Oddbean

I'll chime in briefly here to say that this is where the doctrine of irisistable grace comes in. The grace compels us to repent, yes. Lazarus having the option to stay in the tomb seems like conjecture. Plausible conjecture, maybe, but the way the narrative reads, Christ calls and Lazarus obeys. He is compelled to come forth from the tomb at the command of Christ.

At the same time, those who answered the call still have the opportunity to reject. Case in point, Judas chose to betray Christ, and seemed to not repent, whereas Simon Peter denied Christ and then repented. If the grace was irresistible, how were those two able to then reject it, even if temporarily in the case of Simon Peter? The analogy of Lazarus in the tomb is not suggested by the Scriptures, though because Scripture is used to make it, people seem to find it compelling. I believe it is incorrect.

Good question. I will say up front that I am not going to provide the most satisfactory answer here for lack of sufficient time and space to dig in in a way that does the question justice. And because a lot of this hinges on election, which is a conversation in itself. The shorthand response is that those God has elected before the ages began, he calls, and they are compelled by his gracious call to respond in faith and repentance. Not all those who hear the call of Christ respond in faith. That is not an argument against iridistible grace but rather a confirmation that salvation is tied to election. Judas showed by his fruit that he never truly believed, which means he was not elect. He *responded* to the call to follow Christ but we see even before his betrayal that he never truly turned from his sin. Peter, by contrast, does deny Jesus but his repentance is one among many evidences that, unlike Judas, he is among the elect. You shall know them by their fruit. The sewer and the seeds parable is one instructive place in the Scriptures to help illustrate these points. The Canons of Dort are instructive as well, particularly Article 8 and onward.

It presupposes the permanence of salvation, or eternal security, which is not something suggested by the Scriptures, nor the writings of the early Church. It was not suggested in Scripture that Judas did not truly believe, but that is rather a reading into the Scriptures based on those preconceived notions. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-salvation-be-lost

You are right, the Bible doesn't suggest eternal security...it explicitly states it haha. Here are merely a few examples: John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." John 6:39-40 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of hall that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:47 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And rI will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, s‘And they will all be taught by God.’ uEveryone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." Romans 8:38-39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. " Ephesians 1:12-14 "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee4 of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." 2 Corinthians 1:22 "And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Again I also point you to the Canons of Dort which addresses this soteriological issue. Thanks for sharing the article. I will read it when I have a availability and try to respond further.

The Scriptures never say that one who has gained forgiveness for his sins can himself never leave God. None of those references say that. From Hebrews 6: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt." The very idea of apostacy in the ideology of eternal security must mean the apostate never believed, never truly became partakers of the Holy Spirit, but the inspired author of Hebrews says precisely the opposite without saying that they never truly believed. Some who do become partakers may reject and apostatize. The verse you shared that comes closest is Romans 8:38-39. Although it sounds absolute to include the potential apostate himself, it doesn't. These are external things. It does not say "or height, nor depth, [nor we,] nor anything else in all creation." It would be tantamount to the addition of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. To receive is a choice, and to reject likewise. Otherwise, there is no such thing as sin.

We have to ask who is ultimately sovereign. If God wants you saved, can you stop Him? If yes, YOU are ultimately sovereign in that matter. If no, then He is indeed sovereign. And it's clear from scripture that He knows his own sheep and "no one [including us] can take them out of my hand." We are indeed presented with a choice, we are not automatons, but in our state of sin we will only ever chose sin. Grace provides us with the choice not to sin. “We love him because he first loved us”. We are “saved by grace through faith” and this is the “free gift of God”. He knows his sheep and he will “keep” them to the end. It's in light of that belief that we then approach individual passages like Heb. 6 and ask "what does 'have tasted' mean? Firstly, it doesn't mean full, saving faith. It means those who have experienced and seen aspects of the visible church but not themselves truly entered in. It also means literally tasted, as in communion. Further, when contextualized, the specific audience/recipients of the letter were of the generation that crucified the Christ and were forgiven for it. To reject him again and return to the old covenant is tantamount to crucifying him again (striking the Rock twice, as Moses typologically shows us). Hebrews divorced from its first century context and the coming destruction in 70AD has a face value reading of being universally applied and presents all kinds of wild implications. I enjoy these debates and discussions and enjoy learning from and being sharpened by my brothers, especially those in other traditions. That said, it seems to me that this particular discussion comes down to fundamental differences in Roman Catholic and Protestant soteriology and I don’t think that either of us will budge much because of a Nostr thread.

Also, re: the point about no one teaching eternal security/preservation of the saints prior to the Reformation. I'm not well versed in Augustine but he wrote on it. See Treatise on the Gift of Perserverence, IX.