John 6:37-39

[Cachonga]

Trebor135:

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

The point was that these people expressed a “belief” in Jesus, but it wasn’t because of conviction by the Holy Spirit (it was because of the miracle of the loaves and fishes).

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.

Exactly!

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

Excellent question. First, we look and see that the definition of “apostasy” is 1: A renunciation of a religious faith. 2: abandonment of a previous loyalty. By either definition, I could easily be considered an apostate from the RC church. Likewise, it should be easy to see how Judas, Ananias and Sapphira apostatized from their professed faith. I would say that if someone was to claim to be a Christian, but renounced Jesus, they could be considered to have committed apostasy. This is certainly not something one of God’s elect would do.

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

Of course He knew. He knew they were not of the elect. He knew they would become part of the Church for their own reasons. He knew they would attempt to lie to the Holy Spirit. I believe one possible reason He decreed this was so we could have an example of a heart among weeds (as described in the parable of the soils).

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”.)

I have to be honest, when I saw your “First of all”, my first thought was “He should have mentioned Luther instead of Calvin, because I’m not a Lutheran”. However, your “Second” was sufficiently clear to help me better understand what you were saying.

I haven’t spent much time with Arius to know what he taught, so I can’t really respond to that. However, I see one big difference between Calvin and Joseph Smith – Calvin stuck with what the Scriptures said, while Smith made up his own book.

 

[Anthony_V]

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.

You are correct. We do not desire God in our spirit until we have received the Spirit. We desire him only concupiscibly until we can call him “Abba”. Consider 1 Cor 2:12. But the point of contention here is your adherence to limited atonement. Correct me if I’m wrong

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)?

Again, we return to limited atonement.

Is God going to be thwarted in His desires because John Doe doesn’t accept His free gift? I think not!

I agree on the condition that God gave John all the resources to submit to God’s grace and work out his salvation. (Phil 2:12-13)

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).

You are right. God does not depend on man for man’s salvation. Man depends on God for man’s salvation, and God has provided. The question is still “for whom”. Back to limited atonement.

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.

I don’t exactly remember where I was going with this one… Sorry!

 

[LionHeart777]

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.

When did I say this?

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.)

Cachonga,

First, that was me quoting myself (in reference to your comment: “When did I say this?”), I’m sorry for not making that as clear as I could have.

Also, I did probably zoom past the part in that verse you focused on but I still don’t think the Calvinist is out of the woods. Regardless of what “flavor” of OSAS one holds to (I am aware of the “Lordship Salvation” vs. “Free Grace” --and the spectrum in between-- controversy within some Protestant circles) this verse is still a problem (to say the least) for those who teach that God’s Grace is irresistible.

Again, you have one, Judas, who is kept by Jesus (John 17:12), and as the text indicates, just the same as the rest of the Apostles, and yet this one is "lost’ (again, whatever is meant by that term.) If your position is that Judas is in Hell, yet he was “kept” by Jesus (and as I understand Calvinism, being kept by Jesus is akin to being preserved unto final Salvation despite the actions/ non-actions of the one being kept), how do you explain this?

Or, to give you another question, are only the elect (as Calvinism understand that term) “kept” by Jesus?

 

[LionHeart777]

Cachinga,

edit: ran out of time, sorry

let me rephrase:

If your position is that Judas is in Hell, yet he was “kept” by Jesus (and as I understand Calvinism, being kept by Jesus is akin to being preserved unto final Salvation despite the actions/ non-actions of the one being kept), how do you explain this? Aren’t only the elect (as Calvinism understands that term) “kept” by Jesus unto final Salvation according to Calvinism?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that this is some sort of exception to that rule based upon God’s knowledge of future events. But, since all of the apostles are “kept” and only one is “lost”, and you understand that Judas is in Hell, would Judas be one who somehow resisted Calvin’s alleged Irresistible Grace?

 

[LionHeart777]

You may piggyback me anytime LionHeart!

like

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

You are correct. We do not desire God in our spirit until we have received the Spirit. We desire him only concupiscibly until we can call him “Abba”. Consider 1 Cor 2:12. But the point of contention here is your adherence to limited atonement. Correct me if I’m wrong

I’m not sure limited atonement is part of the topic, but think about what it means. God knew from before creation who was going to be saved (even if you believe in the synergistic, “cooperative” salvation that ultimately depends on man accepting God’s gift by his own “free will”). Since He knew who was going to be saved and who wasn’t (regardless of “how” they are saved), why would Jesus pay for the sins of anyone who would not make it to Heaven? Even if you think He would pay for sins that would be confessed to a priest by someone who would not make it to Heaven, why would He pay for sins that will finally be paid for by people who face God’s justice and condemnation? I would think that if He paid for every sin that was ever committed from the beginning of time till the end, then when someone stood before God all they would need to do is remind God that their sins had been paid for by Jesus at Calvary, and so they have a right to enter Heaven (even if they have to spend some time in purgatory, which I believe is a made-up place, but that’s off topic). How could the Father, in His Justice, punish someone for sins paid for by His Son?

I agree. God gave John all the resources to submit to God’s grace and work out his salvation (Phil 2:12-13)

If John is of the elect then God has given him grace and saving faith, and he WILL be saved and go to Heaven. If he is not of the elect, then he does not have the ability or desire to truly follow God (even though he may be very religious, this, in and of itself, is no proof of salvation), and will receive neither the grace nor the faith necessary for salvation.

I don’t exactly remember where I was going with this one… Sorry!

No problem. Hey, at least I listened to it, right?

 

[Cachonga]

LionHear777:

First, that was me quoting myself (in reference to your comment: “When did I say this?”), I’m sorry for not making that as clear as I could have.

No problem.

Also, I did probably zoom past the part in that verse you focused on but I still don’t think the Calvinist is out of the woods. Regardless of what “flavor” of OSAS one holds to (I am aware of the “Lordship Salvation” vs. “Free Grace” --and the spectrum in between-- controversy within some Protestant circles) this verse is still a problem (to say the least) for those who teach that God’s Grace is irresistible.

As I pointed out earlier, Judas stole from the bag, which is not something an elect person would do. Because of this, I doubt he was of the elect, even though he was selected by Jesus to be one of His apostles. Why would Jesus select a non-elect person to be an apostle? To fulfill Scripture (no elect person would ever betray Jesus).

Again, you have one, Judas, who is kept by Jesus (John 17:12), and as the text indicates, just the same as the rest of the Apostles, and yet this one is "lost’ (again, whatever is meant by that term.) If your position is that Judas is in Hell, yet he was “kept” by Jesus (and as I understand Calvinism, being kept by Jesus is akin to being preserved unto final Salvation despite the actions/ non-actions of the one being kept), how do you explain this?

Judas wasn’t with Jesus and the others when John 17:12 was prayed (he had been sent out of the meal back in chapter 13. I could argue that Jesus was praying only for those present (which would exclude Judas Iscariot), but I believe if that is simply added to evidence already presented, it should be obvious that Judas Iscariot was not of the elect.

If your position is that Judas is in Hell, yet he was “kept” by Jesus (and as I understand Calvinism, being kept by Jesus is akin to being preserved unto final Salvation despite the actions/ non-actions of the one being kept), how do you explain this? Aren’t only the elect (as Calvinism understands that term) “kept” by Jesus unto final Salvation according to Calvinism?

I believe I have explained this above.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that this is some sort of exception to that rule based upon God’s knowledge of future events. But, since all of the apostles are “kept” and only one is “lost”, and you understand that Judas is in Hell, would Judas be one who somehow resisted Calvin’s alleged Irresistible Grace?

Actually, I’m saying it COULD be an exception, but I (personally) doubt that is the case. I have pointed out that Judas, even as an apostle when things were going well, was doing things that an elect person would not do, up to and including the betrayal of Jesus. He was selected by Jesus to fulfill prophecy, and could have been “kept” by Him to prevent any premature attempts on His life (we do see times when He was threatened with stoning, imprisonment, etc…, but was protected by the Father because it was not His time). Whatever “kept” might mean, it appears clear to me that Judas was not of the elect.

Did Saul of Tarsus resist God’s Irresistible Grace on the road to Damascus? Did Lazarus exercise his own “free will” to “cooperate” with Jesus when He commanded him to come forth from the grave after being dead for 4 days (or could Lazarus have said, “No. I like it here.” when Jesus called out, “Lazarus, come forth.”)? I’m not sure these questions are completely on topic, but there’s my answers.

 

[LionHeart777]

Cachomba,

I apologize in advance for my annoying persistence but I want to kind of refocus here and I’ll even tie this back in to the OP.

Calvinists use John 6:37-39 to prove that those drawn by the Father are saved infallibly, irrespective of their actions/ non-actions.

Here is the verse again:

37 All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out:

38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 Now this is the will of the Father, that sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should not lose thereof, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id99.html

Now, I believe Calvinists claim that none are lost along the way. Fast forward to John 17:12:

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. *Those whom thou gavest me, I have kept: and none of them hath perished, but the son of perdition, **that the Scripture may be fulfilled.

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id110.html

Notice, the same type of language is present. There is still a reference to a people given to the Son by the Father, just as in John 6:37-39, although the scope here appears to be narrower. All were kept by Jesus, all were given to the Son by the Father, and yet one is lost. Therefore, it would seem that if one believes that “lost” means that Judas went to Hell, then it appears that this being given by the Father to the Son (same language used in John 6:37-39) does not infallibly result in the final salvation of the individuals in question.

And I am not the only one to link these two verses together. Here is St. John Chrysostom on St. John 17:12:

’While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your Name.’
Again He speaks as a man and as a Prophet, since nowhere does He appear to have done anything by the Name of God.

‘Those that You gave Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.’

And in another place He says, ‘Of all that You gave Me, I will surely lose nothing.’ John 6:39 Yet not only was he lost, but also many afterwards; how then says He, ‘I will in nowise lose’? ‘For My part, I will not lose.’ So in another place, declaring the matter was more clearly, He said, ‘I will in nowise cast out.’ John 6:37 ‘Not through fault of Mine, not because I either instigate or abandon them; but if they start away of themselves, I draw them not by necessity.’

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240181.htm

You said:

“Why would Jesus select a non-elect person to be an apostle? To fulfill Scripture (no elect person would ever betray Jesus)”

I think you have a bigger problem than this. If you are to maintain that Judas is a non-elect person, you have a non-elect person being given by the Father to the Son, words used in John 6:37-39 by Calvinists in an attempt to try and prove OSAS. Aren’t only the elect (as Calvinists understand that term) given to the Son by the Father?

You said:

“Judas wasn’t with Jesus and the others when John 17:12 was prayed…”

That may be so, however, he is still described as one given by the Son to the Father, and Christ is speaking of the past in St. John 17:12. Therefore, I don’t see the relevance of this point.

You said:

“He was selected by Jesus to fulfill prophecy, and could have been ‘kept’ by Him to prevent any premature attempts on His life (we do see times when He was threatened with stoning, imprisonment, etc…, but was protected by the Father because it was not His time). Whatever “kept” might mean, it appears clear to me that Judas was not of the elect.”

The Text makes no distinction from the way Judas is kept and the way the other Apostles are kept. Therefore, why shouldn’t I dismiss the distinction you are making as “special pleading” or “wishful thinking”?

Paul did not end up in Hell (as you claim Judas did–or at least you seem to lean that way) so by using Calvinism’s own definition he did not resist Irresistible Grace. Lazarus was raised from the dead physically in the instance which you speak of so he would not be resisting Irresistible Grace (as I understand it) in this case even if he could have said “no thanks.” “Free will” in this conversation would mean the ability of people to choose Heaven or Hell (by God’s grace), so bringing up this incident would be like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Anthony_V]

Since He knew who was going to be saved and who wasn’t, why would Jesus pay for the sins of anyone who would not make it to Heaven?

Because he loves him or her-- Christ died for the expiation of sins. If the sin is absolved, then it is only because of the precious blood of Jesus. That’s the entire message of the Gospel! If you hear the message of the Gospel, it is an invitation to partake in the Divine life of the most Holy Trinity through the Logos, Christ. You seem to think that grace is only truly sufficient if it is intrinsically efficacious, but that’s an objective scenario. God never demands the impossible, or he would be a tyrant (thanks be to God for his infinite benevolence!). We are subjective beings with limitations, and God recognizes that; Or else, he would not have became man to willingly suffer a wretched death for us. By the Resurrection of our Lord, human nature is universally restored in a sense (see the verse from Corinthians below). We are called to him because he has called us.

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you fille find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy and my burden light.
Mt 11:28-30

Even if you think He would pay for sins that would be confessed to a priest by someone who would not make it to Heaven, why would He pay for sins that will finally be paid for by people who face God’s justice and condemnation?

And yet the greatest mystery of Christianity is that God would die for us wretched sinners who have committed offense against his infinite benevolence (thanks be to God). His only response is “I love you”, and how wonderful is it! God has commanded us to love him (Mk 12:30-31); similarly, he commanded the lame man to walk ( St. Paul affirms this idea in his second letter to the Corinthians:

For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who might live no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised… 2 Cor 5:14-21

How could the Father, in His Justice, punish someone for sins paid for by His Son?

This is my favorite question so far!! It made me smile a little bit. Now we can get into some serious discussion about atonement
While salvation is indeed supernatural, it is not a supernatural jurisdiction per-say. We are judged by our love; our friendship with God (Jn 15:11-14, 1 Cor 13). Those condemned to damnation by their actions are condemned by their sins not expiated by the precious blood of Christ. When you are not in a state of grace (no matter the process of getting there), it is because charity is not alive in you. They are one in the same. There is then no friendship with God, and thus no possibility of any intimacy. Hell is the condemnation to be separated from God–who is all that is good-- for all eternity. When we lack charity in death, we lack friendship with God forever, and are condemned to suffer eternally by it. This could be likened to a fish that has rejected the option of living in water to live on dry land. While for us (unlike the fish) it is a supernatural consequence rather than a natural consequence, it is still a consequence. The fish naturally seeks after water, and we naturally seek after the Good.

If John is of the elect then God has given him grace and saving faith, and he WILL be saved and go to Heaven. If he is not of the elect, then he does not have the ability or desire to truly follow God (even though he may be very religious, this, in and of itself, is no proof of salvation), and will receive neither the grace nor the faith necessary for salvation.

So you’re saying that you believe grace is irresistible?

No problem. Hey, at least I listened to it, right?

You did! And I appreciate your commitment to such a long podcast

 

[Cachonga]

LionHear777:

Calvinists use John 6:37-39 to prove that those drawn by the Father are saved infallibly, irrespective of their actions/ non-actions.

It’s not the only Scripture, but it is good evidence.

Notice, the same type of language is present. There is still a reference to a people given to the Son by the Father, just as in John 6:37-39, although the scope here appears to be narrower. All were kept by Jesus, all were given to the Son by the Father, and yet one is lost. Therefore, it would seem that if one believes that “lost” means that Judas went to Hell, then it appears that this being given by the Father to the Son (same language used in John 6:37-39) does not infallibly result in the final salvation of the individuals in question.

As I have pointed out before, we know Judas stole from the common purse and later betrayed Jesus, which is not something a truly saved person could do. Furthermore, we see in John 17:12 that Judas “fulfilled Scripture” (this is also recognized by the Apostles in Acts when they select his replacement). This tells me that he was (to put it in more “Calvinistic” terms) drawn by the Father for the specific purpose of fulfilling Scriptures, that Jesus made him an Apostle and “kept” him so that he would accomplish God’s will, which was to betray Jesus and kill himself (all of which he did of his own “free” will, and for which he will be properly judged).

You may join John Chrysostom in thinking this could mean there are many other exceptions. I would first point out that I am unaware of any ECF being infallible, so if I find the conclusion faulty I will not give a lot of weight to what was said. Second, we know Judas was an exception, and (very important) why (to fulfill Scripture). With this evidence, I would say it is safe to conclude that this would be the only time God did this (especially considering the words of Jesus – “Those that You gave Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Seems clear that Judas is the only exception.

I think you have a bigger problem than this. If you are to maintain that Judas is a non-elect person, you have a non-elect person being given by the Father to the Son, words used in John 6:37-39 by Calvinists in an attempt to try and prove OSAS. Aren’t only the elect (as Calvinists understand that term) given to the Son by the Father?

As stated above, it seems it was done for the specific purpose of fulfilling Scripture (and certainly God has a right to do that, doesn’t He?). God also made it very clear in His written word why this was done (to fulfill prophecy), so I don’t see any possibility of any other exceptions to this one-time event.

For the record, OSAS (Once saved always saved) is a lie from the pit of hell, and is a perversion of the teaching of Eternal Security (which is a much more accurate description of what this discussion is turning into). The Elect are drawn by the Father and given to the Son, who will present us alive and perfected before the Father on the last day.

That may be so, however, he is still described as one given by the Son to the Father, and Christ is speaking of the past in St. John 17:12. Therefore, I don’t see the relevance of this point.

This is also why I added it to the other verses rather than attempt to make a case based on this alone.

The Text makes no distinction from the way Judas is kept and the way the other Apostles are kept. Therefore, why shouldn’t I dismiss the distinction you are making as “special pleading” or “wishful thinking”?

Very true. However, looking at all we know about Judas (what was his character like, why was he chosen, how do we know) it seems clear that he was not truly saved (he stole from the bag, betrayed Jesus, and eventually killed himself), but that he did fulfill prophecy (John 17:12 and Acts 1:16), as we read about in the pages of Scripture. While the text, in and of itself, makes no distinction in the way the Apostles were “kept” by Jesus, I would again point out that since Judas stole while he was with Jesus, this is clear evidence that he was not truly of the elect. Why would Jesus have a disciple that was not going to be with Him in Heaven? The only reason possible is to fulfill Scripture (as we are told by Scripture).

Paul did not end up in Hell (as you claim Judas did–or at least you seem to lean that way) so by using Calvinism’s own definition he did not resist Irresistible Grace. Lazarus was raised from the dead physically in the instance which you speak of so he would not be resisting Irresistible Grace (as I understand it) in this case even if he could have said “no thanks.” “Free will” in this conversation would mean the ability of people to choose Heaven or Hell (by God’s grace), so bringing up this incident would be like comparing apples to oranges.

I’m not sure what your definition of Irresistible Grace is. Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus to arrest believers in Jesus Christ, but after God pays him a visit (which leaves him blind), he ends up in the synagogue preaching that Jesus IS the Christ.

In regard to Lazarus, Eph 2:1 tells us that we were “dead in our trespasses and sin”. This is a spiritual death (the same death Adam and Eve experienced after eating the forbidden fruit). We are all born spiritually dead (not wounded, but dead) thanks to Adam. Just as Lazarus could not have exercised his “free will” or even refused to come back to life when Jesus called to him, even so when the Father draws us to Himself, giving us the grace and saving faith, He calls us to spiritual life, removes a heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh, and makes us new creatures in Christ. Just as Lazarus could not resist when Jesus called him out of the grave, in the same way the elect cannot resist God when He calls them out of their deadness in sin to become alive in Christ. Didn’t mean to preach, but I hope I was able to clarify this.

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

Because he loves him or her-- Christ died for the expiation of sins. If the sin is absolved, then it is only because of the precious blood of Jesus. That’s the entire message of the Gospel! If you hear the message of the Gospel, it is an invitation to partake in the Divine life of the most Holy Trinity through the Logos, Christ. You seem to think that grace is only truly sufficient if it is intrinsically efficacious, but that’s an objective scenario. God never demands the impossible, or he would be a tyrant (thanks be to God for his infinite benevolence!). We are subjective beings with limitations, and God recognizes that; Or else, he would not have became man to willingly suffer a wretched death for us. By the Resurrection of our Lord, human nature is universally restored in a sense (see the verse from Corinthians below). We are called to him because he has called us.

<and following…>

I feel like I can sum everything up like this – I realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t say anybody is in hell (not even Judas Iscariot), but honestly, I think we do agree that there are some people in hell (even the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows that Hell was not empty at the time Jesus was walking the Earth). If that is the case, then how many of them are being punished for sins that Jesus paid for at Calvary? Do you even believe that’s what Jesus accomplished by His death and resurrection? If not, then what was the purpose in His death and resurrection?

If God decides He wants to do something (like draw someone to Himself to be given to Jesus), who can resist God’s will? To put it another way, God is the potter, we are the clay. If God decides He wants to make a lump of clay into a “soup bowl”, fit for everyday use, what do you think that lump of clay will be? If He took another lump of clay and decided to make it into a very nice “gravy boat” to be used on special occasions, what will that lump of clay be? Can the clay resist the will of the potter? Can the clay even “cooperate” with the potter, or is the entire process up to the potter (keep in mind, the “potter” being discussed made His own clay out of nothing)?

If you prefer, we can use the vinedresser analogy. God is the vinedresser, we are branches. Who grafts the branches into the vine? Can the branches resist, or even cooperate with, the vinedresser in any way? Who decides if a branch is to be added or removed from the vine? I could go on, but I hope this helps.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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?

Many of us have seen that language come out of the Reformed tradition in opposition to Catholic/Orthodox teaching. However, the language is loaded. For instance:*1 Thes: 4:3-8 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. *To review the bold parts, the text says, **this is the will of God…whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.**It is a mystery that God’s will can be sovereign yet man has the freedom to quench the Spirit. We do not interpret this as God’s “failure” because such thinking fails to recognize the mystery at work. Regarding passages that sound like man is once-saved-always-saved as well as passages that refer to God willing that all men be saved and that all are not yet saved, we do not believe we must reform the text in order to make God not appear a “failure.” Rather, we must receive the text as it is written and recognize mystery when there is mystery. Calling God “failure” in the instance of a fallen soul forces a certain human-limited logic into the theology. We rather think of God as “successful” in being so amazing as to create man with a free will that does not violate His own.

 

[Anthony_V]

I feel like I can sum everything up like this – I realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t say anybody is in hell (not even Judas Iscariot), but honestly, I think we do agree that there are some people in hell (even the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows that Hell was not empty at the time Jesus was walking the Earth). If that is the case, then how many of them are being punished for sins that Jesus paid for at Calvary? Do you even believe that’s what Jesus accomplished by His death and resurrection? If not, then what was the purpose in His death and resurrection?

I think we’re seeing past each other. If someone is in Hell, then they’re there for the sins that have not been united to the cross. If John Doe robs a bank, and is absolved of his sin, that sin is united to the cross. He is covered by the blood of Jesus. If he murders a man and then dies before being absolved of that then he is in Hell for his murder, not for robbing the bank.

If God decides He wants to do something (like draw someone to Himself to be given to Jesus), who can resist God’s will? To put it another way, God is the potter, we are the clay. If God decides He wants to make a lump of clay into a “soup bowl”, fit for everyday use, what do you think that lump of clay will be? If He took another lump of clay and decided to make it into a very nice “gravy boat” to be used on special occasions, what will that lump of clay be? Can the clay resist the will of the potter? Can the clay even “cooperate” with the potter, or is the entire process up to the potter (keep in mind, the “potter” being discussed made His own clay out of nothing)?

I will give a partial answer to this right now, and then a more complete answer later.
Good theology is balanced theology. God is our pater in Heaven, not our potter in Heaven. We say, Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come, THY will be done…
Why are we praying that God’s will be done? He doesn’t need any prayers! He can do whatever he pleases.
…On earth, as it is in Heaven.
We are pleading to God that he might mold us unto himself. If we have no say in the matter, that is not love. To love is to will the good of another. When you have no will, you cannot love. If you destroy that crucial link of free will, you have completely destroyed the ultimatum of Salvation:

Grace is the magnificent power of God to supernaturally stretch the human spirit to partake in the WORD; to bring man to perfection in his image; to participate in the divine life of the most Blessed Trinity.

This is the message of the Gospel, that God has the power and might to grace us with his own beatific vision and he is inviting US! I’m sure you’ve learned Jn 3:16 in vacation bible school! This whole concept is not a matter of what God can or can’t do in a supernatural coercion. It’s a matter of what he does or doesn’t do out of his love for us.

So we are always courageous, although we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. But as it is written: Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him," this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
2 Cor 5:6-7, 1 Cor 2:9-10

I encourage you to find a brother eastern Catholic or a brother Orthodox Christian on this site and have them explain theosis to you. It is the eastern understanding of Salvation, and it is an incredibly beautiful counterpart to the western understanding of Salvation.

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

I think we’re seeing past each other. If someone is in Hell, then they’re there for the sins that have not been united to the cross. If John Doe robs a bank, and is absolved of his sin, that sin is united to the cross. He is covered by the blood of Jesus. If he murders a man and then dies before being absolved of that then he is in Hell for his murder, not for robbing the bank.

So you do believe in some form of Limited Atonement (not that Jesus died only for the elect, but that He did pay for every sin of the elect as well as for those sins that are confessed by the non-elect who will eventually end up in hell). This leads to other questions, but I think we’re straying off topic.

Good theology is balanced theology. God is our pater in Heaven, not our potter in Heaven. We say, Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come, THY will be done…
Why are we praying that God’s will be done? He doesn’t need any prayers! He can do whatever he pleases.
…On earth, as it is in Heaven.
We are pleading to God that he might mold us unto himself. If we have no say in the matter, that is not love. To love is to will the good of another. When you have no will, you cannot love. If you destroy that crucial link of free will, you have completely destroyed the ultimatum of Salvation:

But it was God who made the comparison of potter/pots and vinedresser/branches. In both of these, He shows that He is in charge and that He accomplishes His will. I can see how this applies to His choosing the elect, and grafting them in when the time is right. Undoubtedly someone will point out that He also speaks of reforming a pot or removing branches. No problem for me to understand. When God calls His elect, He makes them new creatures, just as a potter might change what he’s working on and decide to change the “soup bowl” into a “gravy boat” (to continue my earlier idea). As far as removing branches, that is a warning like so many others about falling away, and (I believe) is directed at the elect so they can check themselves to be sure they are staying on track, as well as given us a way to identify some of the non-elect.

In regard to the prayer, it never hurts to pray according to God’s will (even Jesus prayed to the Father}.

Grace is the magnificent power of God to supernaturally stretch the human spirit to partake in the WORD; to bring man to perfection in his image; to participate in the divine life of the most Blessed Trinity.

This is the message of the Gospel, that God has the power and might to grace us with his own beatific vision and he is inviting US! I’m sure you’ve learned Jn 3:16 in vacation bible school! This whole is not a matter of what God can or can’t do in a supernatural coercion. It’s a matter of what he does or doesn’t do out of his love for us.

I’m not sure where your quote came from, but it’s certainly nothing I recall ever writing. While John 3:16 is a bit off topic, I believe it applies to the entire world in the same way a story in the Dallas Morning News with the headline “All the world celebrates as the Dallas Cowboys win the Superbowl”. I would hope you wouldn’t take this to mean that every single man, woman and child on the planet was celebrating a Superbowl victory by the Cowboys. On the other hand, I would fully expect every Cowboy fan to be celebrating such an event. The point being that the “whosoever” mentioned in John 3:16 applies to the elect, not every person on the planet. I believe that can be supported from the Greek, but since I don’t fully consider it to be on topic, I’m not going to look it up at this time.

Btw – I’ve never attended VBS (I was a Roman Catholic until I was almost 34 (about 2 weeks away from that birthday as I recall)).

I encourage you to find a brother eastern Catholic or a brother Orthodox Christian on this site and have them explain theosis to you. It is the eastern understanding of Salvation, and it is an incredibly beautiful counterpart to the western understanding of Salvation.

Thanks, but I see no need to question my salvation. It has been a long journey from Roman Catholicism, to non-denominational evangelicalism, to (finally) a good Reformed Baptist Church.

 

[CastingCrown]

When presented with the doctrine of OSAS, I simply ask this question:

Why do we not see even the slightest hint of this doctrine prior to the Reformation?

Once that question has been adequately answered and its consequences noted then we can then get down to the details of Scripture.

 

[Anthony_V]

But it was God who made the comparison of potter/pots and vinedresser/branches. In both of these, He shows that He is in charge and that He accomplishes His will. I can see how this applies to His choosing the elect, and grafting them in when the time is right. Undoubtedly someone will point out that He also speaks of reforming a pot or removing branches. No problem for me to understand. When God calls His elect, He makes them new creatures, just as a potter might change what he’s working on and decide to change the “soup bowl” into a “gravy boat” (to continue my earlier idea). As far as removing branches, that is a warning like so many others about falling away, and (I believe) is directed at the elect so they can check themselves to be sure they are staying on track, as well as given us a way to identify some of the non-elect.

I’m not sure where your quote came from, but it’s certainly nothing I recall ever writing. While John 3:16 is a bit off topic, I believe it applies to the entire world in the same way a story in the Dallas Morning News with the headline “All the world celebrates as the Dallas Cowboys win the Superbowl”.

The quote is mine. I was going to source, but I thought It might be too flashy.
But semantics is not the issue here. Polemics, on the other hand, is. As I mentioned, the reformed understanding of grace waters down what Heaven is. Faith is the belief of things unseen (Heb 11:1). What we do not see is the face of God. To be friends with somebody is to have a certain amount of intimacy with them. To see God’s face as “Abba” requires an incredible amount of intimacy! In fact, we can only hope to see God’s face because of sanctifying grace through Christ (Rev 14:1). How then, can we see the face of God if we are not intimate with him as Christ is (Rev 22:4, Gen 1:27)? After all, does Christ not love us just as the Father loves us (John 15:9)? How can we be sons and daughters of the Father in Christ if we are not sons and daughters of the Father like Christ (1 John 3:2, John 15:15)? This is the reason that Paul calls those in the Church “saints”. We are holy in our continued sanctification through faith in things unseen, which have not yet entered the human heart. God will give us “a new heart and put a new spirit; [He] will remove from us our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh.” How can the mustard seed of our faith come to full bloom by our sanctification through it in eternal beatific vision if our virtue of love is not elevated to that like Christ in perfection (1 Cor 13)? Beatitude is about loving God with the heart of God (John 14:6, Matthew 5:8).

 

[LionHeart777]

Well Cachomba,

I suppose I will not belabor (if I haven’t already) the issue but I will just say a few more things and then drop it.

Re: John 17:12, I believe that there is a parallel between this text and that of the OP; John 6:37-39, albeit the scope is narrower in John 17:12 since here only the Apostles are in question. As I said, I see there being no distinguishing between the “keeping” and the “giving of the Father to the Son” of Judas and that of the other Apostles in this Text. The answer(s) you have given me in an attempt to uphold Calvinism on this point I see as “special pleading” (no offense.)

Re: St. John Chrysostom:

If we open the scope up to those in the Early Church who believed that one could forfeit their own salvation through their own fault/choice, then you would see that it is not just St. John Chrysostom who disagrees with this, since *not one Early Church Father taught that it was impossible for one to forfeit their own Salvation. * Calvin is the first person I know of to teach this and he is in the 1500’s (see Casting Crown’s point.) On the other hand, I would argue that there is a mountain of Scriptural (and Patristic) evidence to show that “true believers” can fall away.

(If you are going to use the argument that the Apostles taught it–first I would disagree on a Scriptural basis, second I would point out that this is incredible since logically if the Apostles taught it, you would see this teaching in their successors, and their successors, etc. etc. etc.)

Lazarus, is no proof of Irresistible Grace (as I pointed out and as Dr. Sungenis pointed in the Predestination debate w/ James White) because he is raised to physical life. Again, apples and oranges. But, this alleged IG does only deal with the elect and you have said that you don’t believe Judas was elect than I think I can just drop the point.

If I have been uncharitable in my zeal at all, and for my cockiness, I apologize.

take care,

Nick

 

[Imputationalist]

I’ve been trying to get through all of these comments, and I’m noticing not only that it would be futile for me to try to answer every single objector but that there are a few common themes.

First of all, just about everyone wants to answer my original post or response with another passage or verse of Scripture that they think contradicts what I originally posted. The funny thing about this to me is that many who are posting these passages of Scripture are saying that we can’t allow Scripture to contradict itself while I have yet to see an alternative explanation of what Jesus said in the original passage. Did I overlook it? I saw an one from John Chrysostom, but nothing from any individual who is attempting to offer an objection. So if what I pointed out from Jesus’ words in John 6:37-39 are true, all of the citations cannot overrule it because it means that you all are the ones misunderstanding those other passages/verses.

Secondly, even though I’ve attempted to explain that I do not believe that a person can make an empty profession of faith, continue to have no fruit, and continue to have assurance of salvation, there are some who are arguing as though I am. This is probably my fault for not making this clear at the outset by rejecting the popular understanding of OSAS more directly. On the other hand, whenever I have pointed out passages like the original one to Roman Catholics they jump to that conclusion. I have gone through and shown that these passages show that the work of salvation is carried out by God Himself, and without mentioning “eternal security” or “once saved always saved” they come to that conclusion because it is obvious that the bible teaches that a truly saved person is saved securely.

Let me show you what I mean while attempting to answer another objection…

Going back to the original passage, we start out seeing that Jesus says that “all” that the Father gives to Him “will come” to Him. So, the “all” being referred to here is qualified as those who will come to Jesus, and all who will come are those who are given by the Father. Jesus doesn’t say anything about a person’s freewill decision to choose whether or not to come. If a person’s freewill decision is the deciding factor, then He should have said something like “all who choose to come to me will come to me.”

And I just don’t get what the appeal is for this whole freewill idea. If my free will is what determines whether or not I follow Jesus until the end of my life, I’m in big trouble. And I don’t say this to justify my sinful actions. I say this because I will recognize the sinfulness of my heart and am grateful for the change that God has wrought in me in order to bring me to the point where I do you desire to follow Him. I loved my sin, and I am prone to wander. If Jesus did not save me and the Holy Spirit change my heart and keep me desiring to follow Him and correcting my sinful actions every day, then of my own free will I would not continue to follow Him but rather choose the easy way out and indulge in the temporal pleasures of the sin of this world in this life and end up in hell for all eternity. If my salvation is dependent upon my free will actions of obedience and cooperation with God’s grace in order to stay in a state of grace, then I don’t find that to be good news at all. The good news that the Bible teaches it is that God changes a sinful rebel into a Jesus loving saint at the moment of his conversion, and he keeps him in the faith until the day of his death.

So no, free will is not a determining factor of who comes to Jesus. Grace is the determining factor, and grace is something that actually accomplishes something instead of prodding a person in a direction and hoping that that person makes that grace effectual. Is there anything in the text of John 6:37 that indicates that a person’s free will decision is what determines that they will come to Jesus, or does it just say that the Father gives those people to the Son and that they will come to Him? I think it is pretty clear that if you choose the free will option it is something that is not in Jesus’ mind here, but it is rather a tradition that Jesus has no intention of teaching here.

Please offer your alternative explanations of this passage…

 

[pablope]

I’ve been trying to get through all of these comments, and I’m noticing not only that it would be futile for me to try to answer every single objector but that there are a few common themes.

So no, free will is not a determining factor of who comes to Jesus. Grace is the determining factor, and grace is something that actually accomplishes something instead of prodding a person in a direction and hoping that that person makes that grace effectual. Is there anything in the text of John 6:37 that indicates that a person’s free will decision is what determines that they will come to Jesus, or does it just say that the Father gives those people to the Son and that they will come to Him? I think it is pretty clear that if you choose the free will option it is something that is not in Jesus’ mind here, but it is rather a tradition that Jesus has no intention of teaching here.

Please offer your alternative explanations of this passage…

Hmmmm…what alternative interpretation? It means only one thing…but you are isolating it from other verses/passages of scripture…and trying to develop OSAS/Eternal security from that one passage, neglecting other passages that add to it…to develop a fuller understanding of salvation…it is a process, not a one time event.

How catholic teaching was developed: mark-shea.com/tradition.html

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority…This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there… The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

Staples vs Grendon written debate from the Rock Magazine of CAF:

Catholics agree God gives “eternal life” to all who believe in Christ (John 3:16; 5:24, etc.). We agree “no one can snatch [followers of Christ] out of [Jesus’] hand” (John 10:29-30). And we agree we are kept by the power of Christ who is “able to keep [us] from falling and to present [us] without blemish before the presence of his glory…” (Jude 24; cf. Eph. 1:14) However, no biblical text denies followers of Christ can walk away from Christ.

Moreover, the New Testament repeatedly sets conditions upon our salvation. 1. We must be baptized (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-4). 2. We must continue to abide in Christ in order to receive the promise of eternal life (I John 2:23-25). 3. We must be obedient (Matt. 19:16; Romans 6:16; Heb. 5:8-9; Acts 5:29-32) and 4. We must endure until the end to be saved (Matt. 10:22; Rev. 2:10). If we refuse to obey, we will be lost (cf. Matt. 24:45-51).

The Catholic Church teaches we can “know we have eternal life” if we understand “knowledge” as St. John does in I John 5:13. In verse 14 he refers to this “knowledge” as a “confidence” analogous to the “knowledge” we have of our receiving what we petition God for in prayer. We use the term similarly in English: “I know I am going to get an A on that exam tomorrow.” We know this confident assurance is not absolute because St. John gives conditions for our attaining eternal life in this same epistle (I John 1:7-9, 2:23-25; 3:15).

The main point is this: The eternal life we can “know” we possess and that is promised to us can be lost. “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Romans 11:22; cf. John 15:1-6, Heb. 12:14-15, II Peter 2:20-22).

 

[Augustine3]

Thanks, but I see no need to question my salvation. It has been a long journey from Roman Catholicism, to non-denominational evangelicalism, to (finally) a good Reformed Baptist Church.

Hi Cachonga

How do you know for certain the Baptist church doctrines and teachings are correct and without error?

God bless,