This is a good question Donald.
I would say that our Church Fathers do not pass over any of these issues, but will answer them according to the theological framework in which they operate, which is usually not an Augustinian one.
St Cyril of Alexandria, as an example, would almost certainly wish to be known as an exegete rather than a controversialist, and felt that controversy was rather thrust upon him and took him away from his study of the Scriptures.
You can find St Cyril's commentary on the Gospel of St John online here..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/</a><!-- m -->
and he addresses the passages you point to.
In relation to the first passage he says..
Quote:It did not behove the Lord simply to say, Ye have both seen Me and believe not, but it was necessary that He should bring in besides the reason of their blindness, that they might learn that they had fallen under the Divine displeasure. Therefore as a skilful physician He both shews them their weakness, and reveals the cause of it, not in order that they on learning it may remain quiet in it, but that they may by every means appease the Lord of all, Who is grieved at them, i. e., for just causes. For He would never be grieved unjustly, nor would He Who knows how to give righteous judgment have given any such judgment upon them, were not reason calling Him thereto, from all sides hasting unto the duty of accusal.
The Saviour hereby affirmed that everything should come to Him, which God the Father gave Him; not as though He were unable to bring believers to Himself, for this He would have accomplished very easily if He had so willed, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself, as Paul saith: but since it seemed somehow necessary and more fit, to say that they who were in ignorance were illumined by the Divine Nature, He again as Man attributes to the Father the operation, as to things more God-befitting. For so was His wont to do, as we have often said.
But it is probable that when He says that all that He giveth Him shall be brought to Him by God the Father, He points to the people of the Gentiles now about full soon to believe on Him. It is the word of one skilfully threatening, that both they shall fall away from grace, and that in their stead shall come in all who of the Gentiles are brought by the goodness of God the Father, to the Son, as to Him Who is by Nature Saviour and Lifegiving, that they, partaking of the Blessing from Him, may be made partakers of the Divine Nature, and be thus brought back to incorruption and life, and be reformed unto the pristine fashion of our nature.
As though one should bring a sick man to a physician, that he might drive away the sickness that has fallen upon him, so we say that God the Father brings to the Son those who are worthy salvation from Him. Bitter then and full of destruction is hardness of heart to them that have it. Therefore doth the word of prophecy chide the Jews, crying aloud, Be ye circumcised to God, and circumcise the hardness of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Yet not for them, but for us rather hath God the Father kept the circumcision in the heart, namely that which is through the Holy Ghost, wrought according to the rites of him who is a Jew inwardly. It is then right to flee from their disobedience, and with all zeal to renounce hardness of heart, and to reform unto a more toward disposition, if we would avert the wrath that was upon them unto destruction.
You can see that it is not at all the case that Scripture is plainly understood to have one meaning, and that in this case St Cyril does not avoid the passage but does not understand it to relate to predestination at all.
In relation to the other passages, he says..
Quote:He says that they cannot attain unto Him, save drawn by the teaching of the Father.
So again, he does not avoid the passage but does not find predestination in it.
The commentaries of St Cyril are wonderful volumes that require a very slow, considered reading. They are deeply theological. I wonder what you think of St Cyril's explanation.
Let me ask you in return, what does it mean when the patristic consensus is not the same as the Augustinian/Calvinist consensus? Where do we go from such a divergence?
Best wishes and God bless