|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| The following essay is something I wrote after doing much research and personal study. I'm sure some will disagree with the premise, content, and conclusions but this is something I feel I had to write. This is also something that I have been struggling with personally and I felt as though putting my thoughts in literary form would have a cathartic affect. Please read what I wrote and feel free to offer any comments or constructive criticisms you may have. Btw, this is the shorter, condensed version for xanga readability. I left a lot of quotes and arguments out so that this essay wouldn't become too long.
Of all the theological schools of thought that exist within modern Christendom the two that are the most recognizable and most famous are the Calvinist’s and Arminians. Questions concerning God’s sovereignty, man’s freedom, and the role of grace in salvation are questions that have been pondered over for nearly 2,000 years of Church history. The Calvinist/Arminian controversy raged in the 16th and 17th centuries; Similar issues were raised and debated in the 5th century when Augustine dealt with the Pelagian controversy. Yet, very few people know that a similar debate occurred in the 2nd and 3rd centuries within the early Church.
This theological conflict was not represented by Calvin and Arminius or Augustine and Pelagius, but was conducted by those calling themselves orthodox and others calling themselves Gnostics. To many the Gnostics are better known for their doctrines related to secret knowledge or gnosis and their bizarre teachings concerning the person and ministry of Christ. It is true that many of the arguments between the orthodox fathers and the gnostics focused upon Christological issues, or questions concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Many Gnostic sects believed Jesus was not physically real but only appeared to be of a human form, while others believed Jesus was truly a man but not God incarnate.
Nevertheless, during these theological quarrels other issues appeared on the periphery that related to soteriology and the human condition. In fact, when the battle lines were drawn and each side had clarified it’s position it was the Gnostics who closely resembled the Calvinist’s in their beliefs and teachings while the orthodox fathers were more closely related to the Arminian camp. This is not to say that Gnostic exactly correlates to Calvinist because this would simply be a characterization and totally incorrect. Calvinism most definitely is not plagued by the Christological errors and deficiencies of ancient Gnosticism and does not contain bizarre teachings about a pleroma of deities and salvation through secret gnosis. These differences still do not change the fact that both Gnosticism and Calvinism share many similar beliefs related to God’s sovereignty, grace, and human ability.
First and foremost, both Calvinism and Gnosticism share the same basic belief that human beings are inherently incapable of responding to God’s grace in their natural condition. One passage that is consistently in dispute is Jesus’ discourse with the Jewish leaders recorded in the 8th chapter of the gospel of John. Commenting on Heracleon’s commentary on the gospel of John, Elaine Pagels writes, “the reason they can neither hear the word of Jesus nor understand his speech is given in the saying, ’you are of the father of the devil’ meaning, ’of the being of the devil’…that is that they had been preelected neither to be children of Abraham nor of God.” [1]
Compare the Gnostic understanding of the passage with that of traditional Reformed exegetes. Elucidating on John 8 Reformed apologist James White writes, “Again the Reformed and biblical view of man is presented with force: Jesus teaches that the Jews cannot (there’s that word of inability again) hear His word and do not understand what He is saying. He is not saying they are confused: He is saying they lack the spiritual ability to appraise spiritual truths. Their nature is fleshly, natural, and in fact demoniac, in that they desire to do the desires of their father, the devil.” [2]
As one can plainly see, the Gnostic and Calvinist interpretation of John 8 share much in common. They both agree that the Jews’ inability to understand Jesus’ message is because they are naturally children of the devil and unable to comprehend Jesus’ teaching. Continuing to speak about John 8 Pagels develops Heracleon’s thought writing, “The biological metaphor is meant to show that their affinity (whether with God or the devil) occurs (like natural, biological sonship) prior to, and apart from, any choice or activity on the son’s part. Therefore the pneumatics do ’the will of the Father’ spontaneously since He has willed to elect them.” [3] The pneumatics are synonymous with the Gnostics who regarded themselves as elect individuals, or people chosen by God for salvation since salvation was based totally on the will of the Father.
In addition to a belief in an election to grace the Gnostics also believed in an election to damnation or reprobation. “Apparently the Valentinians have concluded that the doctrine of election to grace necessarily is correlated with a doctrine of election to reprobation. Those who are elected to reprobation are “naturally incapable” of apprehending faith and truth.” [4] The Valentinians were nothing more than one particular school of gnostic teaching who took their name from their teacher Valentinus. One can clearly see that the gnostics believed the doctrines of election and reprobation were extremely important. In fact, speaking of Heracleon’s exegetical focus Pagel’s writes, “Heracleon takes the doctrine of election as the theological basis of his entire exegesis.” [5]
Writing about the teaching of the Gnostic sage Theodotus Pagel’s writes, “Theodotus, the great teacher of the eastern school, defined the church as the "chosen race," those "chosen before the foundation of the world." Their salvation was certain, predestined - and exclusive.” [6] Here is how one Reformed Baptist defines the doctrine of election, “Election is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure, and on account of no forseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.” [7] Commenting on the exchange between Jesus and the woman at the well in John 4 the Gnostic sage, Heracleon, has this to say about the woman’s salvation; He says it depends only on, “the will of the Father in choosing her.” [8]
Commenting on the similarity between the Reformer’s teaching on salvation and gnostic beliefs David Bercot writes, “In contrast, it was once again some of the Gnostic teachers who taught that humans are arbitrarily predestined for salvation and punishment. Obviously, if we are totally depraved as a result of our being created by an unjust, inferior God, our salvation can only come about by arbitrary election from God.” [9] From the quotations adduced it is obvious that Reformed theology and Gnostic teaching have much in common when it comes to questions concerning natural human ability, sovereignty and God’s role in salvation. Even more surprising is the fact that both Reformed exegetes and Gnostic sages concentrated on the same biblical passages to defend their views.
In their discussions with Arminians, Calvinist’s will often focus on Romans chapter 9 and Ephesians 1 as integral texts which buttress their theology. In a like manner, the 2nd and 3rd century Gnostics focused on these exact same passages in their disputes with the orthodox Fathers of the Christian Church. Discussing Romans 9 the Christian teacher Origen talks about the Gnostic view of the passage when he writes, “Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh-that he was hardened by God so that he would not send the people away…Some of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” [10] Furthermore, Elaine Pagels reiterates the same sentiment when she clarifies the Gnostic understanding of Romans chapter 9.
“Origen indicates that this passage had become a locus classicus of controversy between heterodox and orthodox exegetes. He considers the basic issue to be the question of free will. Origen says that his Valentinian opponents “claim that if it depends on God who shows mercy that a person is saved, our salvation is not in our power…but rests solely on the will of Him who, if he wills shows mercy, and confers salvation.” He continues, “it is on these passages primarily that the heretics rely for their claim that salvation is not in our own power…therefore they claim that Pharaoh, who was of choic nature, had been hardened by God who has mercy on those who are of pneumatic nature.” Yet while he represents the Valentinian theologians as determinists, Origen’s account indicates that they use the terms choic and pneumatic nature to designate the alternative of reprobation and election. This, they claim, is what Paul teaches here through the example of Jacob and Esau: Jacob exemplifies the pneumatic whom God chooses apart from works to be among the elect; Esau the choic, excluded from election.” [11]
Pagels continues by explaining the Valentinian response to Origen,
“The Valentinians might well reply to Origen that the apostle himself has anticipated such objections to the doctrine of election: is God unjust (9:14)? Why does God reject some? Who can resist his will (9:19)? They themselves accept the doctrine of election as a primary theme of their theology. The writer of the Gospel of Truth uses the metaphor of this passage to illustrate the election: certain “vessels” are “filled, supplied, and purified”; others are “emptied, overturned, and broken.” Those whom the Father “prepares in advance for glory” (9:23) are the elect, who belong to the “living God,” the Father. The same verse is paraphrased in the Gospel of Thomas: “we are his sons, the elect of the living Father.” [12]
Compare the Gnostic understanding of Romans chapter 9 with a Reformed understanding and a clear pattern of similarity emerges. “What Romans 9.6b proves is that in Paul’s mind the election of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau established an ongoing principle whereby God elects unconditionally the beneficiaries of his blessing not only in the establishment of the nation Israel by Jacob and his sons, but also within that very nation so that “all those from Israel, these are not Israel.” Since the election of Israelites from within (physical) Israel to be (true, spiritual) Israel cannot be construed as an election to “theocratic privileges” (for all physical Israel has those), and since the immediately preceding distinction made between some Israelites and others (Rom 9:3-5) was that some are accursed and cut off from Christ, therefore we must conclude that Paul views “the purpose of God according to election” (9:11c) as a purpose to be free from human influence not only in determination of historical roles but also in the determination of who within Israel are saved and who are not.” [13]
Therefore, it is clear that both Gnostics and Calvinists share similar views concerning depravity and God’s sovereign election in salvation; The natural result of these commonly held beliefs is the corollary of the security of the elect. Since salvation is predicated solely on the will of God and the individual can do nothing to merit salvation, then it logically follows that the elected individual can do nothing to lose his or her secure position within God’s family. Commenting on this belief the 2nd century bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus states, "For just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved." [14]
Since the Gnostics had received a spiritual nature from God they could not lose that nature no matter what sin or impious act they committed because that nature was bestowed out of God’s graciousness and sovereign will, and since it was not earned it could not be retracted on account of personal demerits. Elaborating further Irenaeus writes, "And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them.” [15]
The Gnostics criticized the orthodox Christians for attempting to refrain from sin and live God glorifying lives partly because they thought it unnecessary, but also because they viewed it as an exercise in futility. Since the non-Gnostics did not possess a spiritual nature it was impossible to refrain from sin. On the other hand the Gnostics believed they possessed grace not out of merit but because it was truly grace and given to them because they were elect. As God’s chosen seed they were perfect and did not have to worry about sins committed in this life because they could not forfeit their special position. Moreover, in his commentary on the book of Romans, Origen has to this to say to his Gnostic opponents on the imagery of the branches and the olive tree in Romans 11; “I do not know how those who come forth from the school of Valentinus or Basilides, failing to hear what Paul has said here, should imagine that there is a nature of souls that would always be saved and never perish, and another that would always perish and never be saved.” [16] In that brief excursus Origen not only sets his sight on the issue of security but also election and reprobation as well. Once again it was the Gnostic heretics who embraced election, salvation security, and reprobation while the orthodox fathers argued against such concepts.
Here is how one contemporary Reformed teacher described the concept of the perseverance of the saints. “God is both the author and finisher of our salvation, and He personally guarantees that we will persevere in faith to the end. That does not mean, incidentally, that believers will never fall into sin. We know from the lives of saints such as David and Solomon that it is possible for believers to sin in shameful ways. But what is guaranteed is that no true believer can ever fall away totally and finally from the faith.” [17]
It is perfectly clear that the doctrine of perseverance taught by Calvinist’s is very similar to the one taught by the Gnostics of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This lies in stark contrast to the beliefs held by the orthodox fathers who argued that salvation could be forfeited based on their belief in free will.
Another crucial passage for Reformed apologist’s is Ephesians chapter 1, particularly verses 3-11. Here is how the Gnostics interpreted the verses in question. “What is that pneumatic blessing? That “he has elected us in him before the foundation of the cosmos” (1:4). The apostle refers to the pneumatic ecclesia, “elected before the foundation of the cosmos, accounted together and manifested in the beginning.” The writer of the Gospel of Truth explains that the names of the “little children, to whom belongs the gnosis of the Father,” were manifested in the “living Book of the living,” even “before the foundation of the All.” For the elect were “preordained to be his sons…according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace.” (1:5-6); in the words of Rheginos’ teacher, “we were elected …having been destined from the beginning for redemption.” [18]
In stark contrast to the orthodox fathers the Gnostics vociferously denied that free will existed. Pagels sums it up nicely when she writes, “Valentinian anthropology excludes human freedom and human choice.” [19] Here is how the Reformer Martin Luther put it, “It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He forsees, purposes, and does all things according to his own immutable, eternal, and infallible will. This bombshell knocks “free-will” flat, and utterly destroys it.” [20] I know that some may respond that this is only Luther’s view of free will and that Calvin and the other Reformers had different views regarding free will. Both the Gnostics and Luther absolutely denied the existence of free will, while other Reformed teachers posit some form of free will but one that is critically damaged and severely mitigated. Thus, one might say they believe in free will but argue that man freely chooses to sin but his sinning is still determined by God and occurs necessarily. Although this definition of free will attempts to avoid the extreme of Luther it still does not avoid the fundamental problem inherent in the view, not to mention the fact that is contradictory.
Even under this modified definition there is truly no freedom since the will can only choose one option, that being sin. Therefore, the fundamental issue of free will is denied and this view is no better than that of Luther or the Gnostics. Furthermore, this denial of free will (or severe restriction of it) stands in stark contrast to the opinions of the early fathers. Here are just a few examples:
“This expression, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will is present with him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels as rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies
“But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing Spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice.”
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2.4
“I find then, that man was by God constituted free, master of is own will and power, indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature…You will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God’s calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.”
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 2.5
“He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight, that he might imitate God; and although the first elements of his body were earthly, yet the substance was inspired by a heavenly and divine breathing. And when He had given him all things for his service, He willed that he alone should be free. And lest, again, an unbounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he exercise his free will in the contempt of the law that was given.
Novatian, On the Trinity, chapter 1
“Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone…This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free will and volition.”
Origen, On First Things, Preface
“Now those who decide that man is not possessed of free will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety toward God himself, making him out to be the cause and author of human evils.”
Methodius, The Banquet of Ten Virgins.
“Being the image and the likeness…of the power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a free will this likeness to him whose will is over all.”
Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free will is not lost…It depends therefore on us and on him. We must first choose the good, and then he adds what belongs to him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then he affords us much help…It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to an end.”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews
From these quotations listed above it is plain to see that the orthodox Fathers embraced and defended free will, while our examination of Gnostic beliefs has indicated that it was the Gnostics who denied free will and believed in election and God’s absolute sovereignty. At this point some may interject that Augustine was a proponent of Reformed teaching in the 5th century. Surely, Augustine did argue for God’s sovereignty in election but he did so in stark contrast to the consistent witness of the Church before him. Furthermore, before becoming a Christian Augustine belonged to the Manichaean religion which was a sect of Gnosticism. Could it be possible that Augustine was the Trojan horse that allowed Gnostic beliefs to infiltrate the Church? Although I do not wish to advance a conspiracy theory, the similarity of Augustine’s teaching with that of the Gnostics indicates they may be related.
I am sure this brief examination of Gnostic teaching will irritate some Reformed adherents, but before you dismiss these arguments I ask that you consider two things. First, please do not advance an argument that says, Calvinist’s aren’t Gnostics because Reformed teaching believes Jesus was an actual human being who truly died for our sins and was raised on the third day. I wholeheartedly agree that Reformed theology is not plagued by the Christological errors of ancient Gnosticism. Nevertheless, showing where the two may be dissimilar in one area does not negate the fact they are very similar in another. Pointing out that you hold to an orthodox Christology and interpret the Scriptures literally and not allegorically does not automatically make your doctrines regarding salvation magically different from the Gnostics. Second, if you want to disprove my arguments then you must show how the early Church advocated the positions advanced by men like Luther, Calvin, and other Protestant teachers. Prove that Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, or any other father before Augustine were strict predestinationists. Show that these fathers were not more Arminian in their mindset, but actually more Calvinistic. On the flip side, you could also attempt to prove that the Gnostics were more Arminian and not Calvinistic. This would also buttress the claim that the Gnostics views were rightfully deemed heretical in the eyes of the orthodox Church of the early centuries.
Finally, one may be inclined to argue that perhaps the Gnostics were the ones who were correct in areas of salvation of doctrine, while the teachers we consider orthodox were wrong. Before anyone tries to advance this position consider carefully the drastic consequences it may have on our faith. First, it would require a drastic revision of Church history; All the teachers we consider orthodox must now be deemed suspect at best, and heretical at worst. Moreover, one could also reason that since the Gnostics were right about questions related to salvation they must also have been correct in Christology, biblical hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and a whole host of other issues. This raises the disturbing possibility that perhaps the Gnostics were right when they argued Jesus didn’t truly exist, or that the Scriptures should be interpreted allegorically, or that the creation as we know is evil and inferior. If one wants to argue that the Gnostics were right in salvation concerns, one must also be open to the possibility they got things right in other areas as well.
In conclusion, this study is by no means exhaustive or the definitive word but it does begin to make the case that Gnosticism and Augustinism/Calvinism share some striking similarities. I hope that those who read this will atleast consider the evidence as it is presented and, whether you agree with or not, critique the argument based on it’s merits and the evidence, and not on theological faithfulness or presuppositions.
[1] The Gnostic John: Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 102
[2] The Potter’s Freedom, James White. Pg. 112
[3] The Gnostic John, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 104
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 115
[7] Systematic Theology, A.H. Strong. Pg. 779
[8] The Gnostic John, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 108
[9] Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up, David Bercot. Pg. 73
[10] On First Things, Origen
[11] The Gnostic Paul, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 38
[12] Ibid
[13] The Justification of God, John Piper. Pg. 66-67
[14] Against Heresies, Irenaeus. Pg. 324
[15] Ibid
[16] Commentary on the Book of Romans, Origen. Pg. 175-176
[17] The God Who Loves, John MacArthur. Pg. 156-7
[18] The Gnostic Paul, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 116
[19] The Gnostic John, Elaine Pagels. Pg. 98-99
[20] The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther. Pg. 80 | | |
| Well, sorry I haven't posted in awhile to anyone who even cares or has read what I wrote. I don't feel like going into specifics, but I have been having a spiritual crisis of sorts and haven't felt the need nor had the time to write any lengthy posts or refutations to present on this site. Maybe one of these days I will get back to doing this activity that I love so much, but for now I need to struggle with the questions that I am grappling with and that, unfornutately, doesn't leave me much time for this site. To be honest, I actually forgot that this site existed for awhile, but I recently remembered I opened this site when I was discussing something with someone a little while ago. Sorry if this dissappoints anyone, but I probably doubt that anyone will miss my useless ranting for awhile!
God Bless! | | |
| The Rock of Matthew 16:18
I have read so many critiques on Matthew 16:18 over the last couple of days that I thought I would chime in with my view on this passage of scripture. Now Catholics take this scripture as the foundation for their view that Peter was given jurisdictional primacy over the church, and that he had the authority to pass that power on to his successors. I thought the most interesting critique of this particular passage was by Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, and so I will attempt to wrestle with his exegesis on this passage.
First, Sungenis attempts to downplay the significance of the use of Petros, the masculine proper name given to Peter by Jesus, and the use of petra, which is the feminine form of the Greek word. Sungenis views this distinction as a pun, or a play on words manipulated by Matthew to achieve a desired result. Yet, consult any Greek grammar or speak to any proffessor of Classics and they will tell you that you cannot just dismiss such differences as meaningless or inconsequential. The Ancient Greek language is such a precise language simply because it was able to distinguish masculine, feminine and neuter genders when it came to declined noun forms. Therefore, one would have to break seveal of the most basic rules of Ancient Greek to understand Petros and Petra as referring to the same thing.
Sungenis also notes that the traditional Protestant distinction of Petros and Petra are not entirely accurate. Sungenis points to verses such as Romans 9:33 and I Peter 2:8 which employ the Greek words Lithos and Petra side by side. At this point it must be noted that there are in fact several words for stone and rock in the Ancient Greek language. The most common word is petros/petra which are simply two different gender representations of the same noun. Another Greek word for stone is Lithos, which is more often translated as stone rather than rock. Nevertheless, it must be noted that in traditional Greek literature that word Lithos was used to connote a precious stone or rock, or something that had tremendous spiritual or intrinsic value. For instance, this was the word used to describe rocks that were placed at important sites of worship associated with the Olympian gods and goddesses. The Omphalos, which was the great rock situated at the Oracle of Delphi, and rumored to be the rock which Cronos swallowed when he believed he was eating Zeus, was called a Lithos in Greek literature.
Now, the Omphalos itself was not a rock of tremendous size, but definitely also not a small average stone as well. In fact, the Omphalos is probably best classified as a small sized boulder and this can be easily attested to by viewing the relic and measuring it's size. Therefore, the word Lithos does not necessarily have to be used to describe an object of considerable size, but can also be used to describe average stones. In fact, the Liddell and Scott Intermediate Lexicon renders the Greek word Lithos as: "a stone, a precious stone, in the feminine declension the word is used to represent some special stone, in the masculine declension, the word is used to denote blocks of stone used for rostra or tribunes." So as you can see, the classification and usage of the word is not as cut and dry as Mr. Sungenis would like us to believe.
Nevertheless, let's examine the scripture passages he alludes to to see if his argument bears any weight. Romans 9:33 says, "As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of offense: and whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed." The word used for stumblingstone is Lithos and the word used for rock is petra, the feminine form of the Greek word which we also encountered in the Matthew passage in question. Now, nobody would object to Sungenis' argument that the lithos is referring to a small stone, a stone that an individual would trip over and it would cause him to stumble and fall. Yet, that same argument cannot be made about the petra being spoken about because the petra is said to be a rock of offense. Sungenis' contention is that, "well a person can't stumble and trip over a huge boulder in their path, but they can trip over a small rock." Well, this is definitely true for the lithos being described because it's exact description in the Greek is a
lithos proskommatos; The noun proskommatos is in the genitive case and is being used in a possessive genitive construction. Therefore, the lithos has the property of making people stumble.
But when one examines the petra, they will find that Paul also used another genitive to describe the petra as well. Paul descibes the petra as a petra skandalou; Thus, the petra also has the quality of possessing a property that causes people to look negatively on it. In the traditional Attic sense, the word scandalon was used to describe a trap or a snare layed for an enemy. In the New Testament Koine dialect, it can mean either a stumbling block, an offense, or a scandal. Indeed, any English speaking person examining the word will come to the conclusion that this is the word from which the English word scandal is derived. Therefore, for Paul to stay a stone of stumbing and a rock of stumbling would be repetitive, superflous and non-sensical. To compensate for this most translations interpret the word skandalou as an offense or a scandal. Indeed, to say that God Almighty decided to build His church on a crucified individual, rejected by the Jews, and despised by the Gentiles would be considered a great scandal. Anyone can see that by describing the petra as a rock of scandal or offense, Paul is giving the reader no lexical indicators to determine the size or massive nature of the petra. Thus, Robert Sungenis' conclusion that the rock is a small stone is unfounded and cannot be reached from the text.
Furthermore, I think in sighting this verse, Mr. Sungenis does more damage to his argument than assisstance. Notice, the last few words of the verse and everyone will realize who the Apostle is talking about. Paul says, "and whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed." Paul is referring directly to Isiah 8:14, and this is a fact which Mr. Sungenis recognizes, but Mr. Sungenis does not realize the implications of this reference. Isiah 8:14 states, "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." The wording of Isiah 8:14 actually conforms more to the Attic usage of skandalou than it does to the Koine usage. This would make sense seeing that the Septuagint was translated during the 3rd century BC, and during that time the Greek still in use was Attic in nature. By saying that the petra skandalou will be a "snare for the inhabitiants of Jerusalem" it is referring to a trap being set against one's enemies more than it is speaking of size or mass. The petra skandalou is a rock that acts as a trap that will cause the people to be revolted and reject it.
Finally, the fact that Paul says that "whosoever believes on him will not be ashamed" should be a key indicator that he is talking about Jesus. If Mr. Sungenis' idea is true and there is not much of a difference between a petros and a petra, and in fact the petra being spoken of in Matthew 16:18 is Peter, then he has to concede that the petra being spoken of here is also Peter. Yet, is this something he really wants to admit? Seeing that he completely skips over this point, doesn't mention this part of the verse, and doesn't want to deal with the implications it presents, I would say that he is, in fact, not ready to go there. To say that Paul is referring to Peter in this particular passage would be ludicrous and unwarranted. Paul is most definitely speaking about Jesus, and illustrating how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isiah 8:14 by being rejected and crucifed by the Jews.
Next, let's examine Mr. Sungenis' second passage which he believes conclusively shows that a petra can be a small rock. I Peter 2:8 says, "And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." Since this passage is also quoting from Isiah 8:14 and the first part is verbatim what Paul stated in Romans 9:33 I think my earlier arguments clearly indicate that lithos and petra are being used side by side, but that they do not necessarily have to describe each other's exact size. Just because the lithos is presumably a small stone, that does not necessarily mean that the petra has to be a small stone as well. There are no grammatical or textual clues which lead the reader to believer that both objects are small in size. That idea has to be read into the text especially when one understands what the classical meaning of the Greek word petra actually was.
I have already listed 3 Classical Greek words all used for stone and rock, those being petros, petra and lithos. Yet, there is also a fourth Classical Greek word that can be used to speak of a stone or rock, but specifically in the sense of a small stone or a pebble, and that word is psephos. Psephos was the Attic word used to denote a small rock or a pebble, and it was most often used in connection to the small pebbles used in casting lots. In Athenian elections, a person would write their name or initials on a small rock, a psephos, and then pebbles would be drawn from the lot. Now here is Sungenis' objection to Protestant exegesis to Matthew 16:18, " It is also interesting to note that "Simon" in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If _petros_ referred only to a pebble, as some Protestants claim, it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" merely to "pebble," since that would do little to portray the monumental change in Peter's stature that was meant to take place in John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18." Now, I don't really know what Protestant scholars Sungenis is referring to, but I will be the first to agree with with him that Petros in Matthew 16:18 is not speaking of just a pebble. Whoever among Protestant theologians argues for this position is obviously ignorant of the Greek language because Matthew would have employed the word psephos if he wanted to call Peter only a pebble.
Yet, realizing that Jesus is not calling Peter a pebble here does not rid us of the difficulty of attempting to gather His true meaning here. I think it would be invaluable to consult Ancient Greek sources at this point to distinguish the difference between petros and petra in a Classical Greek sense. The Liddell and Scott large Lexicon offers this meaning for the word petros: "a stone." In contrast, the same lexicon offers this meaning for the word petra: "a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, a rock or rocky peak or ridge, petra is a fixed rock." So as you can see, in the Classical sense there is a huge distinction between the two terms and thus Mr. Sungenis' theory that the two are virtually synonomous is completely erroneous. In Classical terms, the meanings are devoid of all theological importance because Classics scholars could care less about the Matthew 16:18 conflict. Therefore, I believe that there definitions are the most reliable and trustworthy for attempting to deal with this problem.
In order to prove this, let's examine how the word petros was used in Classical Greek literature. In Euripides' play Heracles, Hercules is lamenting his loss of his wife and children and is urging people to mourn with him. When Theseus tells him to rise and move, Hercules responds by saying, "Ah! Would I could become a stone(petros) upon this spot, oblivious of trouble." (line 1398) Now from the context, it is hard to determine the true meaning of Hercules' words, but it is interesting to note that petros is translated as stone and not as rock, as most New Testament critics would have us translate it. Second, by translating the word as stone it remains within the confines of the original Greek definition and thus would more likely mean an average stone or rock. From the context, the stone which Hercules would become is either an average stone or a stone similar in stature to him. Even if we do opt for the second possibility, which can be argued for, we are still not talking about a huge, immovable bulwark of a rock.
In another of Euripides' plays, the play Orestes, Orestes is dialoguing with Phrygian who is pleading for his life. In line 1520, Orestes responds to Phrygian by saying, "Are you afraid of being turned to a stone(petros) , as if you had seen a Gorgon?" To which Phrygian replies, "To a stone(petros) , no! but to a corpse; I don't know this Gorgon's head." Again, the word petros is translated as stone, but this time we are given more clues as to the meaning of this word. Now since Orestes relates the stone to the Gorgon, we can reasonably infer that he is talking about the statues that are created when an individual gazes into the eyes of the Gorgon. Therefore the stones are referring to people that have been turned into stones, and this means that Orestes is speaking of people sized stones, or in other words statues. Yet, the statues that were created by the Gorgon's evil gaze were in no means huge, indestructible, and immovable objects. Instead, they were rather frail and brittle objects. In Grreek mythology, when Perseus slew the evil Medusa, Perseus accidently destroys many of the statues residing in Medusa's lair. If these statues were gigantic, rugged, and hardy rocks, then they wouldn't have been so easy to destroy, but they ended being destroyed quite easily by Perseus as collateral damage during his battle. So again, we don't get the impression that the stones(petroi) being spoken of are massive and immovable objects, but we perceive them to be rather average and brittle entities.
Shifting from the realm of Greek drama for a moment, it's not time to examine how the word petros was used in Greek histories. In Xenophon's Anabasis, book 4, chapter 7, section 12, Xenophon describes a great Greek siege against the Toachians. Now within this passage all 3 traditional words for rocks/stones is used, those being lithos, petros, and petra; Yet, the context within which they are used gives us a clear and definite meaning about what Xenophon is describing. Xenophon writes, "Then they took counsel together, and when Xenophon asked what it was that prevented their effecting an entrance, Cheirisophus replied: “There is this one way of approach which you see, but when one tries to go along by this way, they roll down stones(lithous) from this overhanging rock(petra); and whoever gets caught, is served in this fashion”--and with the words he pointed out men with their legs and ribs crushed." Here we can obviously deduce that the stones being used as weapons are large stones, but not large enough to be immovable and unshakeable. If they were unmoveable then the Toachians would not be able to use them as weapons. It is even more intriguing to note, that the large rock from which they are dropping the smaller rocks is the petra. Therefore, the petra is the large and massive rocky ledge from which the Toachians are dropping smaller stones as weapons; Therefore the petra is the fixed and permanet rock.
Further down Xenophon continues, "Callimachus, however, when he saw him going by, seized the rim of his shield; and at that moment Aristonymus of Methydrium ran past both of them, and upon his heels Eurylochus of Lusi. For all these four were rivals in valour and continually striving with one another; and in thus contending they captured the stronghold, for once they had rushed in not a stone(petros) came down from above." It is blatantly obvious from the passage that the stone(petros) being referred to in this instance is the same as the stones(lithous) being spoken of before. The petros and the lithous are both describing the stones that were being used as weapons by the Toachians, and these very stones were being hurled at the Greeks from a rocky ledge called the petra. Therefore, it is not the petros that is the stationary, massive, and gigantic rock but that distinction belongs to the petra. The petros is a smaller stone, the stones being used as weapons to crush the Greeks and to stave off the assualt.
Another instance where petros is used is in Euripides' play, Cyclops. In this part the Cyclops is talking with the chorus when the Cyclops' friend, Silenus, returns all battered and bloody by thieves. Silenus tells the Cyclops what the bandits told him and says, "I told them so, but they went on plundering your possessions, and, what is more, they started in on the cheese, though I tried to stop them, and began to carry off the sheep. And they said that they would collar you [235] like a dangerous dog and right before your very eye pull out your guts by force, flay your back nicely with a whip, then bind you hand and foot and throw you onto the rowing-benches of their ship and sell you to someone [240] to pry up rocks(petrous) with or throw you into a mill." Again, the masculine form petros is used, but this time it is declined into the accusative plural form. Since the Cyclops' were gigantic creatures descended from the gods, we can assume that the rocks being spoken of are indeed large, but not massive and immovable rocks. They are speaking of rocks that would be difficult or impossible for men to move, but not impossible for a creature such as the Cyclops. Thus, it would be reasonable for us to assume that the rocks being spoken of are boulders. In fact, in the Odyssey when Odyssues blinds Polyphemus, the Cyclops son of Poseidon, Polyphemus attacks the retreating ships by blindly hurling boulders at them. Therefore, the rocks being referred to by Silenus are probably boulders; Those being large rocks indeed, but not a huge outcropping of fixed and immovable rock.
Moreover, in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris, the herdsmen is describing an attack and says that the people are being attacked with stones(petrois). The text reads, " [315] The stranger, now in his senses, started up from his fall and realized the surge of enemies close at hand and the present danger to them both, with a groan; we did not let up our attack with stones(petrois), pressing hard from all sides. [320] Then we heard his dreadful exhortation: “Pylades, we shall die, but let us die with glory; draw your sword, and follow me." The construction being employed here is a dative of instrument construction, meaning that the people were using stones as their weapons of attack. Now, let's be honest here, does anyone really want to argue that average people are trying to hunt people down and attack them with large, immoveable stones. Notice that the word petrois is the dative plural form of the masculine noun, so the stones being spoken of here are most definitely petros stones. To argue that they are attacking people with gigantic stones would be ludricous, instead it is obvious from the context that the stones being spoken of are small stones that can be used by average people as weapons.
Moving on to Sophocles' play, Philoctetes, the reader is again given the impression that the masculine petros is used to describe a small stone. Sophocles writes, "Then fire would be lacking; but by rubbing stone hard on stone(petron) I would at last reveal the hidden spark which preserves me from day to day." (line 295) Again, is anyone seriously going to argue that Sophocles had in mind rubbing a humongous, immovable stone on another large stone? No, instead he is speaking of two average stones, the stones that people use to strike another stone to create sparks and thus make fire. Anyone familiar with using flint and stone to make sparks in order to start a fire will definitely understand what Sophocles is describing in this play. The stones here are stones that can be held in one's hand and used for the purpose of starting a fire. The noun petron is also a masculine noun, but is declined into the accusative singular form. So here too, the small stones are indicated by the masculine form of the word, petros, and it is not used to describe large stones.
Finally, the last example from Classical Greek literature is from the Homer's Illiad. In book 20, Homer describes the epic battle between the great Achean warrior Achilles and the great Trojan warrior Aeneas. During the battle Achilles gets the upper hand and is about to kill Aeneas with his sword, but Aeneas grabs a stone and defends himself. Homer states," But Achilles drew his sharp sword and leapt upon him furiously, [285] crying a terrible cry; and Aeneas grasped in his hand a stone(petro)--a mighty deed--one that not two mortals could bear, such as men are now; yet lightly did he wield it even alone." (lines 284-286) First, the word for stone, petro, is masculine and is of the dative singular declension. So the stone being spoken is a masculine petros and is being used as a weapon in battle. Once again, anyone hoping to argue that this stone is a huge and unmoveable rock is simply a victim of wishful thinking. Sure, everyone knows from the Aeneid that Aeneas' mother is Venus, the goddess of love, but that does not make Aeneas privy to the gift of supernatural strength. Nowhere in Greek or Latin literature is the idea even vaguely alluded to that Aeneas has super-human strength. Furthermore, I don't think that Aeneas would have time to even attempt to pick up a hefty rock because he is fighting against Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors and Achilles is about to kill him. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the rock(petro) is a small rock that fits in Aeneas' hand and one he is able to deftly use to fight against Achilles.
Although I could site numerous other examples from Ancient Greek literature, I believe these examples show that the distinction between petros and petra argued for by Catholic apologists is simply not tenable. I know that Mr. Sungenis did study Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary, and that he does know what he is talking about when it comes to New Testament Greek. Yet, even a cursory examination of the history of the Greek language would have shown Mr. Sungenis that his opinions are simply not true. In Greek literature there is a strong contrast and difference between a petros and a petra. To argue that the disticntion does not exist, or that it is simply not significant shows that one does not understand the history of the Ancient Greek language. It is obvious from studying Attic Greek that a difference was perceived, and this difference is noticeable from Greek sources from all different eras. We saw the distinction in Homer(7th century BC), Thucydides(4th century BC), and Euripides and Sophocles(4th century BC). In every source, it was clearly evident that the masculine form of petros was used to describe smaller rocks, boulders, and rocks that could be used as weapons in battle. Furthermore, in the Thucydides source, petros and lithos were interchangeable words, and the large cliff of rock from which the assualt was staged was dubbed the petra. Therefore, the word petra, or the feminine form, is the word used to describe a large, massive and unshakeable structure.
Mr. Sungenis continues to argue his case by appealing to the argument that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and that the gender distinction didn't exist, and so wouldn't have been an issue. First, it must be noted that this argument is completely conjectural and is not based on historical, observable, and investigateable evidence. Therefore, this argument must be completely treated as speculatory and an unreliable theory at best. Since we do not have any extant copies of an Aramaic gospel of Matthew we cannot investigate these claims and see if they are in fact true; So this theory although a valid possibility, holds no water because it cannot be proven or disproven either way.
Nevertheless, even if we can't test this theory I think an interesting argument for a non-Catholic interpretation can be made. In an Aramaic version of Matthew, Matthew 16:18 would have been rendered as, "And I say to you, You are Peter(Cephas), and upon this rock(cephas) I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not previal against it." Since Jesus was addressing Peter the person, Peter's name would have been capitalized since this was also done in Aramaic literature as well as in Greek literature. In fact, in the gospel of John when Jesus renamed Peter, John makes sure that both names, Cephas, and the Greek translation, Petros are capitalized. Now in the Greek version of Matthew, the version which we presently possess, Matthew makes sure that Petros is capitalized, indicating that Jesus is giving Simon a new name. Petros is Peter's new name and the capitalization makes this abundantly clear. Yet, when we arrive at the second word for rock(petra), not only is the word a different gender, but it is also begun with a lower case letter. This makes it clear that Jesus is referring to an object and not a person, sine petra is a noun describing a thing or an object and not a person.
Now, although the gender distinction was not present in Aramaic, in a written gospel, the distinction would have been perfectly clear because Aramaic authors also capitalized the first letter in a person's name to show that they were speaking of a person. So it could easily be argued that an Aramaic gospel would have had Cephas as the first rock mentioned, and cephas as the second rock mentioned. The first rock, Cephas, would have been referring to the person of Simon Peter, but the second cephas, begun with a small case letter would have been referring to an object or a thing and not a person. If a person were in view here, especially Cephas, then it would have been imperative that the gospel writer capitalize both names to make it perfectly clear that both rocks are speaking of Peter, and not just the first. It's the same in the Greek version of the gospel, since the petra is not begun with a capital letter it is quite clear that Matthew is telling the reader that the petra is not a person, but an object. Therefore, the speculative argument of an Aramaic gospel of Matthew does not necessarily imply that the Catholic position is correct and thus lends support to their interpretation of the Greek version. Since we cannot examine an Aramaic version for ourselves we will have to rest content that this argument does not give support to either position.
Quite possibly, the weakest element of Mr. Sungenis' argument is his contention that since Jesus named Simon Cephas in Aramaic, it would have been more fitting to give him a Greek name ending in as, but since Peter was a man Matthew chose to give him a masculine name, and men cannot have a name ending in as because this is traiditionally feminine. This is where Mr. Sungenis' knowledge of Greek really becomes questionable and dubious. I know he studied Greek at Westminster, but if he overlooked this, then it is obvious that he didn't pay too much attention to what was being taught. Now, the noun or proper name petros belongs to the O-declension of nouns and this declension primarily accomodates masculine nouns, but there are exceptions. For instance the words nosos and odos, decline like common O-declension nouns which are overwhelmingly masculine, but these two examples are in fact feminine in gender, although they take traditional masculine type endings. Likewise, the A-declension accomodates nouns that are overwhelmingly feminine in gender, yet there are masculine nouns that are exceptions to this rule. In the A-declension there are both alpha and eta nouns that are masculine in gender, but that receive the recognizable feminine A-declension endings.
For instance, the Greek word for soldier, stratioteis, is a masculine noun in gender, yet all it's noun endings appear feminine. The only exception to this rule is the genitive singular because the genitive singular of the alpha and eta sub-group of masculine nouns takes the ou ending which is the ending of all genitive singular O-declension nouns. I can't believe Mr. Sungenis, a student of Koine Greek, could have overlooked this common rule. In Greek a noun can still take traditional feminine endings, but retain it's masculine gender because the Greek language allows for this possibility. Thus, Matthew could have easily rendered Peter's name as Petras, which is the nominative singular declension within the alpha sub-group of masculine nouns. This would have made a lot of sense seeing that Simon's Aramaic name Cephas ends with the letters as, and in Greek it would have been very easy to render his name as Petras, thus maintaining the as ending, but asserting his masculinity. Any Greek speaking person of the time would have been aware of such rules, and would have realized that Peter was a man when they saw the as ending because the nominative endings are different for masculine and feminine nouns. For example, the feminine alpha sub-group noun, aleitheia, does not have an s on it's ending in the nominative singular; Yet, the masculine alpha group noun neanias has an as on the end thus conveying that the noun is both masculine and belongs to the A-delcension, and that it is indeed not feminine.
Since the alpha and eta declension allow masculine nouns to have feminine type endings, Mr. Sungenis' argument is completely invalid. In fact there are several male individuals in the New Testament who have names that belong to this alpha and eta declension sub-group. For example, Agrippa is rendered in Greek as Agrippas in the nominative singular, and therefore this name is a masculine name and has feminine type endings. Other examples include Aeneas rendered as Aineas in Greek, Ananias or Anianias in Greek, Andrew or Andreas in Greek, Barnabas or Barnabas in Greek, Demas or Deimas in Greek, Thomas or Thomas in Greek, Jechoniah or Jechonias in Greek, Judas or Ioudas in Greek, and Jonah or Ionas in Greek. Now, I could mention several other names to which this rule applies but I do not feel the need to do so since my case has already been made by mentioning all the above examples. According to Mr. Sungenis' argument all of these people as men should have masculine sounding names like Peter's, yet in reality they do have masculine names. Mr. Sungenis' is forgetting that the alpha and eta masculine groups can have these types of endings which at first glance appear feminine, when in reality they aren't, and still retain their masculine distinction.
Any Greek speaking person alive when Greek was still in common usage would have understood this simple fact, and I am sure that Matthew understood this. Many other people in the New Testament are men but have A-declenion type names, so to retain the similarity between Cephas and Petras Matthew could have chosen to render Peter's name as Petras. But Matthew doesn't do this and because he doesn't choose to do this, he draws an even bigger distinction between Petros and petra. Since 1.) Petros is a proper name and petra is an object and 2.)Petros is masculine and petra is feminine. If Matthew would have rendered Peter's name as Petras(Nominative masculine singular of the alpha declension) and still referred to the second rock as petra, then the Catholic argument would be much more sound. Nevertheless, Matthew didn't do this but instead chose to call Peter Petros, and therefore he is drawing a huge distinction between the Petros, masculine person, and the petra, feminine object.
Therefore, under severe examiniation and scrutiny, Mr. Sungenis' lexical arguments fall completely flat. Matthew easily could have given Peter a feminine looking name, yet retaining his masculinity, but he didn't. Matthew easily could have rendered Peter's name as Petros and repeated that word a second time, but instead he uses the feminine noun petra. If both nouns were given as Petros...petro in the text, then again the Catholic argument would be the better argument. Instead, Matthew chose to differntiate between the two and thus he shows that he is not referring to the same thing the second time. Furthermore, Matthew could have easily had Jesus say "You are Peter, and upon you I will build my church." But Matthew doesn't have Jesus say this so again the distinction is clear and obvious.
Finally, Mr. Sungenis argues that the demonstrative article tautei can be rendered as this very or this same. Although this is definitely true and this construction is employed elsewhere in the New Testament, Mr. Sungenis forgets that this translation is employed in specific circumstances. In Matthew 16:18, tautei petra is used in a locative dative construction, because Jesus is saying where the church is going to be built. The tautei only strengthens the idea of where the church is going to be built. And it has already been demonstrated that Petros and petra are not referring to the same thing, so even if Jesus is using tautei in the sense of this very or this same, he is not doing so in regards to Peter. Nevertheless, this is not how tautei is translated in this particular passage because this is not how bible translators have decided to translate it. Just take a look at the various translations and you will see what is meant:
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Douay-Rheins Version
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "
King James Version
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. "
New Revised Standard Version
"And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. "
American Standard Version
"Now I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it."
New Living Translation
As you can see none of the above translations renders this passage as Mr. Sungenis suggests. Furthermore, Mr. Sungenis believes that by appealing to Jerome's Latin Vulgate he can strengthen his assertion because he believes the Latin, hanc petram, is usually rendered as he suggests. What Mr. Sungenis doesn't realize is that hanc petram is Latin and is not dative as the Greek is, but is accusative. Remeber, in the Greek Jesus is speaking in a locative dative construction, saying where the church will be built. Jerome translated this into Latin by making the dative into an accusative singular. Thus in the Latin, hanc petram is just the direct object of the sentence and loses the intent that is latent in the original Greek. Furthermore, Mr. Sungenis erroneously concluded that hanc petram should be rendered as this very, when in fact it can be translated just as the Greek can; It can take a wide variety of meanings including this, this very, or this same. Moreover, Mr. Sungenis' proposition is completely destroyed when one looks at the Douay-Rheims version. Since the Douay-Rheims Bible is a word for word, literal translation of the Latine Vulgate, wouldn't it make sense for them to translate this passage as he says if that's the true meaning? Yet, the Douay-Rheims didn't translate Matthew 16:18 as Mr. Sungenis suggests, thus showing that the translation chosen and agreed upon by virtually all Bible translators is the correct translation.
I believe that it has been conclusively shown that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is not the correct one. I could strengthen my argument by appealing to the Early Church Fathers, or by showing where the feminine form of petra occurs elsewhere in the New Testament and is obviously referring to Jesus. Furthermore, I could show that Ephesians 2:20 and Matthew 16:18 are composed similarly and lend support to the idea that Jesus is the rock and the prophets and apostles are building upon that foundation. I could do all of this, but that would only serve to make this essay longer and to argue for something that has already been conclusively proven. It is a historial fact, that there is a tremendous difference between the Greek words petros and petra; The record of Classical Greek literature proves that this distinction exists, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a petros is not some huge and immoveable rock, but rather an average or large sized stone or rock. Furthermore the New Testament writers make it explicitly clear that they know of these centuries old distinctions and use them in their writings. As for Mr. Sungenis' view, I agree that he brings up a few excellent points, but overall his ideas are still wrong and he shows that he does not have the working knowledge of the Greek language that he appears to possess.
| | |
| Predestination
Election, sometimes referred to as Predestination by Biblical scholars, is a hotly debated and controversial topic. Some Christians refuse to believe in it altogether, while others water it down and conform it to their own ideas and preconceived notions, but there are others who understand the topic as it is in Scripture. The plain truth is, is that the Bible clearly and unambigously teaches the doctrine of divine election, the matter up for debate is whether you will believe in it as well. This doctrine has been debated for centuries, but if one allows Scripture to speak for itself I believe the truth and beauty of this doctrinal truth becomes evident.
The doctrine of predestination is rooted in several other corollary doctrines and Biblical truths. such as God's absolute sovereignty and man's level of depravity and deadness in sin. Needless to say, those two issues are outside the scope of this particular topic and will not be dealt with on an extensive basis in this paper. Nevertheless, it is vital that one understand these two ideas and so it is necessary to examine them briefly for the integrity of this study.
The idea of God's absolute sovereignty is one truth that I dot believe many Christians would object to because everyone agrees that God is omnipotent and He is the Sovereign ruler of His creation. Yet, this agreement is only a surface level agreement and once one probes deeper into this truth one will realize that many who agree with this truth will then begin to object to it's implications. If God is that Sovereign, then doesn't that rob man of his free-will?, one person objects! God wouldn't do that because He isn't a ruthless dictator, another man objects! These objections are nothing more than emotional appeals to man's feeling of self-sufficiency and independence. Man does not want to think that he is under another being who is more powerful and more wise than he is. In truth these objections are based on nothing more than man's feelings of independence and spiritual pride, than they are on Holy Scripture and God's revelation.
Man needs to understand that he is nothing more than a creature, a being created by God because God wished to create mankind by a choice of His will. God did not need to create man because He was already complete within Himself, and He does not gain anything else through our creation because He is God and cannot be imperfect or incomplete. Man is a creature, plain and simple. This is plain and simple scripture truth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and on the sixth day He created mankind in his own image and likeness. So if man is a creature we have two options, either God has complete control over His creation and the creator controls the created, or else God is not in control and the creatures control God. The former is what Calvinism believes, while the latter is what Arminianism, Orthodox, most Evangelicals, and most Roman Catholics believe. There are no other alternatives, either God is determining or else He is determined. As the great Thomistic Theologian Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange wrote in his masterful work, Predestination,
"the principal objections of the Thomists bear upon this point, and that at the end of the controversy we are confronted by the dilemma of either God determining or determined. There is no other alternative; for the divine foreknowledge, united to the divine will, is either the cause of our free determination or else is passive in their regard."
This is the simple fact of the matter, either God is determining or else he is determined. As a student of Reformed theology I do not presume to think that I can influence the all-powerful and all-knowing God by a matter of the will. Yet, this is exactly what other Christians do when they speak in terms of coming to God or choosing Christ. As one individual said, God has cast one vote for you, Satan has cast one against you, now you have the deciding vote in the matter. This idea is nonsense and is utterly opposed to everything that scripture teaches. These individuals would have you believe that you, through your own will and intellect can choose God and decide your eternal fate; In other words, the onus and power for the choice lies within man himself. As we are about to see Scripture tells a completely different story and utterly destroys the precepts and foundations of these man-centered theologies.
In regards to the absolute Sovereignty of God scripture is clear and concise. Scriptures such as Proverbs 21:1 teach that God is sovereign over the affairs of men and is able to turn a man's heart in whichever direction He wills. Another chapter of scripture that upholds God's Sovereingty over His creation is Isiah 45. Here, God tells how he will use king Cyrus to accomplish His desire and then God proceeds to silence mankind as they grumble and complain against God's omnipotence and the right to use His creation as He sses fit. God affirms that He alone is the God of creation and there is none beside Him (v. 5), He affirms that He is responsible for creating light and darkness, peace and evil, and that he is the sole source of righteouness (v. 7-8). Finally, God silences humanity by showing them their place in His created order. In verses 9-13, God shows that men are nothing more than created beings. God is the potter and men are the pots which He has fashioned in accord with His will and desire. The pots have no right to grumble against the potter, and God affirms that pots are created to fulfill the roles that God has designated for them.
Isiah 45 is strikingly similar to Romans 9 where Paul takes up this line argumentation and illustrates where mankind belongs in God's order. In Romans 9:20, Paul shows why man has no right to complain against God. The thing formed has no right to argue with the one forming him since he owes his mere existence to the one fashioning him. In v. 21 Paul shows that God has the absolute freedom to utilize his creation as He sees fit; God has the absolute right to make one vessel unto glory and another unto destruction all from the same lump of clay. I don't know about you, but it seems to me like Paul is upholding God's Sovereignty over His creation and is doing so in the most obvious manner possible. These verses show us that the creature has no power over the creator, and that the creature has no right to complain to his creator. God is the source of everything that we have, we owe our very existence to Him, and we have no right to complain against Him, let alone think we have any say in how He determines our futures.
Now, it is necessary to briefly examine the idea of man's depravity and deadness in sin. Scripture defends in the most clear terms man's state of depravity and lack of ability to do anything pleasing to God. As far as depravity is concerned scriptures such as Genesis 6:5, Ecclesiastes 7:20, and Romans 3: 10-12 teach that man is evil and that he can do nothing but sin. Furthermore, these verses teach us that we cannot even do good or do anything pleasing to God. Man is in such a state of utter spiritual chaos and sin that he can do nothing but sin and do evil deeds before God's eyes. Secondly, verses such as Ephesians 2:4 and Colossians 2: 13 teach that man is dead in sin. The Greek word used for dead in the New Testament is nekros (nekros) and is the Greek word for corpse. The Bible is basically telling us that we were corpses in our sins and trespasses. A corpse can do absolutely nothing, it can't move, think, react, or feel. This is the state we are in spiritually when it comes to responding to God's call. We are spiritual corpses and can do nothing to respond to God's call of repentance. That's why Colossians 2: 13 says we were dead in our, "sins and the uncircumsion of our flesh" because we are naturally oblivious to God's call in our dead state and outside the covenant and wild because our flesh was uncircumcised. Man cannot do anything pleasing before God, nor can he even respond to God, all he can do is sin and do evil in God's sight.
That's why Reformed theology teaches that God must first come to us and miraculously regenerate us by restoring spiritual life. That's why Ezekiel 36:26 says that God will give us a new spirit and a new heart, He will replace our existing stony hearts with a heart of flesh. These verse teaches with absolute and resolute clearness that God is the one who gives us a new spirit and new heart; We don't accomplish this action, but God does! An individual with a stony heart is completely turned-off to and rejects the gospel out of stubborness and being hard-hearted. Yet, God comes to us and replaces that hard heart with a heart of flesh and gives us a new spirit. As sinners in complete rebellion against God, we were spiritually dead and possessed a hard heart, but God graciously and mercifully comes to his chosen people and places a new heart and a new spirit within them. Once God completes this gracious action, the person turns to God in thanksgiving and joy and follows after him because he is so thankful. Man cannot cooperate with this action, just like a corpse cannot cooperate with a person attempting to revive them. The person who attempts to bring life back to a dead body does so through his own decision.
Now that both God's Sovereignty and man's depravity have been briefly examined it is time to turn to the doctrine of election. Election is taught in scripture and must be believed by every honest and sincere Christian, this much is known for sure. Yet, what system of election one holds to differs with each individuals state of reverence for themselves when compared to their reverence and awe for God. For the purposes of this study I will attempt to focus on the key passages in scripture that unequivocally teach the truth and beauty of God's divine initiative and thoroughness in the plan of election. The first passage is, of course, the most famous one, that being Romans 9.
In our previous examination of Romans 9 we saw how it conveyed the truth of God's Sovereign right to use his creation as he was fit. Yet, that very same text also says a lot about divine election.
For the purposes of this examination verses 6-19 are the key, but verses 1-6 also play an important role in deciphering the overall tone and scope of the message. Romans 9: 6-19 states,
" 6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
These 14 verses contain so much truth it is hard to grasp it all, but we will examine what the Apostle is saying here and how it pertains to divine election. Paul begins by showing that not all of those who descend from ethnic Israel are also of spiritual Israel. How can that be since they are members of the covenant God made with Israel and are observers of Torah? The answer is simple, they are not members of the seed of promise! And Paul goes on to say that being one who belongs to the promised seed is not based on our own initiative or actions, but solely on the intentions and mercy of God. That's why Paul refers to Jacob and Esau. Before they were even born or had done anything, God chose Jacob over Esau so that His purposes= in election might stand. Now some may argue, yeah, but God is talking about nations here. He chose the younger nation of Jacob over the older nation of Esau to confuse and confound those around and also he chose Jacob to be the line through which the Messiah would be brought forth.
Although this is partially true, having Paul discuss only nations and blessings here does not do justice to the scope of this text nor does it capture his full meaning. Remember in the first 6 verses Paul is talking about salvation and how he grieves that his Jewish brethren are not sharers in the divine promises of salvation. Paul begins Romans 9 by discussing salvation and how Christ is key to salvation, the promised one prophesied about in the Old Testament. After dealing with the subject of salvation in the beginning, Paul jumps right into discussing the difficulties of Israel's situation and explains why not everyone of Israel is a believer in Christ. The means he uses to do this is his discussion of election and showing that not all physical Jews are spiritual believers as well. So Paul gives the reader no indication either lexically or grammatcially that he has shifted focus from salvation to a discussion of nations; To read such a huge shift into the text would be foolsh and unwarranted. Instead, Paul continues with his original train of thought and uses the examples of Jacob and Esau and Pharoah to prove a point about the economy of salvation.
God chose Jacob and not Esau and he used Pharoah for His own intent and salvific plan. Paul is showing that God is in complete control of the situation and that He is the one responsible for our conversion. Just like he chose Jacob over Esau, so he chose some for salvation and not others. This is why some Israeli's are not spiritual descendants of Abraham because they were not included in God's plan of election. Romans 9:11 is key because it shows that our election is not predicated on anything we do, not foreknowledge of acceptance or any good works but it is based completely on the graciousness and goodness of God. If our election were based on foreknowledge or works than Paul's words in v. 11 would be a complete lie because the election of Jacob would have been based on foreseen obedience or good works, but the text tells us it wasn't based on this. Instead, Paul tells us that before they had done anything God simply chose one over the other.
Finally, in the last section of this part we have the stongest verses which indicate that salvation is not attained through man's efforts or obedience, but it is simply based on the goodness of God. God tells Moses that He will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy! God can give His mercy to whomever He wants. He isn't obliged to give it to anyone if He desires or everyone if He desires. God can save nobody if He wishes or He can save everybody if He wishes. The plain truth states that God has mercy on whomever he wishes, He doesn't have mercy on us because He forsees that we will be obedient or because we have an abundance of merits. Besides the fact that the doctrine of man's depravity tells us we can't accomplish these things, to believe in the idea that God is merciful because we obey or earn it is completely contrary to scripture. God is merciful to whomever He wants to be merciful period! Verse 16 sums it up clearly when it says that it is not of the man who runs or wills, but it is God who shows mercy. If it is not at all based on our actions and not even based on our desire, than our obtaining mercy does not stem from us in the least bit; It comes undeservingly and gratuitously from God to us simply because He willed it.
Now, I think that the doctrine of election and God's divine Sovereingty over salvation could stand alone on these verses, yet scripture also teaches this doctrine throughout it's pages. Even Jesus Himself taught this idea in the gospel of John when he spoke to the crowds following after Him. In John 6 Jesus delievers a powerful sermon which condemns man's feeling of worthiness, pride and self-ability. Jesus teaches the crowd that no man is able to come to God of his own accord or volition, but he also teaches that those who come to Him are privy to divine privileges. But don't take my word for it, let's see what Jesus Himself has to say about this issue. John 6: 36-44 state,
"6 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
The words of Jesus are awesome and reassuring to any believer! First, he condemns those who have been following Him and have seen Him work miracles. They witnessed Jesus feed the multitude earlier with only 5 loaves and 2 fish, and now they are urging Jesus to perform an even greater miracle. They want Jesus to perform a miracle similar to the one performed by Moses in the wilderness when he provided Manna for the Israelites. They urge Jesus to perform such a miracle, but Jesus says that these same people have seen great things and yet they still do not believe. Then Jesus goes on to say why those same people still do not believe. Jesus says that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him. These words are important for two reasons: 1.) Jesus makes it explicitly clear that the Father's giving preceedes man's coming. The Father must give His Son His bride before that bride, or the church, can come to Jesus in faith. Therefore, the bride of Christ, or the church, is given by the Father to the Son before the bride comes to Christ. In man centered religions, the bride comes to Christ and then the Father gives the bride to Christ after they have come. Yet, Jesus words here absolutely destroy any chance of giving and coming being based on foreknowledge. With foreknowledge, God forsees that people will come and then He gives them to Christ. With divine election God gives the church to Christ and then they inevitably come.
The second matter of importance has to do with the tense of the Greek verbs for giving and coming. They are both present active participles denoting that the action is on-going and constant. The Father is constantly giving the bride to Christ and that bride is continually coming to Christ for nourishment and sustenance. The ones who saw and yet did not believe are the individuals who follow for a time, but then fall away and leave Jesus. Therefore, they are not the ones who are continually and constantly coming to Jesus. Moreover, John constantly uses the present active particple to denote who is a possessor of true eternal life. In John 3:16 he uses the present active partciple for believing to show that belief must be continual and on-going. People can't just believe once, or for an instant, or for a certain amount of time and then cease believing and still be considered followers of Christ. Belief and coming must be a continual and repeated action for those actions to be sincere. This goes against the belief held by many Evangelical churches today, but it is still the message of Jesus and the message of the gospel.
So as we have seen, ALL who are given by the Father to the Son inevitably come to the Son, but then Jesus goes on to say something remarkable and dramatic. The one who comes to Him He will in no wise cast out. Why will He not cast them out, you ask? Jesus tells us why when he says that He has come down, not to do His own will, but the will of His Father in heaven. And the will of the Father is that Jesus should lose none, I repeat NONE, of what the Father has given Him and to raise it up on the last day. Some argue, yeah, but Jesus is always faithful and He will never turn His back on us, but we can turn our backs on Him and remove ourselves from Him. Those who argue for this position are also arguing that they can thwart the will of God, in essence they are stronger and more powerful than God. It all comes down to the problem raised in the beginning, either God is determining or else He is determined by the actions of His creatures. Those arguing that they can remove themselves from Jesus are also saying that they can determine how God can and will act. The pots have control over the Potter, and as we have seen from scripture this idea is completely false and untenable.
Therefore, all who are given to Jesus come to Jesus and He will not cast them out. Furthermore, He will lose none of those given and will raise them up on the last day. These words when read in order and taken in their most simple and straight-forward meaning put to rest any notion of whether a man can remove Himself from Christ once he is in Christ. Jesus says He will not lose anything that has been given to Him and He will raise up those given to Him on the last day. The last day reference points to the time when Jesus will return and claim His bride and will then judge the living and the dead. If one could remove themself from Christ and thus no longer be eligible for the reward of eternal life, then Jesus' words become absolutely false. If this idea is true, then Jesus will lose some that are given to Him by the Father and if he loses them He will not raise them up on the last day. Individuals arguing for this position need to take a good hard look at what Jesus is saying here because He is trouncing their position without them even knowing it. Jesus says He will lose NONE that have been given to Him, and that He will raise all of those given to Him on the last day. Instead, of reworking scripture to fit with my theology I let scripture speak for itself and dictate my theology to me.
Nevertheless, some pounce on verse 40 as the key to this entire discourse and say, see Jesus gives life to those who see and believe on the Son and then He raises them up on the last day. Yeah, that's exactly what the scripture says and since it is placed directly in the middle of this discourse it further proves the point Jesus was making earlier. All that the Father gives to the Son come to the Son. Once those people are given and have come to the Son, they see the Son and believe on Him. It's not hard to see that Jesus is making a logical progression through this discourse. First, He deals with the giving and the coming and promises to not lose anything given but to raise it up to eternal life. Next, he deals with what happens once the indivuals given come to the Son. Namely, they see Him and believe on Him. Contrary, to what some people would like to believe Jesus is not advocating a general gospel call here, but is explaining what happens when those given come to the Son. How can you tell Jesus is not speaking of a general gospel call that allows every man to come to the Son and believe of his own volition and will? Because verse 44 says so!
Jesus tells the grumbling crowds that no man can come to the Son unless the Father draw Him. Jesus says NO MAN, I can't stress that enough. No one is able to come to the Son because he is no condition to accomplish such an act. This truth was revealed earlier in the brief discussion on man's depravity where it was shown that man is a corpse in his sin. Jesus is just reaffirming this truth when he says that no man can come. Some will say, well I have no problem with this verse because it is just saying that man cannot come by himself, but that that does not remove him from the equation. All it does is show that we cannot respond unless we are first approached by God. I can agree with the part about not being able to respond unless God approaches us first, but I disagree with the notion that Jesus is hinting at a cooperative or synergistic effort when He talks about drawing.
First, one has to understand that the Greek word for draw is 'elkw (helkuo) which the Liddell and Scott Intermediate lexcion renders as to draw or drag with a motion of force including to draw ships down to sea, to draw a bow, or to draw a sword from its sheath. Therefore, the word helkuo iteself is not referring to some gentle drawing or persuasive tugging but a tugging or dragging that is forceful and powerful. The individuals who argue for the gentle and persuasive pulling argue that God's drawing is like God throwing a drowning person a life-preserver. The person grabs the life-preserver and God pulls the person into safety, yet the person being saved also kicks and pulls himself forward thus cooperating and helping God in the process. This analogy has so many flaws in it that it would be redundant and superfluous to examine them all, but needless to say it is still flawed. First, a person who is drowning knows he is in danger and that he will die if he is not helped. The unregenerate and rebellious man is not in a similar situation. Yes, their life and their eternal soul is in danger but they do not realize it because they are in a state of sin and rebellion and enjoying it. They are not like the person about to drown because the drowing person is afraid for his life and does not enjoy the situation he is in, while the rebellious sinner is not afraid for his life and is indulging and taking pleasure in his life of sin. As Jesus said it is impossible for a man to serve two masters because he either hates one and loves the other (Mt. 6:24) A person is either serving God or he is serving Satan. The one who is serving Satan is serving Satan through his sinful obedience. Likewise, Jesus also said a good tree brings forth good fruit, but a bad tree brings forth corrupt fruit (Mt. 7:17) The corrupt tree will inevitably bring forth bad fruit and cannot bring forth good fruit (Mt. 7:18) because it is against it's nature.
Therefore, the bad tree brings forth bad fruit because it doesn't know any better and can't do otherwise. It is doing what it is supposed to do according to it's nauture and the same is true with mankind. Men bring forth bad fruits because they are corrupt and they do not know any better nor can they do otherwise. They do what they do according to their nature and they even revel in such activity. That's why the analogy of one being thrown a life-preserver and saved from death does not do justice to the situation of sinners before God. Sinners are actively rebelling against and doing so in accordance with their nature, and they are enjoying it while they are doing it because sin brings pleasure and enjoyment. While the person in the ocean is struggling and fighting for their life against the sea, the sinful man is reveling in and enjoying his time in the sea of sin that will ultimately result in his downfall.
Back to the discussion at hand, to assert that helkuo implies a synergistic effort between God and man, where God does a majority of the work and man help out a bit is absolutely and patently ludicrous. The word itself has a much stronger and forceful meaning within the Greek language and it's usage in the New Testament bears this meaning out. The verb helkuo appears 8 times in the New Testament. It appears 5 times in the gospel of John; Once in John 6, another time in John 12:32, next in John 18:10 when Peter draws his sword from his sheath, and in John 21: 6,11 referring to the disciples hauling their nets into their boats. Since John 6:44 nad 12:32 are employed within the same context of drawing men let us look at the other instances where the verb is used. In John 18:10 it speaks of Peter drawing his sword from it's sheath and using it cut off the ear of the High Priest's slave. So the verb is speaking of Peter drawing by force his sword from it's sheath. Hmmm...that's interesting because I don't think the sword willed to cooperate on that instance. Instead, the sword was an instrument manipulated and used by Peter according to his own desire. Seems to me like this instance is more in favor of a more forceful, powerful, and coercive drawing instead of a gentle and cooperative tugging.
Next, in John 21: 6,11 the disciples are hauling their nets into their boats. The nets contain an abundance of fish and the disciples are having a hard time getting the nets drawn all the way in. Therefore, they are pulling with all their strength to retrieve their nets. Again, this instance describes a strong and forceful drawing of an individual on an instrument. This use of helkuo is much more in favor of a Calvinistic interpretation of John 6 then it is a more Arminian interpretation. Just like the Apostles drew the nets to the boat by force, so God draws us with force to Him.
In addition, the verb helkuo is used in the book of Acts and also in the Epistle of James. In Acts 16:19 Paul and Silas were dragged by the citizens into the marketplace. This again speaks of a forceful compulsion and drawing that is more than just a cooperative effort between two forces. Do you really think Luke was implying here that Paul and Silas were kind of helping the citizens drag them into the marketplace? No, instead they were forced their by the mob and this speaks of an almost violent drawing. Second, in Acts 21:30 the people grab Paul and drag him out of the Temple. Again, an instance where helkuo is speaking of a violent, forceful, and aggressive action of drawing and not a cooperative effort where one party contributes a lot of the effort and the other helps out a little. Finally, in James 2:6 James speaks of the rich oppressing the poor and dragging them into court. Again, the use of helkuo implies a forceful and dare I say the word, irresistable effort, to draw someone to a specific place.
So as you can see, the use of helkuo in the New Testament is much more in favor of a Calvinistic interpretation than it is an Arminian one. If we look at how the word is used elsewhere we can gather that the force of drawing is extremely strong, aggressive, potent, and in every case it achieved the intended result. Therefore, the word draw used by Jesus in John 6:44 speaks of much more than God just persuasively drawing a man and waiting for the man to consent and cooperate. Instead, it speaks of God achieving the result He desires and using His awesome and spectacular drawing power to accomplish such a feat. So when John 6 is looked at in it's entirety it looks something like this. The Father gives a specific people, the bride of Christ or the church, to His Son. Within that very same group of people given, all of them come to Christ and Christ will not cast them out. On top of that, Christ accomplishes the will of the Father which is that He lose none of these individuals and that he raise them all up on the last day. The ones who come to Christ after they have been given see and believe on Christ, and no man can come to the Son unless the Father draw him. Yet, this drawing is forceful, aggressive, powerful, and it achieves it's desired effect.
Therefore, even Jesus' words in John 6 teach the same type of soteriology that we saw in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Election and God's Sovereignty in the process is a doctrine taught and ratified by scripture. If I wanted to I could examine other passages such as Ephesians 1: 3-11, John 15, and many others which speak of this scriptural truth. It is not whether or not scripture teaches such a thing, it is whether or not you will listen to God's Word and believe in such a thing. In the words of Father Garrigou-Lagrange, a prominent Thomistic theologian and Catholic priest, "No one thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more and helped more by God." This sums up the principle of pridilection and validates the idea of divine election. This is not just a Reformed Protestant doctrine, for in fact many other people throughout history have acknowledged it's validity. Men such as Augustine, Gottshalk, Banez, Luther, Calvin, and more have all recognized the scriptural truth behind such a doctrine. I can only hope that you will see the truth in this teaching as well and give all thanks and glory to God because to Him alone belongs all glory and praise! | | |
|
