John 6:44 and Eternal Security

[c0achmcguirk]

Capt K:

he just looked into the future…" THERE IS NO FUTURE! You’re not listening so I’m yelling to try to get through.

I find it ironic that you keep saying I’m not listening and yet this is the third time I will ask the question without your answering it.

I’ll word it differently, since you have a problem with my using the word “future.”

Again, how could one in your position account for Acts 4:27-28?

It says “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”

In your view, God didn’t decide anything, he just looked into time and saw that men would indeed crucify Jesus. But the passage actually tells us that God decided beforehand what should happen, and the men did it. How does your view fit into this passage?

No need to shout your answer, but could you directly address the passage which speaks directly to the issue?

Also, what do you think of the definition of free will offered? The ability to act or to act otherwise. Is this a suitable definition?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Pax]

cOach, In one of your responses to me you said, “Back to the Oswald example–you said that it would be impossible for Oswald to act otherwise.”

Where did I say, “that it would be impossible for Oswald to act otherwise.”?

Read my post over again. You are missing the point. Knowledge whether it is past, present, or future does not automatically equate to being the cause of the action that is known. There is simply no rational or logical reason for making that equation. Your entire belief in this area seems to rest on that particular disconnect in your logic. Please clarify this for me. Thanks.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Pax:

cOach, In one of your responses to me you said, “Back to the Oswald example–you said that it would be impossible for Oswald to act otherwise.”

Where did I say, “that it would be impossible for Oswald to act otherwise.”?

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I asked:

However, if God wrote in Scripture, perhaps at the end of Revelations, that “On November 24, 1963 a man named Oswald will assasinate President Kennedy”, and Oswald stumbled across the verse–would he be able to avoid the assasination? Would he have the free will to thwart God’s prediction?

and you replied:

If Oswald stumbled across your hypothetical verse it would make no difference. He simply would choose by his own free will to commit the crime anyway.

It seems you are saying that had Oswald read the verse as he was heading out of the door, it would not be within his power to act otherwise. He was going to choose to kill Kennedy no matter what.

This is what Calvinists teach, if I understand you correctly. We willingly choose to do that which God has ordained.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Pax]

New_Life:

Hi Pax. When you speak of “free will” what are you saying? That God cannot or will not violate that “gift” he somehow gave mankind? That God has to work around humans to accomplish his ultimate purposes?..NL

I like much of what you wrote in this post. I would like to point out that your explanations and view of free will seems to be quite a bit different from that of the cOach. Moreover, it points out that their are different degrees of Calvinism. Why there exists a lack of unanimity is obvious to a catholic, but that’s for another thread.

Your questions to me are fair and reasonable but it is clear that we are not seeing quite eye to eye. To answer your first question the answer is clear that God does not violate our free will. This answer requires some explanation on my part since what we are really talking about is the nature of grace. I doubt that I can do justice to the subject in one or even several posts, but I will throw out a few things for your consideration.

Grace is God’s “favor” and it gives us power. When it comes to sin this power is an enabling power that sets us free from committing sin as is seen in John 8:33-34. God does not force us but instead enables us. This is why Paul talks about freedom and slavery in the book of Romans. In the beginning, middle and near the end of Romans, Paul speaks of the obedience of faith. It is clear when you read the words of Jesus in John and find similar passages in Paul’s writings in Romans and his other letters, that God’s grace in an enabling grace. He loves us and does not force us.

This is not to say that God does not soften our hearts. On the contrary, God’s grace by its very nature enables us and that’s different in type and quality to forcing your heart one way or another. God is loving and gentle in how he will move us by grace. Lovers do not force themselves on others. I hope this says something in response to your thinking on irresistable grace.

I have a brief paper that I have written on TULIP which may be of some help. If you are interested I can email the file. Much of the credit for my own understanding in this area goes to James Akin and his book The Salvation Controversy. I highly recommend this book. I would like to say more but I have a date for the movies with my lovely wife so I have to run.

Peace and goodwill to all.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Pax:

I like much of what you wrote in this post. I would like to point out that your explanations and view of free will seems to be quite a bit different from that of the cOach. Moreover, it points out that their are different degrees of Calvinism. Why there exists a lack of unanimity is obvious to a catholic, but that’s for another thread.

Where do I differ with New_Life? I agree with everything he/she said.

I also posted a quote from Sproul, which I’m in agreement with:

“God is free. I am free. If my freedom runs up against God’s freedom, I lose. His freedom restricts mine; my freedom does not restrict his.”

Also, PAX, I appreciate your civil attitude along with your desire to learn more about Calvinism. It seems you are trying to understand what Calvinists truly believe.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[BakerBob]

Pax:

There is an absurdity in designing a question to force an answer that is untrue. Obviously, none of us believes that Jesus failed in his mission. Let’s quote a closely related scripture and ask the same question…I think you will see my point as it has similarly been pointed out by Quasimodo in an earlier post.

John 17:12 says “While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that scripture might be fulfilled.” In losing Judas did Christ fail in his mission? The question is absurd! Moreover, look what this verse says about the other apostles. Jesus says that he protected them while he was with them. That implies the possibility that, once he is no longer with them, he may not be providing them the very same protection and that they could be lost.

Taking a few verses of scripture and interpreting them to mean something that contradicts the rest of scripture is not exegesis. The teaching of “eternal security” is a tradition of men that is contrary to scripture.

Consider John 1:7 where we are told “He came to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.” Obviously, all do not believe through him. Does that mean that Jesus failed in his mission? Or how about 1Timothy 2:3 where we are told that “This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Obviously, not “everyone” is saved. Does that mean that Jesus failed in his mission?

Or how should we look at 1Timothy 4:10 which says “…because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” Does this mean everybody is saved and Jesus was telling a fib when he said Judas was lost? Or consider 1 John 2:2 where we a told that “he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Should we, therefore, believe that everybody is saved?

My point should be clear. If you rip verses out of there immediate context that’s bad enough, but ripping them out of the entire context of scripture to teach a man made tradition like “eternal security”(which is not found anywhere in the bible) is ludicrous.

I made reference in an earlier post to 65 verses that I personally researched and compiled that totally refute the teaching of “eternal security.” I have highlighted and put in bold print the key words in each of the verses so that even the most stubborn believer in this errant teaching can see why it is patently false. I will gladly email the file to anyone that makes a request.

If I sound a bit fired up, it’s because I am. This is one of the most dangerous and scripturally unsupportedly teachings circulating through some christian circles. I apologize if my confidence and enthusiasm has offended anyone. I mean all of these things with the best of intentions and good will.

PAX

This is an interesting discussion. PAX, I’d love to have your list of references. E-mail to rschanhaar@satx.rr.com.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Originally Posted by c0achmcguirk
All men are born depraved and willingly reject God, and deserve Hell. And if, after they die and go to Hell, they would still reject God and march proudly back downstairs to Hell.

Where do you get the idea that man is born depraved? To agree with this, I would also have to agree that God is depraved since people were made in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26). People can act badly, but people are by nature good.

Original sin changed man’s state, it didn’t change human nature. There is a big difference! To teach that man is born depraved, sinful and wicked is simply un-biblical. You won’t find anything in the bible that backs that thinking up.

I’m sure you wouldn’t say that if a one day old infant died that her soul would go right to hell because she was born depraved and sinful, would you? True…she was born into a sinful world, but her innate nature is good…just as God intended.

The only benefit I see to believing this logic is that it serves to lessen our responsibility for sin. How much easier is it if we can just say, “hey, I can’t help it…I was born innately deprived and sinful”. That just seems WAY too easy. Where then is the motivation to do anything about our sinfulness?

Sorry…you can’t convince me that we are born innately evil. God wouldn’t do that to us!!

 

[c0achmcguirk]

DVIN CKS:

Where do you get the idea that man is born depraved? Sorry…you can’t convince me that we are born innately evil. God wouldn’t do that to us!!

Great question DVIN CKS!

Now, when I say man is born depraved I don’t mean that all people will go out and torture little babies. I mean that all people, without the spirit regenerating them, gladly reject Christ and would never choose Him. This is what the Bible says on this:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
–1 Cor 2:14

Those who have not been regenerated (born again) cannot accept the things that come from God. He doesn’t understand them, nor can he do so.

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
–Romans 3:10-11

No one seeks after God it is God that gives us the ability to choose Him.

the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
–Romans 8:7-8

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn–and I would heal them.
–John 12:39-40

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Elizabeth]

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"

c0achmcguirk:

Hi Elizabeth, thanks for your thoughts on this difficult issue.

Now, I noticed that you point to the Israelites rebellion and God’s plan for the Promised Land as proof of our free will. However, it is the Calvinist who would say that God ordains the means and the ends.

c0ach

I was using this history to demonstrate the interplay between free will and pre-destination; the point being that I think it is entirely beyond our intellect and understanding* to determine precisely the * *relationship between them * and how God works them together. There are enough references in the Bible to skew the debate either way with great plausibility and yet we know that both are elements of God’s working and His plan for creation and humanity.

Again, the point I was making…

God is sovereign and surely does “in all things work for the good of those who love him”, (Rom. 8 v28), “sustaining all things by His powerful word” (Heb.1 v 3), and yet still sets before us the choice of “life and death, blessings and curses” (Deut. 30 vv 15-20), takes no “pleasure in the death of the wicked” but rather is pleased “when they turn from their ways and live” (Ezekiel 18 v.23) and is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3 v 9).

Why reduce this amazing mystery to mere - almost abstract - concept, mere argument?

Why not instead “lean not on our [own] understanding” (Proverbs 3 v 5), confess - and revel in the fact - that “such knowledge is too wonderful for [us], too lofty for [us] to attain” (ps 139 v 6) and “continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling”, “pressing on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 2 v 12 and 3 v 14)

Praise God always and forever, in Christ Jesus our King, our Savior, our Lord.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

c0achmcguirk:

…I mean that all people, without the spirit regenerating them, gladly reject Christ and would never choose Him. This is what the Bible says on this:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
–1 Cor 2:14

Those who have not been regenerated (born again) cannot accept the things that come from God. He doesn’t understand them, nor can he do so.

In the above passage, I don’t see how that is teaching that man is born depraved.

Let’s assume this: A newborn baby (in your belief) would be saved if she died, correct? Would she be considered one of God’s “elect”?

Now, let’s assume this baby didn’t die and grew to be the age of 18 but never “accepted Jesus into her heart”, what then? She is no longer considered one of the elect, right? At what point in her journey did she lose her ‘guarenteed’ salvation? Since now that she hasn’t been regenerated, she can’t accept the things that come from God (according to your theory), and therefore can no longer be considered one of God’s “elect”.

Interesting that this example shows clearly that someone who is at first considered one of God’s “elect” (the infant) CAN IN FACT fall and no longer be considered one of the “elect” – unless of course she is “born again”. Quite puzzling!!!

 

[Katholikos]

***The question is, not can this or that verse be twisted to mean this or that doctrine, but what did the sacred writer intend to convey by the words he used?

Did the Apostles teach OSAS or Eternal Security? No.*

Did the early Church teach OSAS or Eternal Security? No

Was OSAS a doctrine “discovered” in Scripture by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Yes.

It was expressed in a letter from Luther to Philip Melanchthon in 1521 entitled "Let Your Sins Be Strong."

*Here are Luther’s words: *
It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt

Was Luther’s idea then expanded to "Perseverance of the Saints" by John Calvin? Yes. It is the “P” in TULIP.

Should I believe a doctrine that the Apostles never heard of? No!

Eternal Security makes its appearance in the historical record in the 16th century, and not before. It’s 16 centuries too late to have been the teaching of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

---

That’s the problem with Sola Scriptura and private interpretation. No doctrine is too abberant to prevent it from springing full blown from the mind of man when he is unguided by the Church founded by Christ.

---

Christianity is a Revealed Religion. God’s Revelation was made “once for all” (Jude 3) by Christ to his Apostles through the Church. We don’t have to invent it all over again by reinterpreting the Scriptures. Deo Gratias!

---

**

 

[JPrejean]

Francis:
Re: your interpretation:

Finally, not a problem here either. Nobody can come to the Son unless they are drawn. Those who come to the Son will indeed be saved. But does this passage mention anything about those who resist the drawing by the Father? It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that all people will be drawn by the Father, certain people will resist this motion of God, and they will not end up coming to Jesus.

I am skeptical about this interpretation from the Catholic perspective, because I seriously doubt that the Father draws everyone in the manner that this passage seems to be discussing. You seem to be arguing against unconditional election rather than eternal security, and in so doing, you’ve ended up with something that looks rather Arminian (i.e., the Father draws everybody, and we choose whether or not to believe). That worries me, because Catholics are absolutely required to believe in predestination, and Arminians reject predestination. I’m not saying that you have strayed into that error yourself, but I, for one, would be disinclined to adopt such an interpretation, particularly when unconditional election is a perfectly good Catholic belief.

I’d say the same thing for people who are trying to analogize the drawing here to the drawing of John 12. That strikes me as theological confusion between Christ’s redemption of the human nature and Christ’s redemption of the individual (and ironically, a mistake that a Calvinist or other nominalist should make, rather than a Catholic). But even if you have managed to navigate that particular minefield, why get into the question of particular and universal salvation when it doesn’t respond to the claim that John 6 teaches eternal security?

c0ach:
The reason for making distinctions in the order of causation is to avoid the blasphemy of assigning direct causation for evil to God. Hence, we read all references to causation of evil as referring to God’s permissive providential will rather than God’s direct intervention. Furthermore, as noted, the notion of a “sin nature” that necessarily causes one to be evil is either blasphemous (God creates evil) or metaphysically absurd (as noted by Ss. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas). Consequently, we reject it.

 

[Elizabeth]

[Should I believe a doctrine that the Apostles never heard of? **No!

Serious question from someone without great deal of knowledge on the following:

Aren’t there many Catholic doctrines that have been developed since the Apostles that they have never heard of e.g., the Assumption?* Or* are all Catholic doctrines beliefs held by the Apostles which have subsequently been put into doctrine form?

(I assume you are referring specifically to the original Apostles of Jesus’ earthly lifetime?)

 

[Pax]

Katholikos…that was a dynamite post. You got reputation points for that one. Kudos dude!

 

[Pax]

Total Depravity as taught by Calvin is non-scriptural. The most common understanding of evangelical christians of total depravity is best discovered by asking the question. Is Man basically good or is man basically evil? Almost every evangelical I’ve asked has said without qualification that man is basically “evil.” My response has always been the same. “God does not create junk! Man is basically good but has a fallen nature.” The following scripture verses should help lay this issue to rest:

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Gen 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Jer 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-15
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4-5
Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.
The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 12:2
A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but a man of evil devices he condemns.

Proverbs 12:5
The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are treacherous.

 

[Elizabeth]

Oh yes, and what on Earth (or in Heaven) is TULIP? OSAS?
Prob. s/o expl. them already but a straightforward answer ASAP would be brill. PTL.

TTFN

 

[heenan]

c0achmcguirk:

Indeed there are several topics going on in John 6, what I want to know is how the Eucharist applies to John 6:36-40,44? How does it fit into the drawing, the coming, and being lifted up at the last day? How does it fit into being lost by the Son? I don’t see how it fits, so if you could clarify I’d appreciate it.

Note that it doesn’t say that it is possible to be erased or “blotted out” it just says that those who are saved will never be blotted out of the Lamb’s Book of Life (cf. Rev 21:27). I agree 100%. This is Perseverance of the Saints.

Thanks for your good questions and humble attitude, heenan,
God bless,
c0ach

 

[Pax]

Elizabeth:

Oh yes, and what on Earth (or in Heaven) is TULIP? OSAS?
Prob. s/o expl. them already but a straightforward answer ASAP would be brill. PTL.

TTFN

TULIP is an acronym for the basis of Calvinism. T=total depravity; U=unconditional election; L=limited atonement; I=irresistable grace; and P=perseverance of the saints

OSAS means "Once saved always saved.

 

[Pax]

Sorry but I short changed my earlier post on whether man is basically good or basically evil. Here is the balance of the quotes that say “No” and a little analysis to go with it.

Matt 12:35
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Also see Luke 6:45)

Luke 1:6 (ref. to Zacahariah & Elizabeth)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 23:50
Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Mark 6:20
for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,

Acts 7:20
At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God.

Acts 11:24 (ref. to Barnabas)
for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

1 Tim 4:4
For everything created by God is good,

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT MAN IS BASICALLY EVIL?

The proposition that man is basically evil is normally defended by quoting the following verses:

Romans 3:9-12
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.”

Romans 3:22-23
For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

ANALYSIS

There are no quotes in the bible stating that man is basically evil. There are, however, numerous passages that point out the sinfulness and weakness of man, but none of them even implicitly states that man is basically evil. There are, however, numerous examples that demonstrate both explicitly and implicitly that man is basically good. The assumption that man is basically evil is non-biblical. Instead man is basically good but suffers from a fallen nature.

The book of Romans as quoted above is the chief source for defending the idea that man is basically evil. Such an interpretation of these verses is clearly problematic for the following reasons:

1. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul says that all are under the power of sin. This is a reference to the “Fall” and the burden of original sin. Paul is speaking of Jews and gentiles as equal in their damaged state of inheritance, and that the Jews need grace and redemption just as much as the gentiles. All of mankind needs redemption, and man is prone to sin, but this fact does not mean that man is basically evil.
2. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:1-5. Paul makes reference to the Psalm by saying, “as it is written,” and he would not have made that remark or quoted so much of the passage word for word, if he did not intend for us to look to the psalm in order to place his own statements within the Old Testament context. The context of Psalm 14 is made clear in the first verse which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.” Then in verse four and five the psalm reads, “Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” Psalm 14 clearly distinguishes between the evil doers (i.e. the fool that says there is no God) and “my people”….”the generation of the righteous.” This is in harmony with all of the above scriptures that state that man is basically good.
3. Romans 3:22-23 and Romans 11:32 merely reiterate what Paul speaks of in reference to Psalm 14. While these verses clearly show that men are under the burden of original sin and that men commit personal sin, they do not state either explicitly or implicitly that man is basically evil.
4. Scripture does not contradict itself. If the Book of Romans or any other book of scripture actually indicated that man was basically evil, then those passages would “clearly” and “directly” contradict Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:31, Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 12:2, Matt 12:35, Luke 1:6, Luke 23:50, Mark 6:20, Acts 7:20, and 1 Tim 4:4.

Some might suggest that the differences between the propositions that “man has a fallen nature” and that “man is basically evil” are simply a matter of semantics. This, however, is not the case. These two principles are foundational to the differing views on justification and grace. Consider the view of a Five Point Calvinist. The “TULIP” acronym clearly illustrates that Calvinist reform theology depends upon the assumption that man is basically evil.

 

[heenan]

Sorry cOach…

I attempted to reply, but in doing so I merely posted your quote.

Upon attmepting to edit the post, I passed the 20 minute time limit for edits. Oh well - it was a good response - sorry .