glory will persevere because God will ensure it. While studying this issue, I have noticed that many Catholic sources cite the passage from John 10 as proof of the doctrine of predestination and the immutability of the number of those elect for glory, such as Ludwig Ott. So one can argue that “the sheep” is a metaphor for the elect for glory and these are the ones who will persevere. As it has already been pointed out, the present tense is used and that means continuous action.
Therefore, at most, John 10 is a variant of Romans 8. And that means that all those whom God predestined will be called, justified, and glorified. But as all Christians, including Augustine, believed until challenged by John Calvin, not all of those who have been justified are predestined (John 15:2, 6: Hebrews 6, etc.).
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
What I would like to know is if Calvinists have aboslute assurance that they are of the sheep? I get mixed messages.
God bless,
Michael
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Ezekiel 3:20-21
**20"Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.
21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." **
Ezekiel 33:13
**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. **
If a person is righteous he or she has obvioulsy received the gifts of faith and justification. Who is describing this person as righteous in these passages? GOD! Therefore, this person is righteous in His sight. This is reaffirmed by the phrase “he will surely live.” That phrase means Divine approval and is only used when God is referring to someone truly righteous (Ezekiel 3:21, 18:17, etc.) or to a wicked person who has truly repented and has been forgiven (Ezekiel 18:21). God will never approve someone who is a false professor. In the above case, the person has become presumptous and turned away from his righteosness after receiving approval from God ("when I say to the righteous he shall surely live…). The truth expressed by Ezekiel is reaffirmed by Jesus in:
Luke 12:40-46
40 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Note that the servant begins faithful and wise - that’s why he’s given a position of authority over the other servants - but then abuses his authority and turns to a licentious life. What is his end? Eternal damnation. Now combine this with passages like John 15 and Hebrews 6.
God Bless,
Michael
**20"Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.
21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." **
Ezekiel 33:13
**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. **
If a person is righteous he or she has obvioulsy received the gifts of faith and justification. Who is describing this person as righteous in these passages? GOD! Therefore, this person is righteous in His sight. This is reaffirmed by the phrase “he will surely live.” That phrase means Divine approval and is only used when God is referring to someone truly righteous (Ezekiel 3:21, 18:17, etc.) or to a wicked person who has truly repented and has been forgiven (Ezekiel 18:21). God will never approve someone who is a false professor. In the above case, the person has become presumptous and turned away from his righteosness after receiving approval from God ("when I say to the righteous he shall surely live…). The truth expressed by Ezekiel is reaffirmed by Jesus in:
Luke 12:40-46
40 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Note that the servant begins faithful and wise - that’s why he’s given a position of authority over the other servants - but then abuses his authority and turns to a licentious life. What is his end? Eternal damnation. Now combine this with passages like John 15 and Hebrews 6.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
There can be false professors in the “visible church,” but there can never be false professor in Christ, spiritually united to Him. In John 15, what does the vine represent? For your argument to stand, the vine must represent the church or the people of God. However, Jesus clearly defines His own terms:
1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches;
As per Christ, the Vine does not represent a congregation, organized body, or "visible"church. The vine represents the person of Christ. There is not a single time in John where Jesus uses “I AM” to mean any person, place, or thing other than Himself. Hence, Christ is using metaphor to describe spiritual realities, not earthly ones. Mere membership in a congregation represents an earthly reality if one is not spiritually united to Christ. So since the Vine stands for Christ, the branches stand for those who are united to Christ - having become members of His Body - just as a branch is united to Christ and is a member of the vine’s “body.” That’s why Christ explicitly identifies the “branches” as representing the remaining apostles and no one will question that they have been spiritually united to Christ, just as a branch is united to the vine.
Regarding the branches that are “taken away,” it is Christ Himself who describes them as being in Me, not “in My Church” or “in a Christian congregation.” Who is “me?” Christ! So the branch in me is a person in Christ.
Now if “in me” means “my visible body”, then - to be consistent - every time Jesus uses “in me” in John 15, He means “in my visible body.” Otherwise, we end up with a completely arbitrary way of defining terms, making verse 2 the only time in John 15 where “in me” means “my visible body.” And when we replace every “in me” with “my visible body,” we end up with utter nonsense:
2"Every branch in my visible body that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in my visible body, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in my visible body.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in my visible body and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in my visible body he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
So is Christ saying that we must abide in His visible body to bear fruit? That the power to bear fruit comes from merely maintaining membership in a congregation? So if we remain members of a congregation, we will not be thrown away and cast into the fire? That makes no sense. If “in me” means having a vital spiritual union with Christ in verses 4, 5, 6, why does mean “membership in my visible body” in verse 2?
In addition, Christ uses the word abide (Gk “meno”). The William MacDonald’s Believer’s Bible Commentary correctly defines “abide” as meaning “stay where you are.” “Meno” in Greek means to continue in the place, condition, or state one is already in:
studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3306
A couple of examples where this word is used in the Bible are:
Acts 16:15
And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay ."
1 Corinthians 7:9, 20
9but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband ), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
So in order to abide or not abide, one must first be in the place or condition abide is making reference to. You must first enter a house before you can abide/remain/stay in it. So if a person does not abide in Christ, it means that they were in Christ first. Otherwise, how can you cease to continue or remain in something you were never a part of.
God Bless,
Michael
1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches;
As per Christ, the Vine does not represent a congregation, organized body, or "visible"church. The vine represents the person of Christ. There is not a single time in John where Jesus uses “I AM” to mean any person, place, or thing other than Himself. Hence, Christ is using metaphor to describe spiritual realities, not earthly ones. Mere membership in a congregation represents an earthly reality if one is not spiritually united to Christ. So since the Vine stands for Christ, the branches stand for those who are united to Christ - having become members of His Body - just as a branch is united to Christ and is a member of the vine’s “body.” That’s why Christ explicitly identifies the “branches” as representing the remaining apostles and no one will question that they have been spiritually united to Christ, just as a branch is united to the vine.
Regarding the branches that are “taken away,” it is Christ Himself who describes them as being in Me, not “in My Church” or “in a Christian congregation.” Who is “me?” Christ! So the branch in me is a person in Christ.
Now if “in me” means “my visible body”, then - to be consistent - every time Jesus uses “in me” in John 15, He means “in my visible body.” Otherwise, we end up with a completely arbitrary way of defining terms, making verse 2 the only time in John 15 where “in me” means “my visible body.” And when we replace every “in me” with “my visible body,” we end up with utter nonsense:
2"Every branch in my visible body that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in my visible body, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in my visible body.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in my visible body and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in my visible body he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
So is Christ saying that we must abide in His visible body to bear fruit? That the power to bear fruit comes from merely maintaining membership in a congregation? So if we remain members of a congregation, we will not be thrown away and cast into the fire? That makes no sense. If “in me” means having a vital spiritual union with Christ in verses 4, 5, 6, why does mean “membership in my visible body” in verse 2?
In addition, Christ uses the word abide (Gk “meno”). The William MacDonald’s Believer’s Bible Commentary correctly defines “abide” as meaning “stay where you are.” “Meno” in Greek means to continue in the place, condition, or state one is already in:
studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3306
A couple of examples where this word is used in the Bible are:
Acts 16:15
And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay ."
1 Corinthians 7:9, 20
9but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband ), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
So in order to abide or not abide, one must first be in the place or condition abide is making reference to. You must first enter a house before you can abide/remain/stay in it. So if a person does not abide in Christ, it means that they were in Christ first. Otherwise, how can you cease to continue or remain in something you were never a part of.
God Bless,
Michael
T
Thing
Guest
Fine, don’t run then, and we’ll see what happens.
P
Pax
Guest
I think that you may be underestimating the power of God’s grace in our lives.
Moreover, works righteousness relates to what the individual does based upon his/her own nature, effort, and power.
There is absolutely no way that we can do what Jesus did for us on the cross to redeem us. The Catholic Church teaches that without this perfect work of Jesus there is no salvation.
The Father conforms those He predestines to the image of His Son[Rom 8:29]. The good works performed by the saved are the works prepared by the Father in advance of their justification[Eph 2:10]. They are as Ephesians pointed out "…his[the Father’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. This workmanship of the Father is our justification, our sanctification, and it is the good works that we do by God’s grace as part of our salvation. We are not our own "workmanship."
To claim that Catholics believe that they work their way into heaven is a gross distortion of both scripture and Catholic teaching.
I hope this helps.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
P
Pax
Guest
There is a problem in logic here. Likewise, these questions presume things about Catholic teaching that are completely false.
Firstly, it is illogical to set up a strawman by pitting God’s sovereignty against the free will that he created and gifted to man.
There is a basic inequality of rather cosmic proportions between the two. Likewise, they do not exist together in the fashion that you have posed them. You have logically eliminated God’s “permissive will” as it applies to the exercise of His gift of free will in man. God’s sovereign will includes the element of “man’s free will.” God’s sovereign will and man’s free will operate within the universe that God created.
A man can act as a man in the flesh against God’s desires because God allows him to do so. That is why there will be unsaved people. This is not the same as saying that a man has any sort of sovereign will within the universe that God created or that man has some sort of power over/against God’s will.
If damnation is soley our own doing and salvation is a gift of God, it makes perfect sense that there is some interplay between the two outcomes that involves man. There is some mystery here, but man’s involvement in the two outcomes is not passive in either one. Likewise, works righteousness is not part of the latter, and the Catholic Church rightly condemns such an idea.
The accusation that the Catholic Church teaches works righteousness is a false one, and is generally based on a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and perhaps even the concept of works righteousness.
I hope this helps.
M
mikeledes
Guest
This argument may work against Arminianism, but it does not work against Catholicism. In an Arminian system - whether it’s the classic or OSAS version -predestination is merely God electing those He foresaw would elect Him. Hence, in Arminianism, man has the final say and God simply rubber stamps man’s choices. That is not the case in Catholicism. Of course, to be fair, Arminians have their own explanation regarding the relationship between free will and Divine Sovereignty.
God Bless,
Michael
P
Pax
Guest
In answer to the OP this is my standard response:
Naturally, Catholics say “Amen” to this verse but we understand it a little differently. OSAS proponents apparently believe that this verse demonstrates that the “true believer” cannot be lost because Jesus says, “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” We believe that this verse has to be understood in the greater context of the gospel and that it requires a little analysis to be fully appreciated.
This verse has to be read along side John 17:7-12 which reads, “Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled."
Notice the reference to Judas. Judas is in the same group given to Jesus by the Father. This is the same language used in John 10:29 where it says,” 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.”
While no one can be snatched from the hand of Jesus or the hand of the Father, Judas was still lost. Judas is referred to as “elect.”(Gk,eklegomai - Strong’s word # 1586 – Lk 6:13, Jn 6:70; cf. Mk 13:20, Jn 13:18, 15:16,19, Acts 1:2), and then falls away and is damned.
The twelve apostles including Judas are told in Matthew 19:28 that they will sit upon “twelve thrones” and verse 29 makes it clear that Jesus is talking about heavenly thrones because he makes reference to “eternal life.” Nevertheless, Judas betrays Jesus and Judas is lost.
The only way that this can be properly understood is to see that while we have protection and we cannot be snatched from Jesus’s or the Father’s hand “by force”, we are still free to choose to leave that protection. It is for this reason that when we do rebel we must also repent. Moreover, if Jesus was teaching OSAS he would not have been praying to the Father for the apostles and for us in this fashion. There would simply be no need for these prayers for they would have no impact on our salvation because our salvation would be a done deal.
Naturally, Catholics say “Amen” to this verse but we understand it a little differently. OSAS proponents apparently believe that this verse demonstrates that the “true believer” cannot be lost because Jesus says, “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” We believe that this verse has to be understood in the greater context of the gospel and that it requires a little analysis to be fully appreciated.
This verse has to be read along side John 17:7-12 which reads, “Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled."
Notice the reference to Judas. Judas is in the same group given to Jesus by the Father. This is the same language used in John 10:29 where it says,” 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.”
While no one can be snatched from the hand of Jesus or the hand of the Father, Judas was still lost. Judas is referred to as “elect.”(Gk,eklegomai - Strong’s word # 1586 – Lk 6:13, Jn 6:70; cf. Mk 13:20, Jn 13:18, 15:16,19, Acts 1:2), and then falls away and is damned.
The twelve apostles including Judas are told in Matthew 19:28 that they will sit upon “twelve thrones” and verse 29 makes it clear that Jesus is talking about heavenly thrones because he makes reference to “eternal life.” Nevertheless, Judas betrays Jesus and Judas is lost.
The only way that this can be properly understood is to see that while we have protection and we cannot be snatched from Jesus’s or the Father’s hand “by force”, we are still free to choose to leave that protection. It is for this reason that when we do rebel we must also repent. Moreover, if Jesus was teaching OSAS he would not have been praying to the Father for the apostles and for us in this fashion. There would simply be no need for these prayers for they would have no impact on our salvation because our salvation would be a done deal.
P
Pax
Guest
No disappointment there…good link:thumbsup:
S
sandusky
Guest
And you keep working, Thing, and earning the kingdom.
T
Thing
Guest
I will keep running with St. Paul, neither he nor I dare stop…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I wasn’t criticising you, but a habit of mind.
Most of us have more pressing things to do than sift through the details of what Churches X or Y believe - it would be silly, because unrealistic, to expect people to become walking doctrinal-theological-historical encyclopaedias. People don’t have to criticise Church X or Y - but if they do so on doctrinal grounds, don’t they have a moral responsibility to be sure of their facts ?Protestantism is really not as chaotic as it can seem. The seeming chaos is reduced almost to vanishing point when a Christian says he is Lutheran, or Reformed; self-description as clear as that excludes other possibilities. A lot of non-denom Christians are Dispensationalist - these three “flavours” of Protestantism account for a very large proportion of US Protestants.
Besides, we can always ask people what they believe
- just as they can ask us.
P
Peter_J
Guest
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
How is this to be understood in connection with the other passages of scriupture that say we can make shipwreck of our faith.…but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 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. I and the Father are one.” - John 10
Paul taught what our Lord Jesus taught. Let’s continue on the same issues, but be nice.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. - Apostle Paul
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/teachings/armor/sword.jpg
I agree that no ONE can snatch the faithful out of the Savior’s hand. But it says nothing about our own ability to jump. Indeed, this seems entirely consistent with a loving God who graced us all with free will so that we could love him without being compelled to do so.
And I agree there is presently no condemnation for those who are in Christ. But what about those who “jump” from His hand into the fire?
The reading of these passages in a way that supports the notion that one cannot lose salvation is, to me, wishfull thinking that ignores the whole context of scripture and the history of the Church that has taught salvation from the time of the Apostles from the entire deposit of faith.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond in charity.
Peace
-Robert
P
Peter_J
Guest
:clapping:I was thinking of those people who ask the same questions - on OSAS, say - as though their objections to it were valid. Often, they aren’t. The problem is that a poor argument for the Petrine Primacy, or for transubstantiation, or whatever it may be, puts the doctrine being advocated in a very poor light
Don’t people we debate deserve intelligent & well-informed arguments ? Caricaturing people’s beliefs*** when we are perfectly able to avoid*** doing so is laziness; it’s immoral. If that is what passes for intelligent Catholic thinking, we are in dire trouble. Shoddy arguments & specious reasoning should be avoided like the plagues they are. So it’s just as well that our guarantee is not our very limited & sadly fallible reasoning power, but Christ Himself. But to commend our Faith to others, we need to be able to meet questioners where they are, for proclamation is often not enough - & commending what we hold to be true usually entails being able to reason convincingly.
- Status