John 6:44 and Eternal Security

[Pax]

Taken from Post by heenan/cOach

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.

You should read the following verses carefully.

Psalm 69:28
Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.

Ezekial 33:13-16
Though I say to the righteous that they shall surely live, yet if they trust in their righteousness and commit iniquity, none of their righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” yet if they turn from their sin and do what is lawful and right-if the wicked restore the pledge, give back what they have taken by robbery, and walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity-they shall surely live, they shall not die. None of the sins that they have committed shall be remembered against them; they have done what is lawful and right, they shall surely live.

Ezk 18:21-31
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die. Yet you say, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” O house of Israel, are my ways unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

Revelation 3:4-5
Yet you have still a few persons in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; they will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

Matthew 24: 9-10
"Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another.

 

[Pax]

I’ve gotta go folks…the wife thinks I’ve abandoned her for my new friends at the forum. God bless one and all. I’ll try to check in tomorrow evening to see what you’re up to.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Elizabeth:

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.

Hi Elizabeth, thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that there are verses that seemingly go both ways in this, however I feel that when one examines both positions and reads works from both sides…it is the Calvinist viewpoint that is the most logically consistent and is able to account for the entire Bible.

I notice a lot of works from the Non-Calvinist side are forced to say things like “John 6 can’t mean what it seems to mean because of John 15.” For example, see pg. 83 of Akin’s “The Salvation Controversy” John 6:36-40,44 is the most important prooftext for Calvinism because it teaches all five points. Akin only deals with it in a footnote, and not exegetically.

For a counter example you can find Calvinist works which deal fully with the Arminian prooftexts. James white (popular guy, I know) deals exegetically and consistently with the “Big 3” Arminian verses: Mt 23:37, 1 Tim 2:4, and 2 Pet 3:9. He spends an entire chapter looking at each one in context and handles the passages fairly and consistently.

I find the Calvinist position to be the most consistent in handling all the verses in the Bible.

Sorry if I confused you, I can ramble sometimes,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

DVIN CKS:

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”?

Well, the Bible doesn’t really address newborn babies, but there are some differing views. I believe that newborn babies are saved and are elect, but this is just my belief based on what I believe God’s character demonstrates. Same thing with stillborn babies. Section 10.3 in the Westminster Confession of Faith addresses this.

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?

The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things, so if the girl grew to be 18 and died without ever being regenerated, she wasn’t one of the elect–at infancy nor at age 18. God had planned what would happen in her life before the foundation of the world.

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!!!

But this is an impossible situation–God, who is sovereign over all things, would not have watched over her life saying, “Okay, she’s an infant now, so if she dies today, she’s coming to heaven…oh goodness sakes she’s still kickin’…now she’s 10…now 18…well she’s no longer elect unless she asks Jesus into her heart…whoops that truck hit her…she should have died when she was a baby when she had the chance.”

Those whom God elects are elect from conception until physical death. They can’t lose their status, nor can they do anything of themselves to gain it.

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
–Romans 8:30

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Katholikos:

Did the Apostles teach OSAS or Eternal Security? No.

Then would you be able to answer the questions I raised earlier about John 6:36-40,44 and Acts 4:27-28? You do believe the writers of these passages were apostles, correct?

Did the early Church teach OSAS or Eternal Security? No

Yes

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10164&postcount=26

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

The Bible teaches it and so did Augustine, long before Luther or Calvin did. See previous answer.

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

Would you please back up your point then by exegeting John 6 to show that it doesn’t teach TULIP? Thanks!

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

JPrejean:

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.

JPrejean, thanks for your thoughtful and civil response. Can I ask…have you read much by compatibilists on this? Pp 43-45 of the book Debating Calvinism by White and Hunt addresses this. Genesis 50:20 (Joseph’s brothers intended evil, God intended it for good) and Isaiah 10:5-7,12 (God uses Assyria to punish Israel, and then punishes the Assyrians for their actions) show that God uses the evil intentions of men’s hearts for His plans.

Acts 4:27-28 which describes the crucifixion–the most evil deed done by anyone–as God’s plan all along. It teaches that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel all did what God’s hand and God’s purpose predestined to occur. Were the men ever held accountable for their wills and desires? Certainly. But was the certainty of the Cross and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross dependent upon man’s will? No way.

It was one action, God’s decree…sinful on the part of the intentions of the men involved, and yet in full harmony with the holy purpose of God, to His glory and praise.

As Joseph told his brothers:

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
–Genesis 50:20

Joseph’s brothers intentions were obviously evil–they sold their brother into slavery and lied to their father about it. But God had intended the evil actions for good. Mans intentions and God’s sovereign decree are compatible with one another–this is what the Bible teaches.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

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.”

Could man apart from any divine intervention please God?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Elizabeth:

Prob. s/o expl. them already but a straightforward answer ASAP would be brill. PTL.
TTFN

BRILLIANT!


Thanks for keeping it light Elizabeth!

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

heenan:

Sorry cOach…

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

I hate it when that happens. Thanks for getting back to me.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Pax:

I’ve gotta go folks…the wife thinks I’ve abandoned her for my new friends at the forum.

And here I am at 1:30 in the morning trying to respond to everyone personally…thanks for the reminder of the important things, PAX.

PAX with you, and to all my buddies on this forum.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[speaker]

I for one, just don’t have that kind of security. I am afraid that I will go to hell everyday - hellaphobia. It all started in the fourth grade when I was having this conversation with someone. We talked about UFOs and Hell. In the end, UFOs were false and Hell was real. Well, that definately had an impact on me.

Anyway,
Whatever stance we take, No man can know Who are the elect. So then how can a man speak of any security? In any case, maybe then some people can be sure of going to hell as much as some are sure they are going to heaven.

The fact is no one can be sure; so this isn’t a real subject for men. The elect will be saved; but no man knows who they are. We can take a good guess; but we don’t stalk people and track their every move; and why would anyone do that anyway?

I can’t claim eternal security can I? Who knows, (but God) what state my soul is in. (hmm… i fell off the predestination theme) I mean, what conidition God has put my soul in. (or in my eyes will put me in.) Who knows what God will do then? Maybe I will fall away. And then I never was elect anyway. Maybe I am already fallen away. Maybe I never came in then? I am sure I fell away? But Im not sure because I can’t be sure; only God knows because He determined it. Eternal Security makes sense, but I don’t think any person can say they have it. But then, No one has it.

 

[_Christopher]

c0achmcguirk:

Hi all,

I’m about to leave for a 3 day camping trip with my family. I appreciate the attempts to answer my questions, but one thing was striking.

No one answered the very relevant questions I raised.

Instead of referring me to the Catechism, other Bible verses (unless they are in the context of the verses I brought up), or just plain ol’ personal theology, I’d like direct answers to the questions I asked.

I notice all too often in this debate that the first thing people do when they can’t answer a question is refer to other verses that don’t speak to the issue. The passages I raised all have to do with God’s sovereignty. They are in the Bible. You can’t sweep them under the rug by just posting other verses. You have to be able to give an answer for them.

I do have Akin’s book, The Salvation Controversy. He’s very close to Calvinism, yet doesn’t believe in Perseverance.

Anyway, would anyone care to take a stab at those questions with direct answers?

God bless,
c0ach

If you could answer my objections to eternal security with a reasoned approach to each Scripture, I would be thrilled, because eternal security is very attractive…I just don’t think it is Biblical.

Take a look please…

www2.ministries-online.org/s0uljah/heresies/eternal_security.html

I don’t see any logical way that eternal security is true.

If you don’t want to tackle all of them, how about this one:

“It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come…” - Hebrews 6:4-5

This is clearly speaking about saved believers, because who else is enlightened and has become a partaker of the Holy Spirit?

It goes on to say:

“if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” - Hebrews 6:6

These weren’t people who simply committed a sin. These were people who walked in the things of God, but fell away. In other words, these were apostates, people who rejected their confession of faith and belief in the Son of God. And there are people who have done this, as hard as it is to believe.

If someone who was a partaker of the Holy Spirit and was enlightened, what more could you tell them that they didn’t already know? What could you say that would open their hearts? Can someone be guaranteed Heaven if they crucify Jesus all over again? Surely not.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

_Christopher_:

If you could answer my objections to eternal security with a reasoned approach to each Scripture, I would be thrilled, because eternal security is very attractive…I just don’t think it is Biblical.

Hi Cristopher,

My position is identical to the Protestant reformers, which is better termed Perseverance of the Saints. Eternal Security and Once Saved Always Saved usually apply to the concept that if you say the sinner’s prayer you are saved from that point on, no matter what you do, and I agree with you that this concept is anti-Biblical.

The position I hold states that a true Christian can not fall away. John 6:36-40,44 show this (Jesus will not lose any of those given to Him) and 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
–1 John 2:19

See caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Boettner/5points/perseverance.htm

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Pax]

c0achmcguirk:

Could man apart from any divine intervention please God?

God bless,
c0ach

I’m getting ready to leave for work so I don’t have time to address your question. I do find it odd, however, that you responded to my post about man being basically evil or good with an irrelevant question. It is a good question, but it simply isn’t on task in addressing my post. Please try again. I assume that this happens to everyone when they’re trying answer people at 1:00am. I don’t think I could spell “cat” or “dog” at that hour of the morning.

Have a great day.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Pax:

I’m getting ready to leave for work so I don’t have time to address your question. I do find it odd, however, that you responded to my post about man being basically evil or good with an irrelevant question

I don’t think its irrelevant. If man, without God’s assistance, cannot choose or please God, then man is not “basically good.”

Would you agree with that?

God bless,
c0ach

Note: I added the the word “choose” to the premise, not to slip one by you, but to word it a bit differently and hopefully clarify its relevance.

 

[system]

c0achmcguirk:

The question I asked is very relevant to the issue and cannot be dismissed so easily.

How does God know the future?

It is not an answer to say, “Well, because God is omniscient.” Because that is reiteration of the premise in the question. You are saying God knows the future because God knows the future. It’s circular.

You’re left, as far as I can tell, with three alternatives.

You could say that God is able to predict the future based on calculating the odds of each possible situation and therefore is able accurately predict the future. This assumes that all things can be predicted without outside interference–even electrons.

You could say that God doesn’t know the future, so as to keep man’s free will intact. He just uses hunches and guesses and predictions This is the view held by Open Theists.

Or you could say that God determines the future by His sovereignty and actions. This is the viewpoint I believe the Bible teaches.

A fourth position, that doesn’t seek to answer how God knows the future, is what you are putting forth, and is also the view held by Norm Geisler in Chosen But Free. This is the “God knows the future because He is able to see the future.” This assumes the philosophical meaning of foreknowledge rather than the Biblical one.

Back to the Oswald example–you said that it would be impossible for Oswald to act otherwise. He would *still * assassinate Kennedy. The definition of free will is “the ability to act or to act otherwise.” If Oswald could not act otherwise, as you claim, then does it not follow that Oswald does not have free will?

God bless,
c0ach

THis is not it at all, Coach, and I don’t think you are even attempting to look at what pax is saying. God does not ‘know’ the future because he can somehow ‘predict’ the future with absolute certainty (and by the way, it is not circular to say that God knows the ‘future’ becuase he knows everything (omniscient) anymore than it is to day that Truth is true becuase it is true - it is part of the ‘definition’).

God is outside of time. ‘Always’ is the present to Him. Time (or rather, the measure of change) appears to us becuase that is how God decided to make it. That does not detract from Him. pax’s position is not the one you are suggesting he is putting forth (I guess this is your confused interpretation of things from not reading some of these posts? ). What pax is saying (and he put it more clearly than I will so you should reread his post and then you should reread it again) is that God knows all things becuase they are all present to him always. His answer to your hypothetical (and I must add, silly) question about a written ‘prediction’ by God was very clear and concise and does not detract from free will at all. Oswald ‘could’ most certainly act other wise but by his own free will would choose the outcome that God already knows. This isn’t difficult. Don’t make it so.

 

[system]

c0achmcguirk:

Then would you be able to answer the questions I raised earlier about John 6:36-40,44 and Acts 4:27-28? You do believe the writers of these passages were apostles, correct?

Yes

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10164&postcount=26

The Bible teaches it and so did Augustine, long before Luther or Calvin did. See previous answer.

Would you please back up your point then by exegeting John 6 to show that it doesn’t teach TULIP? Thanks!

God bless,
c0ach

I’m sure this has been done time and time again. I’ll do it again for you but it will take some time (since I’m at work). But needless to say, neither Jesus, the apostles, not Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic Church (through Her written or oral Tradition) - early or late - ever taught TULIP as it is envisioned in your estimate by the ‘reformers’ (Calvin, et. al.). Pulling a few ECF quotes out to make it seem so doesn’t actually make it so.

(BTW - how do you quote quotes on this board?)