John 6:37-39

[Anthony_V]

Peace be with you, Cachonga. I hope my explanation can be of assistance.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand the scriptural ins-and-outs of the reformed perspective. I must insist, however, that it is lacking at its scholastic roots.

As a result of the fall, the rational and passionate appetites of the human person are disordered. We sometimes want what we know and acknowledge isn’t good for us. Our will is partially damaged in that regard. But, you are insisting that the reprobate do not have the freedom of the will to love God, and thus cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 14:15 and 1 Jn 3:14-24). But Paul shows us that the tendency to sin (concupiscence) is inherited, and that we all suffer from it (Rm 3:23 and 5:12-14). The problem here lies wherein you’re stating that that the reprobate actually have an intrinsically damaged nature (and do not possess the faculties to love) while at the same time stating that we all have the same nature. If that was true, then we’d all be reprobate
But you’re actually very close to a very plausible idea. God does not distribute all graces the same. If we were to assume that the human nature is only partially damaged by disordered inclinations (by lack of preternatural gifts, but such that we still have free will), but we assume that God grants the grace of salvation to his elect, then the reprobate die by their sinful nature, not by a lack of grace. I think that could actually pass as a pseudo-Thomistic ideology (which is Catholic)

I recommend this fantastic podcast by Lawrence Feingold.
calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/lawrence-feingold-on-original-justice-and-original-sin/

 

[Anthony_V]

With the right qualifications, I can agree with your view.

You beat me to it!

 

[Imputationalist]

Sorry to stay gone for so long, but I work in a business that was greatly affected by the storms in Ohio which means that I’ve been extremely busy all day…

I have only taken the time to read the first page, and I’ve noticed that people are starting to get off track and throw jabs at one another instead of focusing on the topic at hand. If I could, can I please call you back to the original topic so that we can keep our focus there please?

I think a lot of the confusion on this topic stems from a perspective that is not the one that Jesus had in mind when He said these things. JRKH previously pointed out that this was God’s perspective and not our own, but I think that it is important to recognize this because this is part of Jesus’ teaching here. The point I’m trying to make in all this is that from the start of an individual’s salvation experience (at the time of the Father’s giving) until the very end (“at the last day” as Jesus put it) this is an act that is initiated and carried out by God Himself.

If this is true, as Jesus assures us that it is, then all of the individual passages that warn professing believers from “falling away” are really not aimed at persuading true believers to stay the course lest they fall away as though they could. True believers (those given to the Son by the Father) could never in a million years fall away from the faith because Jesus has been given the task of preserving them (Jn. 6:39). One thing that we all agree on here is the fact that Jesus Christ is God Himself, and I ask you based on this:

Can God fail in any task He aims to achieve?

There should really be no question as to whether Jesus will fulfill the Father’s will for Him. Are you willing to say that Jesus is a failure? I should think not, but stranger things have happened.

I think that an extremely relevant passage is that parable of the sower, as Trebor135 pointed out. I do not, however, believe that any other soil than the good one in which the seed produced fruit is referring to a true believer. I think that Jesus makes this clear when He says things like:

So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
(Matthew 7:17-19 ESV)

Is there any question as to whether the diseased tree that bears bad fruit could possibly be a true believer given to the Son by the Father to be preserved for resurrection on the last day? So how could a person who catches a glimpse of the greatness of the Gospel and rejoices in it but has no deep, heart changing, Spirit wrought understanding of it be considered a true tree? This is the passage that precedes Jesus’ words about those who claimed to know Him (“Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name…”). He says that He NEVER knew them, not that He once knew them and that they disqualified themselves by not living up to His expectations. No, these are just like the rest who claim to have a saving faith in Christ, but they are claiming this for some other reason than a true understanding of the word of the Gospel message of salvation that produces fruit in those who have been given to the Son by the Father. And this fruit (in case it wasn’t clear) comes about solely based on the fact that God is the one who started this work of salvation in them by His Spirit and it is being carried out by Jesus in all its fullness until He raises them up at the last day.

By the way, Jesus says that only one of these seeds produces any kind of fruit, and that is the ONE seed that falls on the good ground. There are no other true converts being referred to in this parable.

One other point before I go to bed…

Although a Christian is to examine himself to see if he is in the faith (II Cor. 13:5), this is not for the purpose of making sure that Christ has not left you and needs to be reinvited in again. This is where Jesus’ words come into play in a real world, practical way. Jesus says that those given to Him by the Father are being held by Him and preserved for final salvation. If I, for example, have turned away from my former sins and self righteousness (as though I had something to contribute) and turned towards Christ in sorrow over my sin and trusting Him for His infinite worth and power to save me completely, then I can trust that He will be true to His word and preserve me through the rest of this life this side of heaven.

I realize that a person may have doubts, as I myself have had, about whether they have repented fully enough or not, but this is where the trust comes in. I recognize that I would not, on my own, have turned to Christ for salvation from my putrid, sin-filled lifestyle and downright sinfulness that was intertwined in my being (and which I continually do battle with), and I trust that He is powerful enough to overcome my wickedness and transform me little by little into His own image until He finally takes me out of this world to be with Him forever in bliss. This is all the more reason to trust Him because I know that since I never made a move toward Him apart from His grace displayed in my conversion (when I took an interest in Him–not because of some benefit I saw for myself, but for the simple fact that I need Him and realize that life without Him is futile and empty), I know that He took the first step in my salvation and that He accomplishes all that He sets out to do. My trust is not in myself, my performance, the level of sincerity in my contrition, or in any of my actions done in cooperation with Him. No, my trust (faith) is in Him alone because I know that He is not only trustworthy, but He is powerful enough to conquer the sin in me and carry me through to the very last day “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” (Eph 5:27) Not to mention the fact that it was already accomplished from before time began (Rom. 8:29-30).

 

[pablope]

Sorry to stay gone for so long, but I work in a business that was greatly affected by the storms in Ohio which means that I’ve been extremely busy all day…

I have only taken the time to read the first page, and I’ve noticed that people are starting to get off track and throw jabs at one another instead of focusing on the topic at hand. If I could, can I please call you back to the original topic so that we can keep our focus there please?

I think a lot of the confusion on this topic stems from a perspective that is not the one that Jesus had in mind when He said these things. JRKH previously pointed out that this was God’s perspective and not our own, but I think that it is important to recognize this because this is part of Jesus’ teaching here. The point I’m trying to make in all this is that from the start of an individual’s salvation experience (at the time of the Father’s giving) until the very end (“at the last day” as Jesus put it) this is an act that is initiated and carried out by God Himself.

If this is true, as Jesus assures us that it is, then all of the individual passages that warn professing believers from “falling away” are really not aimed at persuading true believers to stay the course lest they fall away as though they could. True believers (those given to the Son by the Father) could never in a million years fall away from the faith because Jesus has been given the task of preserving them (Jn. 6:39). One thing that we all agree on here is the fact that Jesus Christ is God Himself, and I ask you based on this:

Can God fail in any task He aims to achieve?

There should really be no question as to whether Jesus will fulfill the Father’s will for Him. Are you willing to say that Jesus is a failure? I should think not, but stranger things have happened.

I think that an extremely relevant passage is that parable of the sower, as Trebor135 pointed out. I do not, however, believe that any other soil than the good one in which the seed produced fruit is referring to a true believer. I think that Jesus makes this clear when He says things like:

).

Eternal Security…written debate between Grendon vs Staples:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=572940&highlight=eternal+security&page=3

pro-gospel.org/articles/153-catholic-apologist-initiates-debate-on-eternal-security

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello Imputationalist.

Welcome to CAF.

You pointed out . . . .

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever **comes **to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39 ESV) (Bold and underlined mine).

From reading others who have knowledge of Greek, the phrase “whoever comes to me” is in the perfect tense. That means they come to Christ and keep coming to Christ (persevere in continuing to come to Christ).

People who have “final perseverance” are called “the elect”.

CCC 1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus “until he comes,” the pilgrim People of God advances, “following the narrow way of the cross,” toward the heavenly banquet, when all **the ****elect **will be seated at the table of the kingdom.

(CCC 1344 bold and UL mine)

The elect will all be going to heaven.

God is outside of time. We are currently in time.

God knows who the elect are right now. We don’t know who the elect are.

We as Catholics affirm free will AND predestination (but it is a mystery so we won’t ever be able to explore it to its depths although you can explore it some . . . but on other threads I suppose as that is not your issue directly here).

John 6:37-39 is referring to the elect.

We don’t know (in this life) who the elect are.

We CAN know if we are “born again” or "born of water and the Spirit”.

But we don’t know if a given person who is a child of God (a person who has God as his Father), will persevere in grace. Or restated, we don’t know if a given person who is “in the vine” or “in-Jesus” will persevere in grace.

The Calvinist wants very badly this verse (John 6:37-39) to be referring to all those who are “born again”. But it doesn’t say that.

Nor does any verse say if you are “born again” you are “automatically one of the elect”.

The elect are all in a sense “born again” but all of the born again persons are not necessarily of “the elect”.

That’s why there are verses such as these . . .

(Notice in Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus is talking to people who have God as their Father!)

MATTHEW 6:14-15 (NIV) 14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, **your **heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, **your ****Father **will not forgive your sins.

And Listen to Jesus’ warnings elsewhere (John 15 of the NIV translation) to those who are IN Him.

JOHN 15:1-5 (NIV) 1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch **in **me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 **Remain ** in me (notice you are IN Jesus, but you must “REMAIN IN” Jesus or persevere), and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Bold UL and parentheses in John 15 mine.

Notice you can be IN-Jesus, but if you don’t bear fruit, you will be CUT OFF from Christ!

Notice this guy is IN Jesus! But he needs to REMAIN IN Jesus! Jesus says so!

Why would Jesus be telling us to REMAIN in him?

How can we REMAIN “in Jesus” if we were never “in Jesus” in the first place? Because he’s telling this to people who **are **“IN JESUS” in the first place.

Jesus doesn’t say they were NEVER in me in the first place!

Jesus says this to people who ARE IN Him!

Q: Maybe this means we are just “backsliding,” then we would get to Heaven anyway right?

A: Wrong. Let’s listen to what Jesus says about this. Please listen to Jesus!

JOHN 15:6a 6 If anyone does not remain in me . . . .

Notice you can choose to “not remain in (Jesus) me!”

But look at the consequences of this choice to not remain in Jesus!

Does Jesus say this . . . . ?

phantom verse 15:6??? 6 If anyone does not remain in me,
he is like a branch that withers and loses crowns; such slightly withered branches are still in me though because once they are IN ME, they can never be thrown aside and burned, but rather they will remain in me anyway.

Is this what our Lord Jesus says? NO!

Now let’s look at what is REALLY in Scripture.

JOHN 15:6 6 If anyone does not remain in me,
he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers;
such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

 

[LionHeart777]

St. John Chrysostom on St. John 6:37:

John 6:37

‘*All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and him that comes to Me I will in nowise cast out.
*’
Observe how He does all things for the sake of them that are saved; therefore He added this, that He might not seem to be trifling and speaking these things to no purpose. But what is it that He says, ‘All that the Father gives Me shall come unto Me John 6:37’, and ‘I will raise it up in the last day’? John 6:40 Wherefore speaks He of the common resurrection, in which even the ungodly have a part, as though it were the peculiar gift of those who believe in Him? Because He speaks not simply of resurrection, but of a particular kind of resurrection. For having first said, ‘I will not cast him out, I shall lose nothing of it’, He then speaks of the resurrection. Since in the resurrection some are cast out, (‘Take him, and cast him into outer darkness’, Matthew 22:13) and some are destroyed. (‘Rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’) Matthew 10:28 And the expression, ‘I give eternal life’ John 10:28, declares this; for they that have done evil shall go forth to the resurrection of damnation, and they that have done good to the resurrection of life. John 5:29 This then, the resurrection to good things, is that which He here designed. But what means He by saying, ‘All that the Father gives Me, shall come to Me?’ He touches their unbelief, showing that whosoever believes not on Him transgresses the will of the Father. And thus He says it not nakedly, but in a covert manner, and this He does everywhere, wishing to show that unbelievers are at variance with the Father, not with Him alone. For if this is His will, and if for this He came, that He might save man, those who believe not transgress His will. When therefore, He says, ‘the Father guides any man, there is nothing that hinders him from coming unto Me’; and in another place, ‘No man can come unto Me, except the Father draw him.’ John 6:44 And Paul says, that He delivers them up unto the Father; ‘When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ 1 Corinthians 15:24 Now as the Father when He gives does so without first depriving Himself, so the Son when He delivers up does so without excluding Himself. He is said to deliver us up, because through Him we have access (to the Father).

1. And the ‘by whom’ is also applied to the Father, as when the Apostle says, ‘By whom you were called unto the fellowship of His Son’ 1 Corinthians 1:9: and, ‘By the will of the Father.’ And again; ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you.’ Matthew 16:17 What He here intimates is something of this kind, that faith in Me is no ordinary thing, but needs an impulse from above; and this He establishes throughout His discourse, showing that this faith requires a noble sort of soul, and one drawn on by God.

But perhaps some one will say, ‘If all that the Father gives, and whomsoever He shall draw, comes unto You, if none can come unto You except it be given him from above, then those to whom the Father gives not are free from any blame or charges.’ These are mere words and pretenses. For we require our own deliberate choice also, because whether we will be taught is a matter of choice, and also whether we will believe. And in this place, ‘by the which the Father gives Me’, He declares nothing else than that ‘the believing on Me is no ordinary thing, nor one that comes of human reasonings, but needs a revelation from above, and a well-ordered soul to receive that revelation.’ And the, ‘He that comes to Me shall be saved’, means that he shall be greatly cared for. ‘For on account of these’, He says, ‘I came, and took upon Me the flesh, and entered into the form of a servant’…

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240145.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

Imputationalist,

(A little background on myself; I used to hold to Reformed Baptist Theology.)

you said:

“Can God fail in any task He aims to achieve?”

These are the kind of questions James White poses but they miss the mark in that they presuppose that God did not factor man’s free will into the program for Salvation.

You should listen to Dr. Robert Sungenis’ and James White’s fairly recent debate on Predestination.

Here is a link:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCE8C010392DB23E1

The point is, God does not fail when men, of their own free will, reject him. He is the one that factored that in to he whole equation. (A point which I believe Dr. Sungenis bought up in the debate or perhaps something akin to it.)

As a person who once held to Reformed Baptist Theology I can tell you that it caused a big red flag when the teaching that a person could not lose (by their own free will) their salvation, does not appear in Church History until John Calvin. Coincidence? I think not; it is a novelty. If the Apostle’s taught it and the verses those used by those who teach this are meant to be understood in that way, why is this teaching absent from those who immediately succeeded the Apostles until the time of Calvin?

To quote St. Vincent of Lerins:

What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.

[70.] But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Why? I believe he answered this question it some chapters before:

…owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

 

[spockrates]

Sorry to stay gone for so long, but I work in a business that was greatly affected by the storms in Ohio which means that I’ve been extremely busy all day…

I have only taken the time to read the first page, and I’ve noticed that people are starting to get off track and throw jabs at one another instead of focusing on the topic at hand. If I could, can I please call you back to the original topic so that we can keep our focus there please?

I think a lot of the confusion on this topic stems from a perspective that is not the one that Jesus had in mind when He said these things.

Hi Imputationalist. Do you think that what Jesus had in mind in this chapter was to point out that He is the Bread of Life and to explain what that means? Perhaps it might help to ask your Baptist father what our Lord and Savior meant by these words in the same chapter:

53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55*For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

These were the words that convinced me to become Catholic.

 

[spockrates]

But regarding the topic of eternal security, these words of Christ (also from the same chapter) might help:

70 Jesus answered [His disciples], “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71*He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

Notice that He says He chose Judas. Since Judas betrayed Him, doesn’t this mean that not all who God chooses are eternally secure?

 

[LionHeart777]

To “piggyback” off of Spockrates’ point:

St. John 17:12:

[12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

Source: drbo.org/chapter/50017.htm

Did Jesus somehow fail here? Of corse not! Not in any way but perhaps the most obvious is that He did not fail when we keep in mind the fact that Judas had free will.

Now, to my understanding, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Judas is in Hell or that the Church has certainty on this matter. However, the point still stands that one whom Jesus kept in His name, who was given to Him by the Father and whom He kept, was nevertheless lost. Whatever is meant by “lost”, this is no failure on the part of Jesus, but rather, a failure on the part of Judas. White’s arguments about God “failing” to save people only (may) make sense if one presupposes that man has no (God given) free will; a very big assumption which is contradicted by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[bengland]

Is there any question as to whether the diseased tree that bears bad fruit could possibly be a true believer given to the Son by the Father to be preserved for resurrection on the last day?

Small point. Most, or at least many, diseased trees were healthy once. They did bear good fruit. They became diseased. I guess I’m not following that because the tree that bears bad fruit is not good for anything but destruction according to the passage.

 

[LionHeart777]

Did Jesus somehow fail here? Of corse not! Not in any way but perhaps the most obvious is that He did not fail when we keep in mind the fact that Judas had free will.

edit: …perhaps the most obvious reason that He did not fail is because Judas had free will. Therefore, the failure is Judas’.

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

Ha! No return fire allowed, huh? Something to ponder: God allowed you to leave, but did not cause it. It’s all part of your lifetime journey.

Ha! What do you know of my personal journey? I know I’ve mentioned bits and pieces of it here and there in the forums, but I don’t recall ever writing down my entire testimony at any time (although it could have happened, I just don’t recall doing it).

Actually, your path is distinctly similar to those who either revert or convert. You may not see it at this point, though.

You seem to think I’ll be back in mass someday, once more praying to Mary as well as God, partaking of the sacraments of the church, and be in full agreement with what they teach. I’ve been close to death, and had no fear because I know when I close my eyes in this world, I will open them new in the Kingdom of God, and that I will be clothed in the righteousness of my Savior, Jesus Christ. I’ll stop here because it’s off topic and I’m about to start preaching.

 

[Cachonga]

Trebor135:

For any number of reasons–shock, disgust, horror, lack of faith.

That crowd is, however, not necessarily analogous to the Christians who have fallen away (I’m sure we all know one or more first- or second-hand).

Is this the same crowd that “believed” in Him enough that they wanted to take Him and make Him king by force (or was that another crowd of “believers”)? I would say that the main difference between us is that I believe God, in His supreme wisdom and absolute sovereignty, choose His elect from before creation, and you believe that God “made a way” of salvation, and it’s up to the individual to, of their own “free will”, accept or reject God’s gift.

This binary, wheat or tare, in-Adam or in-Christ dichotomy, however, is expanded into a four-way distinction by Christ in the parable of the sower and the seeds. You failed to answer the questions I posed regarding Mark 4:16-17.

As I recall, only the wheat was gathered and put in the barn. Everything else was burned. Obviously (to me), any grain of wheat that does not produce is not going to end up in the barn in any way.

I acknowledge that there must be professing Christians who seem to commit apostasy in a manner visible to the rest of the world but who were never really disciples of Jesus in the first place. How do you fit this passage from Hebrews chapter six into your theological paradigm though?

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Did Judas, Ananias and Sapphira enjoy the benefits of the Church (or being with Jesus, in the case of Judas)? Of course! Were they partakers of the Holy Spirit? Most definitely! Even the High Priest that condemned Jesus was used of God to prophesy. When Jesus sent out His disciples by 2’s to teach, preach, heal, cast out demons, etc…, wasn’t Judas among them? The point is, you can partake of the benefits of the Church, and even of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean you are sealed with and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (as the Elect are). When Judas betrayed Jesus, he was sorry, but there was no repentance. Ananias and Sapphira weren’t even given the opportunity to repent for attempting to lie to the Holy Spirit.

We still have to grapple with the parable in Mark chapter four and the passage from Hebrews chapter six.

I don’t see any conflict.

Like Calvin?

You know I could rattle off a list of popes that everyone will agree were not examples to be followed for a holy life. Calvin (and the other Reformers) left the Roman Catholic Church, but these “bad” popes remained in the church.

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

Peace be with you, Cachonga. I hope my explanation can be of assistance.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand the scriptural ins-and-outs of the reformed perspective. I must insist, however, that it is lacking at its scholastic roots.

I don’t find that to be true.

As a result of the fall, the rational and passionate appetites of the human person are disordered. We sometimes want what we know and acknowledge isn’t good for us. Our will is partially damaged in that regard. But, you are insisting that the reprobate do not have the freedom of the will to love God, and thus cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 14:15 and 1 Jn 3:14-24). But Paul shows us that the tendency to sin (concupiscence) is inherited, and that we all suffer from it (Rm 3:23 and 5:12-14). The problem here lies wherein you’re stating that that the reprobate actually have an intrinsically damaged nature (and do not possess the faculties to love) while at the same time stating that we all have the same nature. If that was true, then we’d all be reprobate

You’re right! Too bad God’s word doesn’t tell us that God will take out a heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh (like in Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26), or that we become “new creatures in Christ” (as in 2 Cor 5:16-17), or that we WERE dead in sin like everyone else (as in Eph 2:1-3). Wait a minute! God DID provide us this information, and it fits in very well with the Reformed teaching.

But you’re actually very close to a very plausible idea. God does not distribute all graces the same. If we were to assume that the human nature is only partially damaged by disordered inclinations (by lack of preternatural gifts, but such that we still have free will), but we assume that God grants the grace of salvation to his elect, then the reprobate die by their sinful nature, not by a lack of grace. I think that could actually pass as a pseudo-Thomistic ideology (which is Catholic)

As I mentioned to Trebor135 above, we differ in how we view God’s sovereignty. I believe God choose His elect from before creation, and draws them to Himself in His time, according to His sovereign decree. You seem to believe that God “made a way” for people to be saved, but ultimately, it is up to the individual to accept or reject the free gift. If your view is correct, and God WANTS to save every person, but won’t violate their “free will”, what happens to Isa 55:11 (“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” NASB)? Is God going to be thwarted in His desires because John Doe doesn’t accept His free gift? I think not! What about Ps 135:6 (“Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” NASB)? I could go on, but I believe it’s clear that God is in control of His creation, and is not dependent upon man’s “cooperation” in anything He purposes (including salvation).

I recommend this fantastic podcast by Lawrence Feingold.
calledtocommunion.com/201…-original-sin/

I listened to this. I find it interesting, but not overly informative (that is, he presents very little that I haven’t already heard). I’m not completely sure what this has to do with the topic.

 

[Cachonga]

LionHeart777:

Did Jesus somehow fail here? Of corse not! Not in any way but perhaps the most obvious is that He did not fail when we keep in mind the fact that Judas had free will.

And

edit: …perhaps the most obvious reason that He did not fail is because Judas had free will. Therefore, the failure is Judas’.

I guess the fact that the Scripture, in the exact same verse you are quoting, states that this was “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” is irrelevant.

 

[LionHeart777]

And
I guess the fact that the Scripture, in the exact same verse you are quoting, states that this was “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” is irrelevant.

I never said that. However, I think it does support my statement:

White’s arguments about God ‘failing’ to save people only (may) make sense if one presupposes that man has no (God given) free will; a very big assumption which is contradicted by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I think we both agree with the fact that one is “lost” (like I said, whatever is meant here by that) here and yet that doesn’t have God having failed. Why should God have failed if people end up in Hell because they reject their own Salvation by their own free will?

Also, don’t Calvinists hold that the keeping by the Son infallibly results in final Salvation, regardless of the actions/ non-actions of the individual?

 

[Trebor135]

Is this the same crowd that “believed” in Him enough that they wanted to take Him and make Him king by force (or was that another crowd of “believers”)?

Some of the same people might have been in both crowds.

I would say that the main difference between us is that I believe God, in His supreme wisdom and absolute sovereignty, choose His elect from before creation, and you believe that God “made a way” of salvation, and it’s up to the individual to, of their own “free will”, accept or reject God’s gift.

That’s a concise way of putting it.

As I recall, only the wheat was gathered and put in the barn. Everything else was burned. Obviously (to me), any grain of wheat that does not produce is not going to end up in the barn in any way.

Definitely. But by the time the wheat and the tares are gathered, those who were converted and fell away would be among the tares and not among the wheat.

Did Judas, Ananias and Sapphira enjoy the benefits of the Church (or being with Jesus, in the case of Judas)? Of course! Were they partakers of the Holy Spirit? Most definitely! Even the High Priest that condemned Jesus was used of God to prophesy. When Jesus sent out His disciples by 2’s to teach, preach, heal, cast out demons, etc…, wasn’t Judas among them? The point is, you can partake of the benefits of the Church, and even of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean you are sealed with and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (as the Elect are).

Then what does “commit apostasy” mean in Hebrews 6:6?

When Judas betrayed Jesus, he was sorry, but there was no repentance.

To the best of our knowledge, correct.

Ananias and Sapphira weren’t even given the opportunity to repent for attempting to lie to the Holy Spirit.

Surely God knew ahead of time that they weren’t going to repent.

I don’t see any conflict.

See above.

You know I could rattle off a list of popes that everyone will agree were not examples to be followed for a holy life. Calvin (and the other Reformers) left the Roman Catholic Church, but these “bad” popes remained in the church.

First of all, I’m becoming an Eastern Orthodox inquirer. Second, I brought up Calvin not for any particular sins he committed in his personal life, but for the Reformed theology he fabricated. (I see no real difference between Calvin and Arius, who both thought they knew better than the rest of Christendom, or between Calvin and Joseph Smith, who both claimed to be reviving the true faith after a long period of “apostasy”.)

 

[spockrates]

To “piggyback” off of Spockrates’ point:

St. John 17:12:

Source: drbo.org/chapter/50017.htm

Did Jesus somehow fail here? Of corse not! Not in any way but perhaps the most obvious is that He did not fail when we keep in mind the fact that Judas had free will.

You may piggyback me anytime LionHeart!

 

[Cachonga]

LionHeart777:

I never said that. However, I think it does support my statement:

I felt it was implied, It’s certainly in the verse, and indicates to me that even IF Judas was one of the elect (I seriously doubt it, but for the sake of the argument, let’s go with it for now), God (and certainly Jesus) knew that he would be lost from the very beginning, and the purpose was to fulfill the Scriptures. Having said that, I would point out that I do not believe Judas was of the elect (even though he was chosen by Jesus) because he stole from the common purse (as we are told in Scripture). While some of the elect may have been thieves before coming to saving faith, they would certainly not continue in that lifestyle once saved. I do agree that Judas is still responsible before God for his sins.

White’s arguments about God ‘failing’ to save people only (may) make sense if one presupposes that man has no (God given) free will; a very big assumption which is contradicted by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

When did I say this?

Also, don’t Calvinists hold that the keeping by the Son infallibly results in final Salvation, regardless of the actions/ non-actions of the individual?

Yes (He is the author and finsher of our faith, as it says in Heb 12:2), and if you’re going to use this as an argument against OSAS, I would just say that OSAS (as I have seen it practiced) is a lie straight from the pit of hell. It is nothing more than a perversion of the eternal security of the believer, and gives false hope to many people who might “convert” because of a highly emotional sermon, a guilty conscience, or any one of a number of reasons (other than because of being convicted by the Holy Spirit), but not give God another thought after being baptized and told that he/she/it is now going to Heaven no matter what. Someone who is truly of the elect has been made a new creature in Christ, and will live the rest of their life for Christ. (This doesn’t mean they will never fall to temptation, but they will no longer live as a slave to sin.)