John 6:37-39

[Cachonga]

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.

For me, it depends who I’m talking to. If it’s a Pastor, I like to ask, “if someone is saved when they make a profession of faith, and they’re going to Heaven no matter what, why should they go to church, study their Bible, or even avoid a life of crime?” I try to tailor the question to the person I’m talking to (sometimes I manage to get the hypothetical “Christian” to Vegas where he ends up with money stolen from a bank, spending it on booze, women, drugs and gambling, then ends his life in a shoot-out with police). I am also ready to bring up Scripture to prove that OSAS is not Biblical (like the parable of the soils, the examples from Scripture, and even the very words of Jesus (see Matt 7:21).

I end up by pointing out that the eternal security of the true believer (the elect) IS found in Scripture.

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

The quote is mine. I was going to source, but I thought It might be too flashy.

OK. It’s not a problem, it would be helpful to note things like that to keep confusion at a minimum.

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).

Of course we can’t see the Father face to face while we are still living in the flesh. We are also told that in Heaven “… I shall know even as I am known.” (1 Cor 13:12 DR). I agree that we must have intimacy with God (I don’t call anybody “Father” that doesn’t deserve the title, including catholic priests, but that’s another topic for another thread). I would ask, when you pray “Our Father… “ are they just words of a prayer you memorized, or is God truly your Father? For myself, I can point to several times, places and instances when my Father in Heaven (God, for further clarification) made His presence known to me (in answered prayer, in protecting me from harm, in teaching me His Word and how it applies to my everyday life, etc…). I’m not sure how this relates to the topic.

 

[Cachonga]

LionHeart777:

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.)

I think it’s safe to say that we agree to disagree on this point. Obviously, since I find Judas not living as a true Christian should (by stealing, betraying Jesus, etc…), and see his being chosen as a means to fulfill Scripture, I don’t have a problem with him being “lost” even though he was chosen and “kept” by Jesus. I would hope that we could agree that Judas is the ONLY exception we read about in the pages of Scripture (if not, could you show me someone else Scriptures tells us was “kept” by Jesus and then “lost”?).

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.

Here again, we must agree to disagree. I try to avoid using ECF sources, first because I’ve found that it’s possible to find an ECF that can be used to support almost any position anyone might want. Second, even the catholic church agrees that the ECF’s were not infallible. Third, even if I came up with a majority of ECF’s to support my position, it would be disregarded because it doesn’t agree with the teachings of “the Church” (who alone has the right and ability to infallibly define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition). In other words, it comes down to a question of authority, which is not the topic of this thread.

(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.)

What about what Jesus taught? Let’s examine that –
Who can come to Jesus? Only those drawn by the Father (see John 6:44)
What will Jesus do with those given to Him by the Father? Raise them up at the last day (again, John 6:44)
Will everyone drawn by the Father come to Jesus? Yes (see John 6:37)
What is the will of the Father in this? That Jesus would lose none given to Him by the Father (see John 6:39)

I think it’s very clear that Jesus taught eternal security of the elect. You might still be hung up on Judas, and I’ve tried to explain that (hopefully somebody got it). As far as someone deciding of their own “free will” to reject the drawing of the Father, I don’t see it in these verses (or any others). In order to reject the drawing of the Father, they would have to thwart the will of the Father (see John 6:39 to see what the will of the Father is). I don’t find anyplace in all of Scripture where such a thing is even considered as likely. I do find plenty of Scripture where God’s will overthrows the plans of men (and I don’t believe God asked anyone’s permission before doing it).

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 tophysical 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.

Lazarus was physically dead, but we are born spiritually dead. Our spirit can resist God’s call as effectively as Lazarus could have rejected Jesus when He called him to come forth. That was the whole point of bringing up Lazarus in the discussion of IG.

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

I don’t think you have anything to apologize for, but I will accept it in the spirit in which it was given. I don’t have any complaints about someone being passionate about their faith (even if I don’t agree with it), as long as we (myself included) are honest and respectful of each other. I believe we have accomplished that, and for that I give my heartfelt thanks!

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

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

Some things do require faith. We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). I believe I am sealed to God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that it is the Holy Spirit that guides me. That does not mean I am infallible in any sense of the word, but I believe I have a sure guide. As a Reformed Baptist, our church follows the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as a guideline (not infallible, and not in place of Scripture). We do NOT teach OSAS!

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

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:

First of all, Jesus points out the fact that every person who comes to Him (believes in Him, according to the wider context) has been given to Him by the Father. This seems to indicate that coming to Jesus is a gift given to certain people

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,

we see that these are those whom Jesus will never “cast out.”

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.

 

[Trebor135]

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).

Sure. I don’t deny that ostensible conversions with a flimsy basis can occur.

Exactly!

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.

Of course the elect will be saved–that’s a tautology. I’m not arguing that those who undergo “genuine conversion” are necessarily part of the elect, but rather that a certain group of Christians will not attain “final perseverance”.

You’re conflating two things: “genuine conversion” and “final perseverance”. The whole basis for the writer of Hebrews 6:6 to warn those who commit apostasy must be that they were really Christians to begin with.

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).

Sure. But let’s take a look at Galatians chapter one:

[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel –
[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
[10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
[11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

How can St. Paul accuse those he calls “brethren” of “deserting” Christ?

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.

Haha, great.

I haven’t spent much time with Arius to know what he taught, so I can’t really respond to that.

He was a fourth-century priest who argued that Christ was a creature–a forerunner of today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is our Christian duty to avoid the Arian heresy like the plague.

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.

I would beg to differ. Calvin’s purported role–to “reform” the Christian faith–was nowhere foretold in Scripture, so his self-made claims of authority are null and void if we go by his own proposed rule of faith. He was also an iconoclast, and the doctrine according to which statues, pictures, and the like in worship are idols is actually contradicted by Scripture.

 

[Augustine3]

Some things do require faith. We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). I believe I am sealed to God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that it is the Holy Spirit that guides me. That does not mean I am infallible in any sense of the word, but I believe I have a sure guide. As a Reformed Baptist, our church follows the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as a guideline (not infallible, and not in place of Scripture). We do NOT teach OSAS!

That does not make much sense, how can you have a sure guide from the Holy Spirit but admit you are not infallible?

If you are fallible then you do not have a sure guide from the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit does not guide people to misinterpret scripture.

God bless,

 

[Anthony_V]

Of course we can’t see the Father face to face while we are still living in the flesh. We are also told that in Heaven “… I shall know even as I am known.” (1 Cor 13:12 DR).

We are still seeing past each other. The reformed understanding of free will (and subsequently the understanding of grace, subsequently the understanding of love) does not pair up with the beatific vision. I will make myself more clear, because I was not clear in the prior message as to the correlation between the two (three):

Faith is the belief of things unseen (Heb 11:1). What we do not see is the face of God. 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).

Let’s stop right there. What is sanctifying grace? Sanctifying grace is a friendship with God (John 15:15, Wis 7:14). What is the alternative?

You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
Js 4:4

And what is it to be an enemy of God, then, as opposed to a friend of God?

For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

So then what is to be friends of God, because of sanctifying grace?

But your are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rm 8:7-9

Sanctifying grace, however, is not beatific vision. It is grace through our faith in that beatific vision-- a vision which we cannot even understand yet! (1 Cor 13:12)

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)?

How is Christ intimate with the Father? He is the Son. He sees and loves in and of the Godhead just as we are to see and love him. We will not be gods, nor God, but we will be like Christ (1 John 3:2) in his sonship.

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)?

Love demands freedom, or else God would not have put the tree of knowledge in the garden.

You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."
Gen 2:16

In fact, God invokes man’s natural freedom at that time by demanding love through following God’s commands.

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.

By sanctifying grace through our faith and hope in “things unseen”, we are called to love God as his friends, rather than hating him and rejecting his friendship (Jn 15:14-15). In fact, through our friendship with God (which is supernatural, that is, above what is natural to us as humans), we come to desire him (Rm 8:5).

For we know partially (the rest we see by faith) and we prophecy partially (the rest we hope in), but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away… at present I know partially, then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

In Heaven we shall know fully [God], just as [God] knows us fully. Therefore, the greatest of these is love. This is why no one in heaven has the supernatural virtue of faith-- for they see God already. No one in heaven has the supernatural virtue of hope-- for their hope is fulfilled. We will see God in his totality, the Logos, the WORD, who is Christ Jesus. And we will see him because we love him just as he loves us (1 John 4:8-9)! And how can we love God as he loves he? Because of Christ, the WORD, who transforms us into his image (2 Cor 3:18); In Christ, through the Spirit, we will love him in freedom ( 2 Cor 3:17). It is in the grace of Christ that we can love God as his friends, not by our own love which falls short (1 Jn 4:10).

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).

And finally, we are called to love God in freedom here and now on this Earth, not later. It is our duty and even our salvation to love God (1 Jn 2:3-6).

Why am I saying all this? To get to the heart of reformed teaching. I know that as you were reading all my writing you were thinking, “he’s teaching me regeneration! This young man is obviously missing the point.”
But in grace, our nature is not regenerated. It is elevated to what it can never naturally be! The simple truth is that no creature is inherently worthy of beatific vision, fallen or not. Faith and hope (which is supernatural) in the beatific vision is exactly that-- above our nature to have faith in and hope for. Our love is all that remains after these things have passed away, because it is the Spirit, the divine person of love which is God, working within our own spirit (the “potter”, if you will) to bring us to the fullness of glory which is beatific vision.

This comes full circle to Jn 6:37-39. Is the grace of God only sufficient when it is irresistible e.g. has Christ necessarily failed his mission if he has called the entire human race to himself? No! Of course not! If it was, then free will, and consequently love, would be blasphemous! We know this to be false. Adam and Eve were created to love God, but only because of the grace of their friendship with God (sanctifying grace), so that they could love God. No supernatural virtue (friendship with God) is natural except to a supernatural person(s) (God). Water, food, and things that bring us, as rational animals, to our end is natural to us. We can understand that immortality by eating from the tree of life was very important in a theological sense to Adam and Eve.

Now how does pertain to human nature? Adam and Eve, by their nature, were able to choose freely (Gen 2:16-17). They were created to partake in a friendship with God, even though it was supernatural to them (a grace). In the fall, humanity lost friendship with God, a friendship that we could not attain again without Christ (we cannot seize grace by our own will). What does this mean, then? That humanity is an elect race. God chose humanity for himself, by grace, in Adam and Eve through a covenental friendship that was dependent on their fidelity, not God’s. The free will in human nature is necessary to accepting these sanctifying graces, because it is a supernatural gift–not natural to us and not due to us. A friendship requires two parts and two loves, not one. From the two shall join a single love. That is to say, humans, who are made in the image of God, are made to pursue an end higher than their nature, and so have free will.

 

[Anthony_V]

I should clarify. I was not specific in regards to something.

Now how does pertain to human nature? Adam and Eve, by their nature, were able to choose freely (Gen 2:16-17). They were created to freely partake in a friendship with God, even though it was supernatural to them (a grace)… God chose humanity for himself, by grace, in Adam and Eve through a covenental friendship that was dependent on their fidelity, not JUST God’s (who is always faithful).

 

[Cachonga]

Trebor135:

Of course the elect will be saved–that’s a tautology. I’m not arguing that those who undergo “genuine conversion” are necessarily part of the elect, but rather that a certain group of Christians will not attain “final perseverance”.

You’re conflating two things: “genuine conversion” and “final perseverance”. The whole basis for the writer of Hebrews 6:6 to warn those who commit apostasy must be that they were really Christians to begin with.

There’s a book by John Owen (Apostasy from the Gospel) that explains this far better than I have (I tried). The best I can do is refer you to his book, and maybe back to post #63 where I do a brief analysis of some of what Jesus said in John 6 (4th response on that post).

Sure. But let’s take a look at Galatians chapter one:

[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel –
[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
[10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
[11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

How can St. Paul accuse those he calls “brethren” of “deserting” Christ?

Uh, doesn’t verse 7 say, “there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”? Seems to me that wolves were creeping in while the Apostles were still alive, and were trying to scatter the sheep. Furthermore, nowhere are we told that the people he is addressing are (or were) apostate or elect. I’m not sure how this helps your argument.

He was a fourth-century priest who argued that Christ was a creature–a forerunner of today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is our Christian duty to avoid the Arian heresy like the plague.

Of course we need to stand up and resist all heresies. I absolutely agree with that.

I would beg to differ. Calvin’s purported role–to “reform” the Christian faith–was nowhere foretold in Scripture, so his self-made claims of authority are null and void if we go by his own proposed rule of faith. He was also an iconoclast, and the doctrine according to which statues, pictures, and the like in worship are idols is actually contradicted by Scripture.

This is off topic, but I did glance at the link you gave. Seems there’s some confusion between decorations and images (statues, paintings, etc…) that someone would actually bow down to in prayer. It seems to me that if this was a practice from the early Church, the idol makers in Ephesus would have started making statues of Peter, Paul, and other saints (especially those that had already passed on) instead of starting a riot and getting the crowds to yell, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” (or Artemis, depending on your translation). Examine Acts 19:23-41 and pay close attention to what Demetrius says in verse 25 (it’s a matter of money, not devotion to Diana, Artemis, or any other false god).

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

That does not make much sense, how can you have a sure guide from the Holy Spirit but admit you are not infallible?

If you are fallible then you do not have a sure guide from the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit does not guide people to misinterpret scripture.

Just because I have a sure guide does not mean that I always follow to Him. If I was infallible, I wouldn’t need a guide. And just because I’m fallible and don’t always follow my sure guide, that doesn’t make Him fallible or unreliable in any way.

Put it like this - if you had a GPS, but decided you knew a shortcut to where you wanted to go and took twice as long to reach your destination, would that be the fault of the GPS?

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

Why am I saying all this? To get to the heart of reformed teaching. I know that as you were reading all my writing you were thinking, “he’s teaching me regeneration! This young man is obviously missing the point.”
But in grace, our nature is not regenerated. It is elevated to what it can never naturally be! The simple truth is that no creature is inherently worthy of beatific vision, fallen or not. Faith and hope (which is supernatural) in the beatific vision is exactly that-- above our nature to have faith in and hope for. Our love is all that remains after these things have passed away, because it is the Spirit, the divine person of love which is God, working within our own spirit (the “potter”, if you will) to bring us to the fullness of glory which is beatific vision.

I must say, I never thought that you were teaching on regeneration. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “beatific vision”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that term used in Scripture. Could you please explain it?

This comes full circle to Jn 6:37-39. Is the grace of God only sufficient when it is irresistible e.g. has Christ necessarily failed his mission if he has called the entire human race to himself? No! Of course not! If it was, then free will, and consequently love, would be blasphemous! We know this to be false. Adam and Eve were created to love God, but only because of the grace of their friendship with God (sanctifying grace), so that they could love God. No supernatural virtue (friendship with God) is natural except to a supernatural person(s) (God). Water, food, and things that bring us, as rational animals, to our end is natural to us. We can understand that immortality by eating from the tree of life was very important in a theological sense to Adam and Eve.

You don’t seem to understand what is going on in John 6:37-39. Jesus didn’t come to call anyone. The Father draws whomever He wills, and gives them to the Son. It is the Father’s will that Jesus lose none of what the Father gives Him (and all that the Father draws will come to Jesus – see John 6:44). However, if Jesus did come to call the entire human race to Himself, then either everyone is going to Heaven, or Jesus failed miserably at what He came to do.

You appear to be confusing natural things with spiritual things. Adam and Eve were created alive in their spirit as well as their body. It was their spirit that died the day they ate the fruit (this is why all those born of Adam are dead spiritually and in need of regeneration, which can ONLY come from God). The truth is that spiritually dead people do not (and cannot) want to seek God (they may be “religious”, as we can tell by the various religions around the world, but they are incapable of seeking the one true God).

Now how does pertain to human nature? Adam and Eve, by their nature, were able to choose freely (Gen 2:16-17). They were created to partake in a friendship with God, even though it was supernatural to them (a grace). In the fall, humanity lost friendship with God, a friendship that we could not attain again without Christ (we cannot seize grace by our own will). What does this mean, then? That humanity is an elect race. God chose humanity for himself, by grace, in Adam and Eve through a covenental friendship that was dependent on their fidelity, not God’s. The free will in human nature is necessary to accepting these sanctifying graces, because it is a supernatural gift–not natural to us and not due to us. A friendship requires two parts and two loves, not one. From the two shall join a single love. That is to say, humans, who are made in the image of God, are made to pursue an end higher than their nature, and so have free will.

I can appreciate the effort you’re putting into this, but you keep using the word “supernatural” to describe something “spiritual” (almost like the pagans who use “evolution” instead of “adaptation”). I’m not sure how to answer this because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’ll try reading it slower and out loud to see if that helps. I will say this – while the gospel is to be preached to all the world, only the elect, chosen by God from the very foundation of the world, will have a true conversion, becoming spiritually alive, and eventually being presented alive to the Father by Jesus Himself (refer to the parable of the soils – the word is the seed, the soil is the hearts of men, and only the good soil produced something that went into the barn).

 

[Mintaka]

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve, and unbaptized humans, are not incapable of seeking God, because no human has totally lost the image and likeness of God in body and soul. (Otherwise we would be dead, or soulless animals.)

The basic idea is that there’s an animal level (animals of course!), a natural human level (fallen humans), and a preternatural human level (unfallen Adam and Eve). Beyond that, there’s the level of someone who is saved and lives eternally in Christ. (Because having Christ’s life is better than having Adam’s life, even.)

Losing the preternatural life of an unfallen human was truly like dying. It introduced both spiritual and physical death to humanity. But it did not throw us down to the level of animals.

Re: beatific vision – That’s being as capable as you can be of knowing and understanding God’s will, knowledge, eternal plan, etc. Naturally, this makes you blessed and happy.

The good angels attained the beatific vision by choosing to support God and not Satan. Humans achieve it by being saved by Jesus Christ and either going to Heaven or (at the end of time) going directly to the Last Judgment without the dying part. Neither humans nor angels are capable of “seeing” everything because we’re not God; but the holier you become before death, the more you will be capable of understanding and thus the more incredibly blissful you’ll be able to be. (Thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold – you know the drill.)

 

[Anthony_V]

I must say, I never thought that you were teaching on regeneration. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “beatific vision”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that term used in Scripture. Could you please explain it?

I can understand why you are utterly confused if I haven’t told you what the beatific vision is! My apologies for making the assumption that you did know. Man naturally seeks after God so as to possess him–not because he is a joy, but because he is Joy itself. In that sense, he is the WORD; we speak of God not simply as good, but the

 

[Anthony_V]

Thank you for helping! I just would like to clarify a few things to minimize confusion

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve, and unbaptized humans, are not incapable of seeking God, because no human has totally lost the image and likeness of God in body and soul.

Thank you! Wonderful point to be made!

(Otherwise we would be dead, or soulless animals.)

To clarify here, there is a scholastic distinction between the soul and the spirit. An animate (living) animal has a soul (which is the life of the body), but does not have a spirit (which is eternal).

The basic idea is that there’s an animal level (animals of course!), a natural human level (fallen humans), and a preternatural human level (unfallen Adam and Eve). Beyond that, there’s the level of someone who is saved and lives eternally in Christ. (Because having Christ’s life is better than having Adam’s life, even.)

I should also note that we only need to be “saved” if we are fallen people. Living eternally in Christ (not only with Christ, but also IN Christ as you said) is a grace because it is supernatural.

Losing the preternatural life of an unfallen human was truly like dying. It introduced both spiritual and physical death to humanity. But it did not throw us down to the level of animals.

You have this backwards, I think. We lost our preternatural gifts because of our sin, not simply that we lost our preternatural gifts and so we sinned. With integrity (one of the gifts) we simply do not have concupiscence. Adam and Eve still sinned in their non-fallen state with integrity, obviously.

Re: beatific vision – That’s being as capable as you can be of knowing and understanding God’s will, knowledge, eternal plan, etc. Naturally, this makes you blessed and happy.

Almost. Beatific vision is the actual possession of the WORD as sons and daughters in Christ. Our knowledge and understanding of God’s will, etc. is revealed at the Parousia (last judgement) along with the revelation of all of Salvation history.

The good angels attained the beatific vision by choosing to support God and not Satan. Humans achieve it by being saved by Jesus Christ and either going to Heaven or (at the end of time) going directly to the Last Judgment without the dying part. Neither humans nor angels are capable of “seeing” everything because we’re not God; but the holier you become before death, the more you will be capable of understanding and thus the more incredibly blissful you’ll be able to be. (Thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold – you know the drill.)

Again, very close. You seem to have done your homework! I thank you for that. We need more soldiers for Christ in this day and age!
As far as the becoming “holier” part, this has to do with sanctifying grace. The more we have, the more we can get. Consider the parable of the talents. To he has more, more will be given.

 

[Anthony_V]

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve, and unbaptized humans, are not incapable of seeking God, because no human has totally lost the image and likeness of God in body and soul.

On second thought, there could be some discrepancy here if not understood correctly.
It is the Spirit that always draws a sinner to contrition, not the sinner to his own contrition. The point to be made is that the sinner is not coerced to such contrition, and that the Spirit calls all men to salvation. Now, man can certainly seek out God in a concupiscent way, as the classical philosophers did. " I hope there is something better out there for me than this wretched life I live right now," however to attain faith and hope in a Christian way is entirely the work of the Spirit because hope and faith are supernatural virtues.

But, again, the invitation to God’s blessed life is a complete and total grace. It is not proportionate to us as natural human beings. Adam and Eve could not in any way merit such an invitation–to think they could would be utter Pelagianism.

 

[Augustine3]

Just because I have a sure guide does not mean that I always follow to Him. If I was infallible, I wouldn’t need a guide. And just because I’m fallible and don’t always follow my sure guide, that doesn’t make Him fallible or unreliable in any way.

Put it like this - if you had a GPS, but decided you knew a shortcut to where you wanted to go and took twice as long to reach your destination, would that be the fault of the GPS?

I appreciate what you’re saying and a lot of it makes sense, but what does not make sense is the big picture. After Jesus going through all that preaching and suffering and torture and dying on the cross, would it sound right that He left His teachings with a fallible church that could make mistakes in interpreting scripture at any time?

God bless,

 

[Cachonga]

Mintaka:

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve, and unbaptized humans, are not incapable of seeking God, because no human has totally lost the image and likeness of God in body and soul. (Otherwise we would be dead, or soulless animals.)

So you admit the catholic church teaches contrary to the Scriptures? (see Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:13, Rom 6, 2 Peter 2:19 for starters)

The basic idea is that there’s an animal level (animals of course!), a natural human level (fallen humans), and a preternatural human level (unfallen Adam and Eve). Beyond that, there’s the level of someone who is saved and lives eternally in Christ. (Because having Christ’s life is better than having Adam’s life, even.)

Heb 4:12 compares soul and spirit with bone and marrow. We know that bone and marrow are not the same thing, so soul and spirit must be separate things as well. If our spirit is dead in sin (as seems clear from verses given above), then we ARE just a step above dumb animals, who have no spirit. We have 2 advantages over the animals. 1 – we have greater intelligence (I’m not aware of any squirrels building a spaceship to go out and look for nuts on other planets). 2 – God, if He so chooses, can call a spirit to life just as easily as Jesus called Lazarus to life (and that person can resist just as easily as Lazarus did).

Losing the preternatural life of an unfallen human was truly like dying. It introduced both spiritual and physical death to humanity. But it did not throw us down to the level of animals.

If someone has a dead spirit because of sin, how is he not like a highly intelligent animal? (It’s OK to “cheat” and look at my response above.)

Re: beatific vision – That’s being as capable as you can be of knowing and understanding God’s will, knowledge, eternal plan, etc. Naturally, this makes you blessed and happy.

Could you give a Scripture reference for this?

The good angels attained the beatific vision by choosing to support God and not Satan. Humans achieve it by being saved by Jesus Christ and either going to Heaven or (at the end of time) going directly to the Last Judgment without the dying part. Neither humans nor angels are capable of “seeing” everything because we’re not God; but the holier you become before death, the more you will be capable of understanding and thus the more incredibly blissful you’ll be able to be. (Thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold – you know the drill.)

Could you give a Scripture reference for this?

 

[Cachonga]

Anthony V:

I can understand why you are utterly confused if I haven’t told you what the beatific vision is! My apologies for making the assumption that you did know. Man naturally seeks after God so as to possess him–not because he is a joy, but because he is Joy itself. In that sense, he is the WORD; we speak of God not simply as good, but the Good, or not simply as loving, but as the Love itself. He is that all encompassing WORD from which all is. The beginning of John’s gospel reminds us of this. Beatific vision is the possession of that WORD. As a result, we see God in his totality and his wholeness–we see him just as he sees us (then I shall know fully as I am fully known). It is supernatural because it is knowing and engaging God as he knows and engages himself (again, the WORD). That sort of relationship is reserved to the Trinity, and as such, is supernatural (natural to God only). It is structurally mentioned in Rev 22:3-4. If you are more interested in understanding that, here is an article from New Advent. Just scroll down to part V where “essential beatitude” begins.

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).

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).

He did call all of us, and I say his call was perfect. When Christ knocks at the door of our hearts, his “knocking”, no matter how perfect it might be (and it is), does not coerce the person to open it.

At the end of the parable of the marriage feast, (Matt 22:1-14) Jesus says, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (NASB). Do not confuse the calling with the choosing. As in the parable of the soils, the gospel message (word of God/seed) goes out to the entire world, but not every seed produces fruit. Only the seed that lands on the good soil produces fruit. Furthermore, at no time does any ground change (rocky ground does not become good ground, good ground does not become infested with weeds, etc…). The ground remains exactly what it was when the seed fell on it. God knows who His elect people are, and He draws them in His timing, regenerates them, and gives them to the Son, who will care for them and bring them before the Father in Heaven without losing any.

Let’s stop right there. This is where the dissent happens. You are taking the eternal being of the human spirit (which it is) and trying to put it naturally together with sanctifying grace. The human spirit does not need friendship with God to be eternal. The spirit is eternal by essence because it is so simple–that is, it doesn’t and can’t naturally “break down” like the body does. It’s not organic or physical, it’s spiritual. Now, God created Adam, but Adam was not, by hisnature, called to beatific vision. A natural being, while it might have an eternal end because it has a spirit, is not entitled to a supernatural end by partaking in the WORD in beatific vision, e.g. we are not entitled to Heaven by our nature. After God created Adam (and Eve), then he called him to friendship (gave him sanctifying grace), and that friendship was obviously dependent on the fidelity of Adam (and Eve). In other words, we have free will by our nature.

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). Because we were born “in Adam”, we were also born with our spirit separated from God, however, God’s will is to repair the break WITH HIS ELECT and no others. I agree we have free will, but we can only choose according to knowledge, and if your spirit is separated from God, then you have no knowledge sufficient to even want to seek after Him (though you may seek after something, which takes us back to the many false religions, and even false teachers who call themselves Christian). When God calls one of His elect people, they are regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit (the break is repaired), and they then have sufficient knowledge and desire to truly seek God (it doesn’t hurt that Jesus is the “author and finisher” of their faith).

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.

Does that help clarify? If you need another part to be explained, just mention it and I’ll re-explain it again. I don’t want there to be a communication barrier between us.

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 ).

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

I appreciate what you’re saying and a lot of it makes sense, but what does not make sense is the big picture. After Jesus going through all that preaching and suffering and torture and dying on the cross, would it sound right that He left His teachings with a fallible church that could make mistakes in interpreting scripture at any time?

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).