John 6:37-39

[JM3]

If my free will is what determines whether or not I follow Jesus until the end of my life, I’m in big trouble.

This is a true statement.

The good news that the Bible teaches…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.

How does one come to conversion, if there is no free will?

Why would Jesus say to spead the gospel to all nations, if there is no free will?

If God has already decided who will be saved and who will not, why should I care, since, as you say, I have no choice (free will) of which side I will be on?

 

[Augustine3]

Was the Old Testament Church infallible? Didn’t God use a wicked High Priest to make a prophecy about Jesus? Has God ever required us to have infallible knowledge of anything? I think we have sufficient evidence from Scripture to see that God can use fallible people to fulfill His will (even determine His written works, the Scriptures, or do you think the OT books were put together by some infallible Jewish synod?). I think we can agree that nobody will reach perfection so long as we are in our physical, Earthly body. I know you think you have infallible certitude in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but do YOU infallibly understand ANY infallible doctrine taught by the church? For example, do you have an infallible understanding of the Trinity; or the bodily assumption? This might be getting off topic a bit, but I do believe it is important. I don’t see where Paul ever instructed anyone to teach infallibly. I don’t even see the concept of the need for infallibility being taught in the Scriptures.

Personally, I think it’s better not to have an infallible source (other than the Scriptures). It keeps us on our toes and gives us a reason to continue studying the Scriptures (even Paul continued studying up to the time he was martyred, as far as we can tell, and didn’t he tell Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to “study to show himself approved”?). I know the Scriptures contain God’s Word, and that it is infallible (at least the originals were. Copies have had some variants creep in, but even at that, there is no doctrine of the Church that is dependent upon a variant). I don’t know as much Greek and Hebrew as I would like, but I have access to a variety of tools that can help me determine what was written in the original languages, and see how accurate the translations are. Furthermore, I am in a church that exegetes the Scripture passages, going into the original languages and explaining them (hence, my belief that it is a “good” church to be in).

Fair enough point, thanks for answering my questions. Please keep me in your prayers.

God bless you.

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3,
I will gladly keep you in my prayers, and will welcome a PM any time on any subject.

 

[Anthony_V]

Man naturally seeks after God? Really? Is that why God said, “… the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth …” (Gen 8:21)? Or how about Rom 3:10-18 (which is also from the OT)? These are just a couple of examples (there are a lot more), but I think it should be clear that men do not truly seek after God. I would agree that unregenerate men (those not of the elect) seek after a god, but not the creator of all things (just look at the wide diversity of religions around the world).

Man naturally seeks after the highest fulfillment which is God. Now can man naturally attain God? No, never, and nohow. Can we naturally love God (which is infinitely above desiring him in a concupiscent way) on our own? No, because to love God requires God to first give us his own love. I think we agree on this area, though. We just word it differently.

In regard to the “beatific vision”, as far as I can determine, it sounds exactly like what we will experience in Heaven and no place else. I looked at the link you gave, and maybe I just didn’t see it, but could you give some kind of Scriptural reference for this? As far as I can tell, it’s just a matter of semantics (you call it “beatific vision”, I call it Heaven).

I will answer this tomorrow. I’m very tired, and I have mass in the morning!

Congratulations! Not since I took Quantum Physics in College have I ever been so confused by what was being said. Perhaps this might help (I hope) – I do believe the spirit is eternal, and will live on forever, either in Heaven or the Lake of Fire. When I referred to Adam and Eve being spiritually dead, I meant that they no longer had fellowship with God (their spirit was separated from God’s Spirit, and only God can repair that break).

The problem I’ve been trying to point out is that humans don’t, by necessity, have (in the way you speak of it) a spiritual “status” with God. When Adam was created, he was not naturally deserving of either Heaven or Hell. He had merited neither. Here’s the reason why:
We can both agree that for Adam, God created a covenant of some sort. This covenant involved a friendship with God. Heaven would be choosing God’s friendship, and Hell would be the rejection of God’s friendship.

But all this is assuming that Adam has God’s covenant of friendship to begin with.

God did not owe pre-fall Adam anything, except that which is natural to his survival (food, water, etc. Consider Mt 6:26).
God did not owe pre-fall Adam anything that is supernatural (sanctifying grace, which leads to heaven, which encompasses the beatific vision).

The covenant of friendship that God gave Adam was gratuitous because to be friends with God (and thus to ultimately see God just as he sees us, in beatific vision) is supernatural. Supernatural is that which is natural to God. For instance, being filled with sanctifying grace is supernatural because friendship with God (sanctifying grace) naturally belongs only between the Father (the lover), the Son (the beloved), and the Holy Spirit (the love). This is why we hear in 1 John 4:8 that God is love. When we have the Spirit, we come to love God and know God because God is love. I’m sure you know the basic “mechanics” of the Trinity. Thanks be to God for his glory in the blessed Trinity!
But back to the task at hand. A supernatural end (Heaven) is not proportionate to a natural being by virtue of his nature. If you’re curious as to what is naturally due to a human after death, see the alternative at the bottom.
God could very well have rightly made Adam without offering Adam sanctifying grace (and thus the ability to choose Heaven or Hell by accepting or rejecting that grace). This is the Divine Providence of God–to choose whom he will.

Now in this scenario, even though Adam would not have the option of choosing God’s friendship, Adam would not be damned to Hell because Adam would not have the faculties to merit Hell (he would lack the faculties to love or hate God through his natural free will). He would not be able to break the “law” or “covenant” (and so be able to sin and thus merit hell), because there would not be a “law” or “covenant” to break.
The assumption you’re ultimately making by saying that being spiritually “alive” (e.g. in God’s friendship) was simply the nature of pre-fall Adam is that sanctifying grace (friendship with God) was something God owed to pre-fall Adam just like water or food.

This belief, that God owed Adam a covenant of friendship (sanctifying grace) by his nature, is wrong because graces are not due to a natural being (such as Adam) by nature. Graces are supernatural and gratuitous, and so are given freely by God. God never owed Adam any sort of grace simply by creating him, because graces are gratuitous (given freely) and supernatural (not due to a creature, for no creature is supernatural). *There is a note at the bottom.

If this is still confounding to you, I’ll recap:

1. 
   *]God is supernatural; he is the creator; he is uncreated; supernatural things (graces) are inherently due to him. Sanctifying grace is not above his nature.
   *]Man is natural; he is a creaure; he is created; natural things are inherently due to him. Sanctifying grace is above his nature.
   *]Friendship with God is supernatural; Friendship with God is a grace; graces are supernatural.
   *]Friendship with God is above the nature of any creature; Friendship with God is freely given to the creature by God; that which is above the nature of a creature necessarily must be freely given to the creature by God as a grace.
   
   Now, we can discern that the ability to love God is not part of man’s nature, even pre-fall. His free will, however, is not a grace, rather it is natural. In the fall, man forfeited friendship with God (grace) and was stripped of his preternatural gifts (so he can learn to reject autonomy and pride). And so, the “fall”. Man’s nature was not destroyed or damaged, but “fallen” from what was not due to him anyway. Freedom, then, is not a grace, because freedom allows the cooperation with grace. If man did not naturally have freedom, Adam would not have been able to accept friendship with God in the first place. The consequences of the first sin are grave, though. Man has still sinned against a covenant with God, and has merited death. By lack of these preternatural gifts, man is both incomplete and corrupt (though not intrinsically corrupt); corrupt in that man’s concupiscence pits him against his election for friendship with God. This is the Gospel: That God, through his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, not only wants to redeem us from Hell, but still graciously wants to give us “what eye has not seen, nor ear has heard, nor what has entered the human heart” e.g. what is above our nature, which is beatific vision, in him through Christ Jesus our sovereign Lord. We know all this because of His fidelity, and we know of his fidelity because he has given all us Christians in a state of sanctifying grace a mustard seed of that same fidelity, which is faith.
   
   God, who chose the human race, has not nullified his promise of election to us. Whatever your definition of “elect”, God has not abandoned these people. In this case, the elect (who are the whole human race) have free-will by nature.
   Now, how this connects to Divine election and Jn 6:37-39, I give you Revelation 3:20.
   

   “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”

   God knocks on the hearts of all men, because he loves us, and so he is Faithful. The only reason monergism works is upon the assumption that man does not naturally have free will, but rather due a friendship with God by his nature. Hence, “regeneration” of the nature, as if we’re broken for not naturally being friends with God.
   This is the Gospel. This is our Faith, and our Catholic heritage. I am not afraid to confess it through Christ Jesus our sovereign Lord.
   
   *The theological necessity of not being offered God’s friendship is a spiritual “paradise” after death, probably much like Eden except without God or man’s body obviously. That “paradise”, however is not pertinent to our salvation (it’s speculation of the alternative).
   
   *Christ was not both fully creature and fully God even as he is fully human and fully God. One is the question of substance and essence, the other is the question of nature and personhood. If that portion confuses you, look up “hypostatic union”. This belief is credal to all Christians.
   

   For me, supernatural would be like Moses striking a rock and getting enough water for all the people and their animals to drink and be satisfied. Spiritual would be prayer, walking by faith, becoming “born again”, and so on.

   Supernatural is that which is natural to God. Spiritual is that which is in the image of God e.g. intellectual, rational, and immortal. For example, the angelic (and demonic) nature is that of pure spirit. The human nature is a substantial union of body and spirit.
   

   We’ll see. So far, not a great deal of clarity, but we’ll see (I was eventually able to understand my Quantum Physics class well enough to get a B for the course, so there’s always hope for you ).

   Oh, I’m sure you’re smart enough We got this!

 

[Anthony_V]

First and foremost, let’s take a second and ask the holy Spirit for his guidance, knowledge, and wisdom.

In regard to the “beatific vision”, as far as I can determine, it sounds exactly like what we will experience in Heaven and no place else. I looked at the link you gave, and maybe I just didn’t see it, but could you give some kind of Scriptural reference for this? As far as I can tell, it’s just a matter of semantics (you call it “beatific vision”, I call it Heaven).

I’ve been trying to figure out how to work in a podcast by Dr. Lawrence Feingold for you. I think listening to him would be more effective than simply asking me. I’m fresh out of high school and I’ve never actually taken a formal theology course, so I still have trouble articulating the ideas in my head. Maybe that explains the tendency I have to be unclear in denser subjects, so thank you for being patient with me! I appreciate that very much!

Then, when you’re finished with the podcast and if you still have questions, we can comb through it and pluck out the details that you may not understand. In addition, I can put together a sort of listed flowchart with scriptural foundation if you need one.
The play button is about halfway down (next to Dr. Feingold’s picture):
calledtocommunion.com/2011/12/seeing-him-just-as-he-is-the-beatific-vision/

If there’s anything else I can do to help clarify, feel free to ask or PM me, etc.

P.S.
Here’s an encyclical written by Pope Benedict XVI on this very subject. If you’ve never read any of his encyclicals, he’s a very very bright intellectual:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

 

[Imputationalist]

I’m so sorry for being gone so long. I started the discussion and have been gone for most of it. I have just been so busy with work, and when I reply I don’t want it to be an off the cuff quickie answer. Thanks for bearing with me…

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.

Of course it is God’s will for His people to grow in holiness, and we know that ultimately His people will. This passage doesn’t show that true believers can be lost and not raised up on the last day, though. Is it your argument that since Paul is writing to the church at Thessalonica and saying that God’s will for them is sanctification that this means that in order for God’s will to be accomplished everyone at that church must continue and grow in all the things listed here? I’m assuming that you think that those people at that church were not sanctified and that they didn’t take wives as is proper according to God’s will. I will grant you that probably not everyone at that church continued in the faith and that some probably fell away. However, if that is the case, not everyone at Thessalonica was a true child of God.

Since we don’t have any specific examples from Thessalonica, let’s take Judas, for example. Was it God’s will for Judas to be preserved and follow Jesus to the end? If so, we have a major problem. Jesus said Himself that He “lost” Judas in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled. If Jesus was doing His best to keep Judas from “falling away” then He was fighting against His Father’s will for fulfilling the Scripture. This would put the Persons of the godhead at odds with one another. On the other hand, if Jesus’ continued compassion and love shown to Judas would’ve been received by Judas and Judas changed his mind (of his own free will), then God’s will would’ve been thwarted and the prophecy would just be hanging out there unfulfilled. So although Jesus expressed compassion and didn’t desire Judas to betray Him (as it would involve Judas in the murder of Jesus and, ultimately, the murder of himself–among other things), it was His desire to fulfill the Scriptures by choosing Judas as the one to fulfill that prophecy.

We have some rather unambiguous commands from God that assure us that it is His will that we don’t disobey those commands. But we also sometimes get a glimpse into God’s secret will (named for the fact that we usually don’t know it and have no business prying into it or trying to live as though we do know it), and Judas is a perfect example of one of those times. It is always God’s will for everyone to obey His law and keep His commands. This doesn’t always happen, and it coincides with His secret will. We, however, are not given the option to go outside God’s revealed will because we are to operate based of the things God has revealed to us.

As for the people at Thessalonica and other people who were a part of the churches New Testament writers wrote to, they were part of a group that was like the wheat and the tares. And just as Jesus told in the parable, it is not the preacher’s main objective to weed out, so to speak, the ones who don’t belong. The writers wrote to the church as a whole while giving the benefit of the doubt to those reading/hearing.

A perfect example of this would be Hebrews 5:11-6:9…

About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this is what we intend to do, if God permits. For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the miracles of the coming age, and then have committed apostasy, to renew them again to repentance, since they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves all over again and holding him up to contempt. For the ground that has soaked up the rain that frequently falls on it and yields useful vegetation for those who tend it receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is useless and about to be cursed; its fate is to be burned. But in your case, dear friends, even though we speak like this, we are convinced of better things relating to salvation.

Immediately preceding this passage in chapter 5, the writer was going into some more in-depth things, but he then is somewhat rebuking those he is writing to for not growing in their knowledge of the faith as they ought to have by this time. Then he continues in this passage to stress the importance of growth in what one has given an assent to in the Gospel by saying that there are more substantial things concerning the Gospel that if a person wanders away from after realizing the greatness of what he has heard and partaken of then he is in danger of never being restored to repentance. That being said, though, he goes on in verse 9 to say that he is convinced that they’re lives will be characterized by things that relate to salvation.

In other words, it would be like him saying, “We expect your lives to display the fruits of salvation even though we are are warning you as though you could fall away.” He is recognizing that a true believer is not one who will apostasize but will rather continue in the faith and bear fruit “even though [he speaks] like this.” So you see that there are warning passages in the NT that are written for everyone to hear, but they are not written because the writer is thinking he is persuading them from continuing in the faith as though they would otherwise fall away.

I will cut this one short due to I was so long in responding. If I need to clarify, please let me know.

 

[Anthony_V]

Imputationalist,
I know there are 2 conversations going on right now, but I believe Cachonga and I have made a lot of headway (I think he’s taken a break from this thread today). You are most invited to engage in our debate as well, though
If I need to clarify anything for you, I will do so eagerly as well!

 

[Imputationalist]

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).

First, pablope, I’m not isolating this text in order to bend other texts to fit with it any more than we should ensure that we are reading the whole in light of the parts. No one, though, has offered an answer to what Jesus says here. How can He say that “all” who come to Him are given by His Father and do, in fact, come to Him if it is not true? And how does He say that He has come to fulfill the will of the Father to not lose ONE of all those given to Him when He will lose some? And the fulfillment of the Father’s will includes raising those given to Him up at the last day. Are you concluding that Jesus will not fulfill the Father’;s will for Him and that He will lose at least some of those given to Him to preserve and raise up to salvation?

I understand how your teaching has developed, but I’m missing some details such as the list of Traditions that a member of your church has had to refer to since Jesus established this church. Since the claim is that He did establish your church and preserve it through the bishops in Rome and the authoritative magisterium, where is the list of authoritative Tradition everyone refers to in claiming this church of yours is the one we should all be in submission to? I think it would be only fair to provide me with this list since you’re asking that I interpret the Bible in light of it.

In reality, the claim you make about Scriptural interpretation needing to be subject to your own church’s authority is no different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming that the Watchtower is necessary or the Mormon’s claiming that you need The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to do the same.

And as for the claims made in the debate you referenced:

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.

Eternal life has no meaning if it can be lost, Jesus’ words are nonsense if “no one” but me (a follower of Christ) can snatch me out of Jesus’ hand", Christ has no power to “keep [me] from falling” if I can fall away (this would show that even though He tries, I can overcome Him), and there most certainly is a text that denies followers of Christ can walk away (besides the ones they quoted and denied)–John 6:37-39. Jesus is God, and if He says that the Father gave Him some that will most certainly come to Him and that He should lose none of those given to Him but raise them up at the last day, I believe He will and that all who deny it have no idea who He is even though they say they do.

Here’s some good news:

“…he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”
(Hebrews 7:25 ESV)

If you believe that Jesus will fail and that He isn’t able to lovingly overcome a person’s sinful rebellion and lead them in the way everlasting then you are talking about a different Jesus than I am. God is able and He most certainly does turn dead sinners back from the rebellion and self righteousness and pride that is leading them to hell, and He keeps them on that path through thick or thin. You can trust Him. He will not let you go. Turn from your sin and trust Jesus now.

 

[JillianRose]

I am going to pray for u op. Its an age old debate election vs. Free will. I struggle with it myself. Everyone did an excellent job with answers. God bless u.

 

[Imputationalist]

Well yeah, but if what we are pointing out is true, then you are incorrect. We all understand the principle that if someone is correct, those who disagree would be incorrect.

That being said, we are sentient persons, and we can exercise language comprehension. So to review what you said about John 6:You opted to not expound on that, but the text does not actually say that only certain people are given the grace to come to Jesus. It is true that all who come to Christ do so because they have received the gift of grace. But we should not add to this text that God deprives the rest of mankind grace–because the text does not say so.

You also said,And as someone already pointed out, it is we who detach ourselves, as evidenced by other Scriptures which thus does not contradict the “never cast out” verse.

One of the problems with the Reformed idea of “sovereignty” is that it eliminates God’s generosity in favor of the Reformed idea of sovereignty. Bottom line, we don’t think it is a coherent conclusion, based on the totality of divine revelation to teach either OSAS or limited atonement.

I think we should review this text again. You objected to my first comment about John 6:37 by saying that the text doesn’t say that only certain people can come to Jesus, but the text doesn’t have to say that specifically. I will requote the verse:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

How many that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him? And of those who come to Him, how many will Jesus accept?

Are you implying that God gives the rest of mankind the same kind of grace to come to Jesus but that they don’t come? If you are, you’re saying it in the face of what Jesus says because He says that “all” the Father gives Him will come. I am not adding anything to the text in order to say that this is not something that God gives to the rest of the human race; I only have to look around and notice people not coming to Jesus for their whole lives and recognize that the Father must not have given them to the Son since they didn’t come. What is in error in my understanding here?

And in the claim that a person can “walk away” from Christ after being given by the Father, you are denying Jesus’ power to not just never cast them out. You are denying what He says He will do in the following verse:

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 6:39 ESV)

The Father’s will for the Son is to lose nothing.

Jesus is to lose nothing that has been given to Him.

ALL the Father has given Jesus WILL COME.

Jesus is to lose NONE that were given to Him.

If a person “walks away” from Jesus, has He lost them? If so, and if He loses them, He has failed to keep all; and He has thereby not “lost nothing.”

Bottom line is, if you want to say that a person can walk away from Jesus you are saying that Jesus will not fulfill the Father’s will for Him (that He will fail), and if He is not able to keep all that the Father has given Him to raise up for salvation then how can you trust that He will be able to do anything else? This makes Jesus impotent apart from what we do to give anything He does its power. And if our salvation depends on all that we can do, then Jesus didn’t have to come in the first place. God gave a set of commands that, if we follow them, we can attain life by. These were given as a mirror, though, to show that we can’t accomplish what it requires. This is why Jesus came, so that He could do what we are obliged to but incapable of doing. And this is what Paul recognizes when He says these words:

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
(Galatians 2:21 ESV)

Yes, I know that your church teaches that salvation is by grace, but that grace is powerless unless it is cooperated with. That means that our salvation is based entirely on what we do through our own free cooperation, and that negates Jesus’ work of preservation. I will stop here because I feel like I’m rambling at this point. If this isn’t clear, please let me know what to clarify.

 

[Trebor135]

In reality, the claim you make about Scriptural interpretation needing to be subject to your own church’s authority is no different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming that the Watchtower is necessary or the Mormon’s claiming that you need The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price to do the same.

This comparison merits a response.

Because you are not part of one of the Churches that trace themselves back to the apostles–i.e., the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox communions–you effectively believe in ecclesial deism. An unbiblical and ahistorical notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons absolutely must accept as well for their authority claims to hold up.

 

[Imputationalist]

How does one come to conversion, if there is no free will?

Why would Jesus say to spead the gospel to all nations, if there is no free will?

If God has already decided who will be saved and who will not, why should I care, since, as you say, I have no choice (free will) of which side I will be on?

Good questions.

A person comes to conversion by the power of the Holy Spirit bringing that person to spiritual life by means of the preaching of the Gospel. A follower of Jesus should care about these things, if for no other reason, because He told them to before He left the earth:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)

He has all authority in all of creation, so when He says to go make disciple who should follow Him in all the world, that would be a good reason to care. This is not the only reason, though. Another reason would be because of what Paul said in I Corinthians:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
(1 Corinthians 1:21 ESV)

So we are told that God has chosen to save those who believe through the preaching of the Gospel. And if it is by His choice, in order to keep those who would consider themselves wise enough or privileged in some other way to have made the decision on their own, God’s people need to preach the message of the Gospel in order to see people who hear it and are converted saved. This keeps me from worrying about the eloquence of my presentation or whatever sales tactics or persuasion through apologetics I might be able to muster because it is God who does the saving through His giving of some to the Son, and we know that He does that by means of the message of the Gospel.

 

[Trebor135]

So we are told that God has chosen to save those who believe through the preaching of the Gospel. And if it is by His choice, in order to keep those who would consider themselves wise enough or privileged in some other way to have made the decision on their own, God’s people need to preach the message of the Gospel in order to see people who hear it and are converted saved. This keeps me from worrying about the eloquence of my presentation or whatever sales tactics or persuasion through apologetics I might be able to muster because it is God who does the saving through His giving of some to the Son, and we know that He does that by means of the message of the Gospel.

If no free will is involved, God seems to be acting in an arbitrary manner, choosing some and not others for salvation.

 

[JM3]

So we are told that God has chosen to save those who believe through the preaching of the Gospel.

To believe is an act of free will, just as to not believe is an act of free will.

Is it possible that you do not understand what free will is? Perhaps, your definition would be helpful in understanding your reasoning, since history doesn’t seem to support your view.

Finally, how do you account for the fall of Adam? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit keep him from sin, so that the whole human race would be saved?

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

Man naturally seeks after the highest fulfillment which is God. Now can man naturally attain God? No, never, and nohow. Can we naturally love God (which is infinitely above desiring him in a concupiscent way) on our own? No, because to love God requires God to first give us his own love. I think we agree on this area, though. We just word it differently.

Man naturally seeks after his own desires. He may seek after “a god”, but not the true God (even though he may pay lip service, his heart is far from Him). The only thing that will change that is if God, in His mercy, regenerates a person’s spirit, taking out the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. Only then can a man truly desire to seek after God (and, through Jesus Christ, will be saved).

I’ve been trying to figure out how to work in a podcast by Dr. Lawrence Feingold for you. I think listening to him would be more effective than simply asking me. I’m fresh out of high school and I’ve never actually taken a formal theology course, so I still have trouble articulating the ideas in my head. Maybe that explains the tendency I have to be unclear in denser subjects, so thank you for being patient with me! I appreciate that very much!

No problem with the patience. We all started somewhere, and I’ve found things like this to be a great way to “solidify” exactly what I believe. If I can ever be of assistance to you, feel free to PM me at any time.

Then, when you’re finished with the podcast and if you still have questions, we can comb through it and pluck out the details that you may not understand. In addition, I can put together a sort of listed flowchart with scriptural foundation if you need one.
The play button is about halfway down (next to Dr. Feingold’s picture):

Listened to it a couple of times, and started going over the encyclical you linked to. Seems to me this “beatific vision” is related more to how we will spend eternity with God than anything relevant to the topic. Maybe you’ve already tried to explain this and I just missed it, but how would this “vision” be related to the topic?

The problem I’ve been trying to point out is that humans don’t, by necessity, have (in the way you speak of it) a spiritual “status” with God. When Adam was created, he was not naturally deserving of either Heaven or Hell. He had merited neither. Here’s the reason why:
We can both agree that for Adam, God created a covenant of some sort. This covenant involved a friendship with God. Heaven would be choosing God’s friendship, and Hell would be the rejection of God’s friendship.

The angels were created to populate Heaven, yet Lucifer fell (and took 1/3 of the angels with him). Man was created with a spirit, and so (in my opinion) is suited to life in eternity (Heaven or Hell). We don’t “merit” anything. Those who go to Heaven, make it there because God granted them grace and faith, changed their hearts, and made them new creatures whose spirit is alive (in other words – born again). Those who are not elect will face God’s wrath and be justly condemned for their own sins (which they committed of their own free will).

But all this is assuming that Adam has God’s covenant of friendship to begin with.

How many friends do you have that are under a “covenant of friendship”? God created Adam and Eve, and chose to be their friend. The only “covenant” I find before the fall is the one where God told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or he would die on the very same day. Since he lived more than 900 years after eating the fruit, it seems obvious it was his spirit, which was created alive and in union with God (he had the “beatific vision”, which allowed him and Eve to walk with God in the cool of the day, and even talk to animals, like the serpent), which died the day he ate the fruit.

God did not owe pre-fall Adam anything, except that which is natural to his survival (food, water, etc. Consider Mt 6:26).
God did not owe pre-fall Adam anything that is supernatural (sanctifying grace, which leads to heaven, which encompasses the beatific vision).

I agree God owes us nothing (except His wrath and eternal judgment for our own sins).

The covenant of friendship that God gave Adam was gratuitous because to be friends with God (and thus to ultimately see God just as he sees us, in beatific vision) is supernatural. Supernatural is that which is natural to God. For instance, being filled with sanctifying grace is supernatural because friendship with God (sanctifying grace) naturally belongs only between the Father (the lover), the Son (the beloved), and the Holy Spirit (the love). This is why we hear in 1 John 4:8 that God is love. When we have the Spirit, we come to love God and know God because God is love. I’m sure you know the basic “mechanics” of the Trinity. Thanks be to God for his glory in the blessed Trinity!

I’m not sure where this “covenant of friendship” came from, or how it’s related to the topic

But back to the task at hand. A supernatural end (Heaven) is not proportionate to a natural being by virtue of his nature. If you’re curious as to what is naturally due to a human after death, see the alternative at the bottom.
God could very well have rightly made Adam without offering Adam sanctifying grace (and thus the ability to choose Heaven or Hell by accepting or rejecting that grace). This is the Divine Providence of God–to choose whom he will.

I agree that it is God who chooses His elect people for Heaven.

Now in this scenario, even though Adam would not have the option of choosing God’s friendship, Adam would not be damned to Hell because Adam would not have the faculties to merit Hell (he would lack the faculties to love or hate God through his natural free will). He would not be able to break the “law” or “covenant” (and so be able to sin and thus merit hell), because there would not be a “law” or “covenant” to break.
The assumption you’re ultimately making by saying that being spiritually “alive” (e.g. in God’s friendship) was simply the nature of pre-fall Adam is that sanctifying grace (friendship with God) was something God owed to pre-fall Adam just like water or food.

I’m sure you hope I might have caught what I think you said, but your words do not match the reality of my current comprehension of your statement. In other words – Huh?

This belief, that God owed Adam a covenant of friendship (sanctifying grace) by his nature, is wrong because graces are not due to a natural being (such as Adam) by nature. Graces are supernatural and gratuitous, and so are given freely by God. God never owed Adam any sort of grace simply by creating him, because graces are gratuitous (given freely) and supernatural (not due to a creature, for no creature is supernatural). *There is a note at the bottom.

… and following …

Let me just summarize what I hope will be an answer for you – God created Adam with the “beatific Vision” (or as close to it as anyone can get in a sinless state this side of Heaven). There was no covenant, but there was the command not to eat the fruit from a specific tree. Adam was told that “in the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die” (this is from memory, not any specific translation).

When Adam ate the fruit, his spirit died (his body took over 900 years to catch up with it). In other words, he broke God’s commandment, and placed himself (and all mankind through him) under God’s wrath. Naturally, he also lost the “beatific vision”. Before casting him and his wife out of the Garden, He made a covenant regarding the “seed of the woman” (the Messiah).

I disagree that Adam could not naturally love God prior to the fall. There is no indication from Scripture that his relationship with God was difficult or “inconvenient” to Adam in any way. It’s not until he eats the fruit and discovers he’s naked that God has to call for him when He comes to walk in the Garden. However, since the fall, man has a different nature, so yes, he does not even seek true fellowship with God (in fact, unless God gives him grace and saving faith, no one can ever even want to know God, even if they are very religious).

As far as the Elect being the “whole Human race”, doesn’t that kind of make the use of the term “elect” a bit unnecessary? If you could go back over 2,000 years and ask, “Who are God’s Chosen People”, I don’t think anyone would have said “The whole Human race”. Rather, they would have said “Israel” or “the Jews”. But you say that if someone today was to ask, “Who are the Elect of God?” the correct answer would be “The whole Human race.”? If that’s the case, then either every single person ever conceived in all of Human history is going to be in Heaven, or Jesus has failed miserably in what He came to do. Jesus did not “make a way” to the Father (and Heaven), He IS the Way! Only those drawn by the Father come to Jesus, and all who come to Jesus will make it to Heaven. If you don’t believe that, you don’t believe the Bible!

I hope that answers your questions (as I was able to understand them – for some reason I had visions of particle accelerators and quarks dancing in my head).

<continued…>

 

[Cachonga]

BTW – Using Rev 3:20 to indicate that Jesus made “a way” and it’s up to us to cooperate, I would go back to the parable of the soils and point out that seed was scattered everywhere (indicating the Word being spread over the entire world), but not all seed produced fruit (and the soil types never changed). There is also the parable of the sower, where the farmer sowed his field with good seed, but an enemy came at night and sowed tares. The wheat was always wheat, and the tares were always tares. Who are the elect? Those whom God has chosen from the foundation of the world!

God knocks on the hearts of all men, because he loves us, and so he is Faithful. The only reason monergism works is upon the assumption that man does not naturally have free will, but rather due a friendship with God by his nature. Hence, “regeneration” of the nature, as if we’re broken for not naturally being friends with God.
This is the Gospel. This is our Faith, and our Catholic heritage. I am not afraid to confess it through Christ Jesus our sovereign Lord.

The sower sows seed to all the world. Cooperation is not necessary, only that it fall on good ground to produce fruit. The ground does not change!

*The theological necessity of not being offered God’s friendship is a spiritual “paradise” after death, probably much like Eden except without God or man’s body obviously. That “paradise”, however is not pertinent to our salvation (it’s speculation of the alternative).

Where does this come from? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before (and I enjoy a good joke).

 

[Anthony_V]

I’m only answering certain questions in this response of mine. This is to separate gathering information from making conclusions based on the information we have gathered.

Listened to it a couple of times, and started going over the encyclical you linked to. Seems to me this “beatific vision” is related more to how we will spend eternity with God than anything relevant to the topic. Maybe you’ve already tried to explain this and I just missed it, but how would this “vision” be related to the topic?

The beatific vision is the vision of being be inserted into the blessed life of the Divine Trinity through the Son. In Heaven, the joy we will experience will not be our own joy, but the Joy; not our own happiness, but the Happiness; not our own understanding (word, logos) but the Understanding (WORD, Logos, 1 Cor 13:12, Jn 1:1-3). Namely, that of the Godhead we are inserted into, such that we become like Christ and see “Abba” face to face (1 Jn 3:2). It is important to understand because it is the end-all of sanctifying grace in God’s elect. Beatific vision is absolute and irresistible; once you have received beatific vision, you cannot turn away from God. To be inserted into the Trinitarian life is to fulfill the nature of man. He will not look for joy or happiness or love anywhere else because he already possesses Joy and Happiness and Love itself in Christ Jesus, the WORD. (Jn 4:13, Rev 22:11, 17)

The angels were created to populate Heaven, yet Lucifer fell (and took 1/3 of the angels with him). Man was created with a spirit, and so (in my opinion) is suited to life in eternity (Heaven or Hell). We don’t “merit” anything. Those who go to Heaven, make it there because God granted them grace and faith, changed their hearts, and made them new creatures whose spirit is alive (in other words – born again). God created Adam and Eve, and chose to be their friend. Those who are not elect will face God’s wrath and be justly condemned for their own sins (which they committed of their own free will).

You’re trying to take two positions at once and it’s a little confusing. You’re saying that mankind, by his nature, is determined to either heaven or hell. Then, on the other hand, you’re saying that mankind, by God’s grace, is determined to either heaven or hell.
The logical conclusion of your position is that Adam, if God did not grace him with faith and hope, was damned. That makes no sense because the nature of pre-fall Adam was not sin, and thus death, and thus damnation. God did not create Adam in sin. Man sins on his own accord by breaking a covenant or law with God. Rm 6:22-23 The theological necessity is that man is neither destined to Heaven or Hell. Rather, he requires grace for Heaven, and a rejection of the offered grace for Hell.

How many friends do you have that are under a “covenant of friendship”? God created Adam and Eve, and chose to be their friend.
The only “covenant” I find before the fall is the one where God told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or he would die on the very same day. Since he lived more than 900 years after eating the fruit, it seems obvious it was his spirit, which was created alive and in union with God (he had the “beatific vision”, which allowed him and Eve to walk with God in the cool of the day, and even talk to animals, like the serpent), which died the day he ate the fruit.

Here’s where the discrepancy starts. Pre-fall Adam did not yet have beatific vision. He was not yet in Heaven! If he had beatific vision, he could not have sinned. Furthermore, pre-fall Adam had, by necessity, free will. According to monergism, man does not have free will because his nature is corrupted in a fallen state. Pre-fall Adam was not corrupted or in a fallen state. I’ve been waiting to ask the next question, but I wasn’t sure if you had all the information. See my answer/question to the next paragraph.

Let me just summarize what I hope will be an answer for you – God created Adam with the “beatific Vision” (or as close to it as anyone can get in a sinless state this side of Heaven). There was no covenant, but there was the command not to eat the fruit from a specific tree. Adam was told that “in the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die” (this is from memory, not any specific translation).

Adam and Eve did not yet have beatific vision. They weren’t yet in Heaven in their glorified bodies. They did not see God. Rather, they knew God. They had faith (because they didn’t see God) and they had hope (because they weren’t yet in Heaven). The next question is how they could get from paradise to Heaven. I’ll give you a hint: The Catholic position involves pre-fall grace. The Reformed position does not.

I’m sure you hope I might have caught what I think you said, but your words do not match the reality of my current comprehension of your statement. In other words – Huh?

Nevermind that. It’s not altogether quintessential to the topic.

I disagree that Adam could not naturally love God prior to the fall. There is no indication from Scripture that his relationship with God was difficult or “inconvenient” to Adam in any way. It’s not until he eats the fruit and discovers he’s naked that God has to call for him when He comes to walk in the Garden. However, since the fall, man has a different nature, so yes, he does not even seek true fellowship with God (in fact, unless God gives him grace and saving faith, no one can ever even want to know God, even if they are very religious).

I’m not saying that Adam could not love God before the fall. I’m saying he could not, by virtue of his created nature (e.g. without God’s grace) choose to love God. To love God is to know God, and to know God (as Adam did) is supernatural revelation. Supernatural revelation is not proportional to the nature of a created being without grace.

As far as the Elect being the “whole Human race”, doesn’t that kind of make the use of the term “elect” a bit unnecessary? If you could go back over 2,000 years and ask, “Who are God’s Chosen People”, I don’t think anyone would have said “The whole Human race”. Rather, they would have said “Israel” or “the Jews”. But you say that if someone today was to ask, “Who are the Elect of God?” the correct answer would be “The whole Human race.”? If that’s the case, then either every single person ever conceived in all of Human history is going to be in Heaven, or Jesus has failed miserably in what He came to do. Jesus did not “make a way” to the Father (and Heaven), He IS the Way! Only those drawn by the Father come to Jesus, and all who come to Jesus will make it to Heaven. If you don’t believe that, you don’t believe the Bible!

I don’t want to answer this yet because that will tear our conversation in half. The answer to this question will logically follow as we progress. I promise

I hope that answers your questions (as I was able to understand them – for some reason I had visions of particle accelerators and quarks dancing in my head).

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

You’re trying to take two positions at once and it’s a little confusing. You’re saying that mankind, by his nature, is determined to either heaven or hell. Then, on the other hand, you’re saying that mankind, by God’s grace, is determined to either heaven or hell.
The logical conclusion of your position is that Adam, if God did not grace him with faith and hope, was damned. That makes no sense because the nature of pre-fall Adam was not sin, and thus death, and thus damnation. God did not create Adam in sin. Man sins on his own accord by breaking a covenant or law with God. Rm 6:22-23 The theological necessity is that man is neither destined to Heaven or Hell. Rather, he requires grace for Heaven, and a rejection of the offered grace for Hell.

Sorry for the confusion. Man was created with a Spirit, which is suited to live in eternity (and we will all do that, even those who did not sin after the similitude of Adam (see Rom 5:14). After a bit more consideration, I have to say that Adam and Eve, before the fall, could be in a class by themselves (they were created perfect and without sin, their spirit was alive to God, and they enjoyed fellowship with Him (apparently) on a daily basis. Oh, and they didn’t mind being naked before God. I really don’t think they fit in this topic.

Here’s where the discrepancy starts. Pre-fall Adam did not yet have beatific vision. He was not yet in Heaven! If he had beatific vision, he could not have sinned. Furthermore, pre-fall Adam had, by necessity, free will. According to monergism, man does not have free will because his nature is corrupted in a fallen state. Pre-fall Adam was not corrupted or in a fallen state. I’ve been waiting to ask the next question, but I wasn’t sure if you had all the information. See my answer/question to the next paragraph.

I guess my understanding of the beatific vision was off a bit (like your understanding of free will to the monergist). We all have free will, and everyone in hell is there because they sinned of their own free will. Again, as stated above, I don’t think Adam and Eve fits in this topic because of how they were created.

Adam and Eve did not yet have beatific vision. They weren’t yet in Heaven in their glorified bodies. They did not see God. Rather, they knew God. They had faith (because they didn’t see God) and they had hope (because they weren’t yet in Heaven). The next question is how they could get from paradise to Heaven. I’ll give you a hint: The Catholic position involves pre-fall grace. The Reformed position does not.

I’m thinking we’re way off topic here, and I’m not sure I can agree with all you’ve said, but I’ll lay that aside for now. What exactly do you mean by pre-fall grace? Do you mean God had to give Adam the grace to obey the command not to eat the fruit? And what does that have to do with the topic? Obviously, Adam was a special case before the fall.

I’m not saying that Adam could not love God before the fall. I’m saying he could not, by virtue of his created nature (e.g. without God’s grace) choose to love God. To love God is to know God, and to know God (as Adam did) is supernatural revelation. Supernatural revelation is not proportional to the nature of a created being without grace.

As stated above (and perhaps I could have stated it much earlier and saved us both a lot of time), Adam (and Eve) prior to the fall are in a class by themselves. To be honest, I really don’t think they are on topic.

 

[Anthony_V]

I have to say that Adam and Eve, before the fall, could be in a class by themselves (they were created perfect and without sin, their spirit was alive to God, and they enjoyed fellowship with Him (apparently) on a daily basis…
I guess my understanding of the beatific vision was off a bit (like your understanding of free will to the monergist).

Why were Adam and Eve in a class by themselves? Weren’t they just un-fallen humans? Or are you saying they were something more?

We all have free will, and everyone in hell is there because they sinned of their own free will.

So now you believe we all have free will by our nature?

Again, as stated above, I don’t think Adam and Eve fits in this topic because of how they were created.

How were Adam and Eve created? In a natural friendship with God? Are you denying that there was grace before the fall?

 

[Anthony_V]

I’m thinking we’re way off topic here, and I’m not sure I can agree with all you’ve said, but I’ll lay that aside for now. What exactly do you mean by pre-fall grace? Do you mean God had to give Adam the grace to obey the command not to eat the fruit? And what does that have to do with the topic? Obviously, Adam was a special case before the fall.

As stated above (and perhaps I could have stated it much earlier and saved us both a lot of time), Adam (and Eve) prior to the fall are in a class by themselves. To be honest, I really don’t think they are on topic.

Trust me, I’ve already thought all of this through I know where the logical conclusion of all this leads, and it is exceptionally relevant in said conclusion.