Your reading of 2 Peter 1:5-10 does not agree with the text. If Peter wanted to say what you impute into it, he would have said it. But he did not: he lists a program of sanctification that, he says, will make the election secure.
So you, as a Catholic, are a proponent of just going with the straight text? Very unexpected, but interesting. :) I'll have to remember that. In any event, what Peter says is correct regardless. His "if-then" presentation is true because without works the claimed faith is false. Works will always accompany faith, so without works there is no faith. Looking at it this way does appear to rob the passage of much of its significance (because it appears to state the obvious) but it nonetheless passes the test.
But man would not be able to "elect himself" were it not for the divine grace. Where is the mockery?
The mockery can be in different places depending on what you mean by divine grace. If you mean that God graces all equally and only the smart ones come to Him on their own, then predestination and election have no meaning whatsoever. If, however, you believe that God gives saving grace only to His elect, but bases His decision solely on His looking through His crystal ball to see who "would" have accepted Him, then it is also a mockery because God is reduced to a stenographer. God is not sovereign, meaning He does not care which of His creation become His children. Man saves himself. God is a co-pilot rather than "THE" pilot, etc. To me, that is a mockery.
FK: "By Catholic interpretation, there is no lasting promise here [John 10:27-29] at all, despite what the plain text says."
Yes, we take it literally. There is a lasting promise, but it does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. "Make your election secure", the scripture urges. We take that literally too.
Wow! That didn't take long at all! :) To paraphrase an earlier quote in this very post:
"Your reading of John 10:27-29 does not agree with the text. If John wanted to say what you impute into it, he would have said it. But he did not ..."
You are imputing that if every single loophole under the sun is not specifically closed in the text (by name), then it means that every single loophole is automatically open. This is a frequent tactic I have seen from Catholics, but I have never understood how anyone could possible expect to be persuasive using it. Here, the plain text says:
John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
You are saying to me that this does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. The text says "no one", so you are apparently asking me to consider that the believer is not a person. This is why you surprised me so much with your opening statement about following the plain text. That avenue is simply not available to the RCC in the vast majority of cases where there could be honest disagreement. To get the RCC view, Tradition must come in and change the meaning of the plain text.
"John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
You are saying to me that this does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. The text says "no one", so you are apparently asking me to consider that the believer is not a person."
Here is what +John Chrysostomos says about this passage:
"Ver. 26. “But,” He saith, “I told you, and ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep.”
“For I on My part have fulfilled all that it behooved a Shepherd to do, and if ye follow Me not, it is not because I am not a Shepherd, but because ye are not My sheep.”
Ver. 27–30. “For My sheep hear My voice, and follow Me; and I give unto them eternal life ; neither can any man pluck them out of My hand. The Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”
Observe how in renouncing He exciteth them to follow Him. “Ye hear Me not,” He saith, “for neither are ye sheep, but they who follow, these are of the flock.” This He said, that they might strive to become sheep. Then by mentioning what they should obtain, He maketh these men jealous, so as to
rouse them, and cause them to desire such things.
“What then? Is it through the power of the Father that no man plucketh them away, and hast thou no strength, but art too weak to guard them?” By no means. And in order that thou mayest learn that the expression, “The Father which gave them to Me,” is used on their account, that they might not again call Him an enemy of God, therefore, after asserting that, “No man plucketh them out of My hand,” He proceedeth to show, that His hand and the Father’s is One. Since had not this been so, it would have been natural for Him to say, “The Father which gave them to Me is greater than all, and no man can pluck them out of My hand.” But He said not so, but, “out of My Father’s hand.” Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, “I and the Father are One.” As though He had said “I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One.” Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also. And when the Jews used ten thousand means, plotting and casting men out of their synagogues, He telleth them that all their contrivances are useless and vain; “For the sheep are in My Father’s hand”; as the Prophet saith, “Upon My hand I have pictured thy walls.” (Isa. xlix. 16.) Then to show that the hand is One, He sometimes saith that it is His own, sometimes the Father’s. But when thou hearest the word “hand,” do not understand anything material, but the power, the authority. Again, if it was on this account that no one could pluck away the sheep, because the Father gave Him power, it would have been superfluous to say what follows, “I and the Father are One.” Since were He inferior to Him, this would have been a very daring saying, for it declares nothing else than an equality of power; of which the Jews were conscious, and took up stones to cast at Him. (Ver. 31.) Yet not evenso did He remove this opinion and suspicion; though if their suspicion were erroneous, He ought to have set them right, and to have said, “Wherefore do ye these things? I spake not thus to testify that my power and the Father’s are equal”; but now He doth quite the contrary, and confirmeth their suspicion, and clencheth it, and that too when they were exasperated. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him."
And this from his Homily VI on Phillipians:
"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); when the wall is weak, it will be easy for all to surmount...What should have been done to My vineyard, that I have not done to it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth thorns? Now therefore I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be for a prey, and I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. And I will leave My vineyard, and it shall not be pruned or digged, but thorns shall come up upon it, as upon a desert land. I will also command the clouds, that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant. I looked that it should do judgment, but it did iniquity, and a cry instead of righteousness.” (Isa. v. 1–7, LXX.) This is spoken also of every soul. For when God who loveth man hath done all that is needful and man then bringeth forth thorns instead of grapes, He will take away the fence, and break down the wall, and we shall be for a prey. For hear what another prophet speaks in his lamentations: “Why hast thou broken down her fences, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, and the wild beasts of the field feed on it.” (Ps. lxxx. 12, Ps. lxxx. 13.)"
Doesn't look like election or predestination or some eternal secuity to me. Indeed, from +John Chrysostomos' understanding, it is quite the opposite. Thus it seems clear that if one is encouraged to respond to God, that that response is born of God's grace and our free will, just as jumping out of God's hand into destruction likewise would be the result of free will.
Certainly. The scripture has many levels on which it speaks to us, but the literal meaning is always first.
Works will always accompany faith, so without works there is no faith.
This, more or less, is the Catholic understanding. Works of love and faith are like two legs on a journey: one pulls the other, in turn.
God gives saving grace only to His elect, but bases His decision solely on His looking through His crystal ball to see who "would" have accepted Him, then it is also a mockery because God is reduced to a stenographer.
If that were all God did, then yes, He would be a mere recorder of our lives. But he also gave us His Son, which set the entire grand design of salvation in motion. Without Him, there would be no outpouring of grace and no works.
You are saying to me that this does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. The text says "no one", so you are apparently asking me to consider that the believer is not a person. This is why you surprised me so much with your opening statement about following the plain text.
The plain text is "snatching". Do people snatch themselves?