Replies

If it is totally up to the free will of the individual (and the Church), as you say, how can you be sure that all of the elect will reconcile?

We are not sure indeed. This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election.

That [John 6:52] is salvation by ritual sacrament

Salvation by sacrament, yes. This is what the verse says.

uncounted millions of Catholics are doomed because they either do not participate, or they do so while unworthy

They still can rely, with the uncounted Protestants and the unbaptized, on the boundless mercy of Christ, but yes, indeed, deliberate withdrawal from the sacraments of the Church is a grave sin.

not that [...] we take care of our own salvations by choosing to participate in ritual sacraments.

The scripture says the exact opposite: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6).

But you turn it around to mean that the elect carry on the work, God peers through His crystal ball to see who performed, and then elects them. Phil. 1:6 says the opposite, God will carry on the work to completion

"12 ... with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you" (Phil 2). The distinction between the elect working and God working is artificial; however, there is no scripture that says that God violates the free will of the elect as He leads them.

the fresh-eye reading [of 2 Peter 1:4] does not lead to one thinking he has been given a divine nature

No, it plainly says that one has been given to partake in the Divine Nature.

your take is going to be that only past sins were forgiven because Christ only did a partial on the cross

No, simply that the passage says "past sins", and I read what is written, because I am Catholic. The fact that St. Peter refers to the past sins in that verse indicates that the passage is not an extravagant reminder of already secured election, but an exortation to good works, and hardly the only one in the scripture at that.

"Salvation by sacrament, yes. This is what the verse says."

No, that's not what the verse says. If you look at the context, Jesus is explaining that belief on Him and His words bring eternal life.

John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

35, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

40, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

69, "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus used bread and His body and blood as metaphors explaining that His words are life and to be taken in and digested as necessary food and drink that bring life, unlike physical food.

John 6:27, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

68. "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

One would think that if this "salvation by ritual sacrament" was so important to salvation like belief is that it would be mentioned by the other writers or mentioned again by John, however this is the only place in scripture it is mentioned and not until around 85-90 A.D. when John's Gospel was written. John does not even think communion is important to salvation since he does not mention the specifics of the Last Supper as do the synoptic writers, however John, being consistent with his understanding of what Jesus means by "bread" and "flesh" writes extensively about the "words" of Jesus at the Last Supper.

1 Cor. 11:23-26, Paul has the same understanding of what Jesus meant about "bread", His "body" and His "blood" when he says the bread and cup are memorials of who Jesus is and what Jesus accomplished by His death and our celebration at His table is is not salvific but a proclamation of His having paid the penalty for sin.

It would seem that the idea of "salvation by ritual sacrament" falls into the same error of understanding that those who thought Jesus was speaking of His physical body and blood were repulsed since it was a violation of the Law and later the letter to the Gentile churches from the Jerusalem church. It is also illogical to think that Jesus meant His physical body as there is no evidence the disciples partook while Jesus was with them or that they could since Jesus was still in His physical body and still subject to physical death. there is no mention by John that this "eating and drinking" was to be postponed until some later time. Jesus is speaking in the present and the people understood that as evidence of their repulsion.

The key to understanding this is in John 6:37-39, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 6:65, "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

FK: "If it is totally up to the free will of the individual (and the Church), as you say, how can you be sure that all of the elect will reconcile?"

We are not sure indeed. This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election.

Well, in that case, you cannot believe there is even a such thing as the "elect". If any of the elect ultimately fall short, then the concept is destroyed. Obviously, this also means you have no use for the Biblical concept of predestination, even in the Arminian sense. Oh well.

FK: "... not that [...] we take care of our own salvations by choosing to participate in ritual sacraments."

When we read this we both know immediately that interpretation is required, since neither of us condones cannibalism. The symbolism is clearly physical to spiritual, AND NOT physical to physical. What is the clear pattern of our Lord? It is the former: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like....". "Eating" and "drinking" Christ does not refer to mere physical imitation. It refers to something much much larger and more important. Christ is not wasting time here, He is talking about faith and acceptance of Him as Lord. The flesh counts for nothing.

The distinction between the elect working and God working is artificial; however, there is no scripture that says that God violates the free will of the elect as He leads them.

One of our differences is in seeing God as a true leader, or as just a consultant. The elect are led and WILL obey. "Free will" is not violated because God is the one Who formed the (new) will.