A few days after I posted this article refuting Mr. Jub Alabastro on Eternal Security, a "rebuttal" from him came to my attention in the comments section. It is posted at least in the blogs of Mr. Isahel Alfonso (Catholic Eternal Truth) and Fr. Abe Arganiosa (The Splendor of the Church).
Concentrating just on the issues, it won't take a long article to respond to Mr. Alabastro's rebuttal.
In the argument of Judas not being saved from the beginning:
If I remember correctly, I provided two examples. Besides Judas, I also mentioned Peter. Now, applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave, when our Lord said to Peter, “Get Behind Me Satan! (Mat. 16:23,) will Mr. Soliman also say, “Christ didn't say "GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO IS A FORMER SATAN," or " GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO WILL BE A SATAN," rather it's "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" Could it be that Peter wasn't also saved to begin with?
Yup, that's the best he can do. First of all if Mr. Alabastro will use this against what I have presented, will he be willing to admit, as a believer the papacy, that Christ built his church upon Satan? I suppose he should consider what Christ meant when He rebuked Peter. Peter was being a hindrance, an adversary. Yes, Peter was wrong here but does that affect his eternity? We'll deal with this in the succeeding paragraphs.
Second, going back to John 6:70-71, I'm pretty sure that Christ said "one of you is a devil" and not "two of you are devils". The Bible says about Judas, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Nothing is said about the future of Peter.
The next section of Mr. Alabastro is quite amazing:
I believe there were errors both in the Scriptural citation and understanding of Mr.Soliman. Gerry cited Rom. 8:28-29 when what he probably meant was Rom. 8:38-39.
Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, (39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
As to his second error,
WHAT CANNOT SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD?
* neither death nor life,
* neither angels nor demons,
* neither the present nor the future,
* nor any powers,
* neither height nor depth,
* nor anything else in all creation,
The text does not include or even suggest “SIN” as among the things that cannot separate us from the love of God.
It just makes me wonder why Mr. Alabastro failed to consider that death, which Paul mentioned, is a result of sin. And demons cause people to sin. Yes, we do sin but will it separate us from the love of God? Here is the preceding text:
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30
Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call sovereign. The same applies to Peter, though he had sinned tremendously God disciplined and preserved him to the end.
Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
This text is different from Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul was talking to the believers. We read earlier that it is God who preserve his elect. Isaiah was speaking about the state of those who rebel against God, which are of course unbelievers.
Lastly, Mr. Alabastro misses the point on freewill:
Simple. The passage does not speak of security for eternity, but rather the call of the OLD (Rom. 9:1-15) and NEW (Rom. 9:24-25) TESTAMENT people of God. In fact, Verse 32 later revealed the Jews’ fall from God’s call. The above passage you cited explains that the privilege of being called into God’s people originated from God’s own effort and initiative or mercy and therefore not of human origin, just as He is the source of Scripture (2Pet. 1:20.)
It is often argued in Romans 8:28-29 that although nothing can really separate us from the love of God, man can choose by his freewill to be separated. That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16. And how come it does not speak for eternity when it is written in the succeeding chapters:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. Romans 11:28-29
When it is irrevocable by God it cannot be changed as God would secure the eternity of his elect.
Concentrating just on the issues, it won't take a long article to respond to Mr. Alabastro's rebuttal.
In the argument of Judas not being saved from the beginning:
If I remember correctly, I provided two examples. Besides Judas, I also mentioned Peter. Now, applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave, when our Lord said to Peter, “Get Behind Me Satan! (Mat. 16:23,) will Mr. Soliman also say, “Christ didn't say "GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO IS A FORMER SATAN," or " GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO WILL BE A SATAN," rather it's "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" Could it be that Peter wasn't also saved to begin with?
Yup, that's the best he can do. First of all if Mr. Alabastro will use this against what I have presented, will he be willing to admit, as a believer the papacy, that Christ built his church upon Satan? I suppose he should consider what Christ meant when He rebuked Peter. Peter was being a hindrance, an adversary. Yes, Peter was wrong here but does that affect his eternity? We'll deal with this in the succeeding paragraphs.
Second, going back to John 6:70-71, I'm pretty sure that Christ said "one of you is a devil" and not "two of you are devils". The Bible says about Judas, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Nothing is said about the future of Peter.
The next section of Mr. Alabastro is quite amazing:
I believe there were errors both in the Scriptural citation and understanding of Mr.Soliman. Gerry cited Rom. 8:28-29 when what he probably meant was Rom. 8:38-39.
Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, (39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
As to his second error,
WHAT CANNOT SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD?
* neither death nor life,
* neither angels nor demons,
* neither the present nor the future,
* nor any powers,
* neither height nor depth,
* nor anything else in all creation,
The text does not include or even suggest “SIN” as among the things that cannot separate us from the love of God.
It just makes me wonder why Mr. Alabastro failed to consider that death, which Paul mentioned, is a result of sin. And demons cause people to sin. Yes, we do sin but will it separate us from the love of God? Here is the preceding text:
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30
Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call sovereign. The same applies to Peter, though he had sinned tremendously God disciplined and preserved him to the end.
Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
This text is different from Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul was talking to the believers. We read earlier that it is God who preserve his elect. Isaiah was speaking about the state of those who rebel against God, which are of course unbelievers.
Lastly, Mr. Alabastro misses the point on freewill:
Simple. The passage does not speak of security for eternity, but rather the call of the OLD (Rom. 9:1-15) and NEW (Rom. 9:24-25) TESTAMENT people of God. In fact, Verse 32 later revealed the Jews’ fall from God’s call. The above passage you cited explains that the privilege of being called into God’s people originated from God’s own effort and initiative or mercy and therefore not of human origin, just as He is the source of Scripture (2Pet. 1:20.)
It is often argued in Romans 8:28-29 that although nothing can really separate us from the love of God, man can choose by his freewill to be separated. That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16. And how come it does not speak for eternity when it is written in the succeeding chapters:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. Romans 11:28-29
When it is irrevocable by God it cannot be changed as God would secure the eternity of his elect.
Good day Mr. Soliman.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see some hints of the doctrine you presented about Judas, may I request that you clarify, confirm and spell your understanding about him?
By citing those verses about Judas, are you saying that by the statements of Christ as written in those verses earlier cited, Judas was predestined to hell, or what is rightly called as Positive Reprobation by John Calvin?
IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, DO THOSE VERSES YOU'VE CITED ABOUT JUDAS SERVED AS A PRONOUNCEMENT, THAT BY REASON OF WHICH, JUDAS WAS THEREFORE DESTINED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN HELL?
I hope you can respond to these questions clarifying your stand that I may have a complete understanding of your argument.
Thank you.
Jub Alabastro
Greetings Mr. Alabastro,
ReplyDeleteI will answer your question with Scripture:
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Romans 9:16-21
Rather than enlightening me, your answer further confuses me.
ReplyDeleteI did not ask other scriptural proofs that might support your belief in Judas. What I am asking you is to "SPELL OUT" THE DOCTRINAL TERM pertaining to THAT BELIEF ABOUT JUDAS.
What is it called in Calvinist theology? I'll use your example to make you understand:
Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call SOVEREIGN.
Calvin, Luther, James White, clearly POINT OUT THE PROPER TERMINOLOGIES FOR THESE DOCTRINES. I asked the same of you as regards to my earlier questions.
Kindly answer my previous questions with a yes or no. I'm asking for your confirmation and clarification. I'm not yet even opposing you by these questions. Don't be too hot. Put your defenses later. I'm simply asking you to name names. IDENTIFY THE FORMAL THEOLOGICAL TERMS.
Thanks.
Jub Alabastro
Okay, but I think by now it should have been obvious for you: TULIP.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't the flower, right? Just kiddin. So I'll take your YES as an answer to my questions then?
ReplyDeleteJust go with the TULIP and your misrpresentation (if any) will be minimized.
ReplyDeleteHi Gerry,
ReplyDeleteI want to bring this issue back because you seem to ignore my previous question.
Regarding the salvation of Judas and Peter, here's an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia which I got from the article which I linked in my previous comment.
"In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbour? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable)." (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)
Take note of these lines:
"Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas?"
Now my question, aren't you seeing that the Catholic position on predestination is the same with Calvinism? If you think that there is still a difference, then please explain to me what and why?
Isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia itself saying that the reason why Peter was able to ask forgiveness and Judas was not was because only Peter was (given the "efficacious" grace) predestined to salvation and Judas was not? Judas could have asked forgiveness if he was given the grace too. But, as I can understand from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Judas was not given the grace because he was not Predestined.