OSAS and John 10:27-28

[steve_b]

Your point wasn’t about shepherds’ voices; it was about conditional statements.

Go back and look at what you responded to

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
It’s a conditional statement. The conditions must be met or the conclusion won’t happen

In that post I said (emphasis mine for effect)

" there are people that THINK they listen to Jesus voice
there are people that THINK they follow Him"

“Listen and follow Jesus means to do everything He says to do”
G:

And so, we’d hope that they wouldn’t make claims that they couldn’t support.

But they **DO **make false claims

The visual I showed Do sheep only obey their Master’s voice? - YouTube , supports what I said. The shepherds sheep, didn’t follow another’s voice. Catholics follow Jesus the shepherd’s voice. Protestants depending on the 50,000 different sectarian stripe, follow the voice of the one WHO STARTED THEM**.** And that isn’t Jesus. If they followed Jesus they would be Catholic

 

[JohnR77]

It’s a conditional statement. The conditions must be met or the conclusion won’t happen

there are people that THINK they listen to Jesus voice
there are people that THINK they follow Him

How can people think they do these and aren’t in His Church, faithfully living and receiving His sacraments?

Again it’s a conditional conclusion. The conditions mentioned must be met, and met continuously till the end of one’s life, or that conclusion won’t happen…

Listen and follow Jesus means to do everything He says to do for one’s entire life. Protestants can’t do that while remaining Protestant, outside Our Lord’s Church.

Since you have shown - at the bear minimum - that there is at least one other interpretation than the one that the OSAS people hold, then how can the the OSAS individuals claim to have an absolute assurance that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one ?

Good job.

:dancing:

 

[Gorgias]

Go back and look at what you responded to

In that post I said (emphasis mine for effect)

" there are people that THINK they listen to Jesus voice
there are people that THINK they follow Him"

Fair enough. However, none of that proves your assertion of a “conditional statement.”

 

[Gorgias]

Since you have shown - at the bear minimum - that there is at least one other interpretation than the one that the OSAS people hold, then how can the the OSAS individuals claim to have an absolute assurance that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one ?

That’s easy… Because they’d claim that his interpretation is wrong, and therefore, only theirs is correct.

 

[Pwrlftr]

That’s easy… Because they’d claim that his interpretation is wrong, and therefore, only theirs is correct.

Gorgias,

Isn’t it possible that the verse(s) are not conditional and that Jesus was talking to those who are given the gift of final perseverance? That is certainly a perfectly acceptable Catholic interpretation.
Haydock:

From the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 28. They shall not perish for ever: and no man shall snatch them out of my hand. He speaks of his elect, of those whom he called by a special Providence and mercy, whom he blessed with more than ordinary graces, and with the gift of final perseverance to the end in his grace.

 

[steve_b]

Fair enough. However, none of that proves your assertion of a “conditional statement.”

There are 2 flocks described

One flock hears and follows Jesus, the others don’t. They aren’t in Our Lord’s flock. Jesus spoke to THEM and they don’t listen, nor follow Him .

Therefore what happens for those IN Jesus flock, doesn’t happen for those who are NOT in Jesus flock.

The following describes a conditional statement by Jesus. The condition ( listen and follow) must be met or the benefits ( I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand) doesn’t happen.

Jn 10:24 So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Because we have free will, we need to persevere in being faithful to listening and following Him till the end so we receive the benefits He promises.

 

[porthos11]

Well, since Catholics believe in predestination, the sheep could easily be interpreted to mean the elect, which case, there’s no difficulty with the passage.

 

[steve_b]

Well, since Catholics believe in predestination, the sheep could easily be interpreted to mean the elect, which case, there’s no difficulty with the passage.

Except that even the elect don’t know they are the elect unless they have some sort of absolute epiphany from God.

Was Paul not one of the elect? Yet why then would he say of himself

1 Cor 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Based on God’s perfect knowledge, He knows in advance the choices we will make right up to the end of Our lives. And He predestines what He knows that we will do. He does NOT predestine one to hell regardless of their choices. That’s double predestination, and it’s condemned. That is Calvin’s teaching.

 

[porthos11]

Except that even the elect don’t know they are the elect unless they have some sort of absolute epiphany from God.

Was Paul not one of the elect? Yet why then would he say of himself

1 Cor 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Based on God’s perfect knowledge, He knows in advance the choices we will make right up to the end of Our lives. And He predestines what He knows that we will do. He does NOT predestine one to hell regardless of their choices. That’s double predestination, and it’s condemned. That is Calvin’s teaching.

True, we don’t know whether we’re of the elect or not but I don’t see the passage in question address that particular point anyway. Neither does it address reprobation, but only the “sheep” who will not be lost. We know this is true of the elect, whoever they are.

Just saying that the passage can be used to refer to the elect without any issues or violation of Catholic teaching, or with any OSAS nonsense. It does not exclude free will, the possibility of mortal sin during one’s lifetime, or the need for perseverance in grace to the end.

 

[JohnR77]

I wrote:

Since you [SteveB] have shown - at the -]bear/-] bare minimum - that there is at least one other interpretation than the one that the OSAS people hold, then how can the the OSAS individuals claim to have an absolute assurance that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one ?

That’s easy… Because they’d claim that his interpretation is wrong, and therefore, only theirs is correct.

Gorgias, your argument is wrong and they do not have absolute assurance that the possible (and correct) interpretation pointed out by SteveB (and myself) is NOT POSSIBLE unless you can provide and Absolute Proof that this explanation is not possible. You cannot do that. And, as I implied the OSAS individuals cannot

“have an absolute assurance that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one.”

Please read (my grammar mistakes not withstanding) more carefully.
I don’t enjoy being forced to point out the obvious.

OSAS individuals try to latch onto the word “never” and claim it refers to their claim that a saved person can “never” forsake his salvation, that a person in the good sheep category can never later place himself into the bad sheep category.

I realize that Steveb and others point out that we can never know this side of judgement whether we belong to the Elect – to which I agree - but I wish to make another point. There is another way of reading this verse, John 10:28, besides being a statement about those predestined [by God’s knowledge] of going to heaven.

This second possible interpretation means that the OSAS individuals have no ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that their private interpretation of “never” is the only possible one, therefore they have NO absolute assurance that their interpretation is the correct one, and therefore No absolute assurance that they are going to heaven.

Second possible interpretation for “never”

The OSAS individuals want to claim that the word “never” means that they will never lose their salvation.

“Never lose his life” or “never perish” describes a condition or a gift that is possessed by those who are in the saved state of being, it does not refer to whether or not those individuals will remain in that saved state of being, the good sheep.

(Besides, being part of the good sheep means more than just not perishing or not dying spiritually.)

For example, I might say, “I do not like to be dry, so I dove into the lake where I am never dry.” This does not mean I may not that I will not later get out of the lake and then become dry.

People, especially as described above, can be constantly faced with the fear of physical death. Jesus says follow me and you will never have to worry about physical death because with Me even if you physically die you will never spiritually die.

Compare
John 6:46-66
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Yet, not everyone who goes to Holy Communion will necessarily go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34
“ ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ … 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. …lest you come together to be condemned.”
​

Therefore, the people being referred to in John 10:28 do not necessarily have an absolute assurance that they will go to heaven. They may choose to later leave Jesus and go out of the good sheep category and forfeit the gifts of eternal life.

.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias,

Isn’t it possible that the verse(s) are not conditional and that Jesus was talking to those who are given the gift of final perseverance? That is certainly a perfectly acceptable Catholic interpretation.

They’d never admit that it’s a reasonable explanation, though…

 

[guanophore]

No one can ever steal them from my hand…this is very Catholic.

But one on their own, through pride and disobedience, can reject God’s love and gift of everlasting life. We have free will to say “no thank you.”

The parable of the vine shows what can happen, an explicit counter to OSAS: a branch attached to the vine (definitely a believer) can be cutoff, bundled, and thrown into the fire.

And for what it is worth, in reading the writings of the early Church - and scripture, one can not find the words “once saved, always saved,” nor the theology itself. St. Paul makes this very clear in his writings as well…to run the race…that he judges himself not…God is his judge.

Right on Porknpie!

No one can snatch us out of His hand, but we still have the freedom to JUMP out!

 

[Gorgias]

There are 2 flocks described

One flock hears and follows Jesus, the others don’t. They aren’t in Our Lord’s flock. Jesus spoke to THEM and they don’t listen, nor follow Him .

Therefore what happens for those IN Jesus flock, doesn’t happen for those who are NOT in Jesus flock.

The following describes a conditional statement by Jesus. The condition ( listen and follow) must be met or the benefits ( I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand) doesn’t happen.

This is a statement that is logically incorrect.

Let’s suppose you have two statements: “listen and follow” and “receive eternal life”. In logical terms, let’s call “listen and follow” P and “receive eternal life” Q.

Now, the logical statement ‘if P then Q’ (or, symbolically, P → Q) is the one you’re talking about. You’re claiming that P → Q has the same value as ‘if not-P then not-Q’ (or, symbolically, ~P → ~Q). That is patently false. I could give you the truth table, but an example will suffice.

Let’s suppose that P is “Fluffy is a dog” and Q is “Fluffy is a mammal.” P->Q is then “if Fluffy is a dog, then Fluffy is a mammal.” That’s clearly true. However, you’re asserting that “if Fluffy is not a dog, then Fluffy is not a mammal.” That’s false. (Fluffy could be a cat.)

So, your logic fails here.

Moreover, you’ve created a “conditional” that isn’t in the text. You even quoted it for us:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

The statement here is “you do not believe (me) because you do not belong to my sheep.” There’s another statement as well: “I give [my sheep] eternal life.” These two only imply “if you are my sheep, then I will give you eternal life”, but they do not imply “I will not give eternal life to those who are not my sheep.” (After all, the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for those who through no fault of their own have not come to belief.)

 

[steve_b]

This is a statement that is logically incorrect.

Let’s suppose you have two statements: “listen and follow” and “receive eternal life”. In logical terms, let’s call “listen and follow” P and “receive eternal life” Q.

Now, the logical statement ‘if P then Q’ (or, symbolically, P → Q) is the one you’re talking about. You’re claiming that P → Q has the same value as ‘if not-P then not-Q’ (or, symbolically, ~P → ~Q). That is patently false. I could give you the truth table, but an example will suffice.

Let’s suppose that P is “Fluffy is a dog” and Q is “Fluffy is a mammal.” P->Q is then “if Fluffy is a dog, then Fluffy is a mammal.” That’s clearly true. However, you’re asserting that “if Fluffy is not a dog, then Fluffy is not a mammal.” That’s false. (Fluffy could be a cat.)

So, your logic fails here.

Moreover, you’ve created a “conditional” that isn’t in the text. You even quoted it for us:

The statement here is “you do not believe (me) because you do not belong to my sheep.” There’s another statement as well: “I give [my sheep] eternal life.” These two only imply “if you are my sheep, then I will give you eternal life”, but they do not imply “I will not give eternal life to those who are not my sheep.” (After all, the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for those who through no fault of their own have not come to belief.)

The context of the thread is John 10:27-28. I just included context.

when I quoted (emphasis mine)

“Jn 10:24 So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”

The Jews Jesus is talking to, according to (Mt 15 below) are members of (“the lost sheep of the house of Israel”) .

These Jews wanted Jesus to specifically say He is the Christ, because they thought He was keeping them in suspense by not saying specifically He’s the “Christ”.

These Jews therefore, don’t believe Jesus is the Christ. So in extension, they don’t believe Jesus is their shepherd, and in reverse, Jesus is saying they aren’t His sheep.

So my analogies of “sheep” and shepherd, and each recognizing the other, and sheep recognizing the shepherd’s voice, and following the shepherd, and resulting conditions if that relationship happens or doesn’t happen remains viable.

consider an additional example,

**Matt 15: 22 **And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[e] 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Even after He said to her "“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

She wasn’t phased. She hung in there under some formidable pressure.

So I ask, have any conditions previously mentioned in my posts, been overturned here?

She recognized Jesus for who He is, otoh, the Jews (lost sheep) in the story didn’t
She demonstrated faith in Him, the Jews ( lost sheep) in the story didn’t
She wouldn’t be shewed away from Jesus. I’m not sure that could be said about the (lost sheep) Jews in the story
Jesus took care of her (this little lamb) and her utmost need because of her faith

If she was scared off would the good results she received, have happened? Those are all conditions, and they separate and distinguish sheep and shepherd

No question, Jesus was rough on her as were the apostles. Yet she wouldn’t leave Jesus.
Unlike the Jews (lost sheep) above who were in a fog, she was clear on who Jesus is.
She knelt before Him, she called Him Lord, master, and Son of David. The Jews didn’t do that.
This lamb who recognized her shepherd and would not go away from Him even when other forces tried to push her away she remained firm. Unlike the (lost sheep)

Go back and look at my previous posts and examples. They’re consistent, logical, and the necessary conditions for desired results were met.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, your argument is wrong and they do not have absolute assurance that the possible (and correct) interpretation pointed out by SteveB (and myself) is NOT POSSIBLE unless you can provide and Absolute Proof that this explanation is not possible. You cannot do that.

That’s not what I’m claiming. I don’t have to provide a proof to you… I’m just saying that they’ll have a ‘proof’ that they’ll claim is sufficient (and therefore, in their mind, is sufficient for them to continue to make their claims with what (in their minds) is ‘absolute assurance’.)

I don’t enjoy being forced to point out the obvious.

Nor do I.

OSAS individuals try to latch onto the word “never” and claim it refers to their claim that a saved person can “never” forsake his salvation, that a person in the good sheep category can never later place himself into the bad sheep category.

Agreed. And, they’ll use that interpretation to ‘prove’ that you’re wrong. Your attempt to say “I demonstrated my point and therefore, you can’t claim absolute assurance” will fall on deaf ears, no matter how much you tell them that it defeats their claim.

“Never lose his life” or “never perish” describes a condition or a gift that is possessed by those who are in the saved state of being, it does not refer to whether or not those individuals will remain in that saved state of being, the good sheep.

That’s the whole problem: you’re making one claim about what it means, and they’re making another. Do you really think that the presence of a competing claim is gonna make them fold up their tents and go home? For crying out loud, I’m finding weaknesses in Steve’s arguments; if I think his argument is weak – and I’m inclined to agree with his conclusions, since I’m Catholic – do you really think an OSAS believer is gonna say “yeah, I guess the fact that you’ve made a claim (that I think is wrong) trumps my belief!”…??? :nope:

For example, I might say, “I do not like to be dry, so I dove into the lake where I am never dry.” This does not mean I may not that I will not later get out of the lake and then become dry.

Yes, you might say that. Of course, they’d then respond, “perhaps… but Jesus isn’t assuring me that I’ll be always wet.”

 

[Gorgias]

The context of the thread is John 10:27-28. I just included context.

Go back and look at my previous posts and examples. They’re consistent, logical, and the necessary conditions for desired results were met.

Nope. You claimed a ‘conditional’. You haven’t demonstrated a conditional. Worse yet, you’ve claimed that if the conditional is true, so is the inverse (which is quite incorrect).

 

[steve_b]

Nope. You claimed a ‘conditional’. You haven’t demonstrated a conditional. Worse yet, you’ve claimed that if the conditional is true, so is the inverse (which is quite incorrect).

take 2 aspirin and get a good night sleep.

 

[Gorgias]

take 2 aspirin and get a good night sleep.

LOL!

(Won’t make your logic any more sound, though… )

 

[guanophore]

This is a statement that is logically incorrect.

Moreover, you’ve created a “conditional” that isn’t in the text. You even quoted it for us:

On the contrary, I think Steve b has correctly identified this as a conditional phrase. Further, it is clearly in the text, not only in this place, but others as well.

**

Gorgias:
The statement here is “you do not believe (me) because you do not belong to my sheep.” There’s another statement as well: “I give [my sheep] eternal life.” These two only imply “if you are my sheep, then I will give you eternal life”, but they do not imply “I will not give eternal life to those who are not my sheep.” (After all, the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for those who through no fault of their own have not come to belief.)**

Scripture is clear that those who do not obey Him (hear His voice) will not enter into eternal life. Your last point is also false. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. All who are in the Church are in Christ, and all who hear Him and follow His voice are members of His flock. They may not realize they are in His flock, but when they follow their conscience and obey His voice, they are in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

LOL!

(Won’t make your logic any more sound, though… )

Darn! I was hoping.nn