UPDATE: Do check out my post on forgiveness, which should bring some clarity to this notion presented here.
You may ask, “what is a PoNR principle?” Well, that’s a good question and my response is “The PoNR principle is an abbreviation for Point of No Return.” A question that I’ve been asking (from a Reformed theological perspective) is:
Can a person who consistently rejects the Gospel or any evidence of God’s prompting in her life eventually get to a “point of no return” (PoNR) where God no longer continues pursuing that person? Is there a PoNR principle taught in the Bible?
What do you think?
I would like to believe that everyone has every opportunity to turn to Christ and that no one is ever excluded up until their last breath. In fact, I would like to ignore or dismiss the notion of a PoNR principle altogether. Nevertheless, I must consider Heb. 6:4-6:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
That’s a sticky wicket, Paul. If you read it as a good Arminian would, you interpret the person described in Hebrews as a believer (who has been enlightened, who has shared in the Holy Spirit, who has known repentence). If that is the case, the P of TULIP falls flat. I fully believe one can turn away to the point where there is no return. However, why I never reached that point in my lowest, most angry times, and how I knew that God was reeling me back in, I can’t explain. At face value, the Hebrews passage raises all kinds of questions for which there are no easy answers.
Hey Brad…
Welcome back; it’s been a while since we heard from you here.
Agree that the Arminian, prima facie, has an easier go at this passage. But then again, it says “It is impossible…to be brought back to repentance”), so the Arminian must struggle with the possibility that if one loses their salvation it cannot be gained back. Rather than “once saved, always saved” they would hold to “once backslidden, always backslidden.” [Note: The Greek is even more emphatic putting “to be brought back to repentance” at the front and together with “it is impossible” so it reads “it is impossible to be brought back to repentance for those having….(the descriptors are all participles supporting the main verb).
In all fairness, the Reformed perspective struggles with this too, only plays the game “they were likely never saved in the first place.” Both have their foibles.
As for explaining how God reeled me back in after a 2.5 yr stint living as if an unbeliever, it’s rather clear: “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” What God begins God also finishes.
I do think there is a PoNR principle, but I wonder if we can know when that line has been crossed for others or even for ourselves!
As is often the case, my friend, I’m in agreement with you. There are no easy answers to this passage for Arminian or Calvinist (and possibly no defining answer at all). I fully believe that God began a good work in me and will bring it to completion, thus the reason for Him not letting me wander that far. Could I have wandered as far as Hebrews describes? No earthly way of knowing. Have others? Hebrews would indicate that to be the case. Why does God allow it in some cases and not others? We’ll have to ask him when we get there. Apparently it is not for us to know.
I can’t claim to have read the original Greek, but I would not necessarily interpret that passage as a fiat or indication of God losing interest. To me it seems reasonable to interpret it as an observation: once a person has encountered God and chosen to reject Him, it may be impossible for that person to honestly return to that point and chose differently.
Now, you could view this as being because of a seriously hardened heart, or a sense of shame that makes an honest reconsideration of God too uncomfortable to bear – but in either case it would be a statement of the limits of willingness of the person to accept God, not God “giving up” on them.
Hey Sentinel…
I’m still musing over these passages in light of your comments here.
Rom 9:17″For the 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.; 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory”
Whew! It makes me nervous when you and I disagree ;-)