Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[norwester]

Weel, I will try to asnswer a couple questions, but I don’t know how much more time I can spend on this

“Calvinists are indeed using the wrong choice of words if what they mean by total depravity isn’t total depravity. How about “semi-depravity”?”

There are, as I understand it-three views of man at birth:

1. Blank slate-man has the equal opportunity to chose God or evil, called Pelagianism-condemned by the Catholic church, I can’t remember what the council was but maybe someone else does-at the time of Augustine.
2. Semi-pelagianism_This holds that man is “sick” He does have something wrong with him, but he still can, by his OWN free will, chose salvation apart from Christ. I believe this was also, I don’t know the word for it, condemned, but not as strongly as Pelagianism.
3. Now, since I don’t know the technical word here, I am at a disadvantage. But the idea is that man is born Dead. Dead in trespasses and sins and cannot receive Christ unless there is prior to his desire for Christ planted in his heart directly by God. This is the position of Calvinism, but the idea precedes Calvin.

So does man have free will. Man has free will to chose what is in his natural ability to do. I have free willl to go down and make my family breakfast. (the right thing to do), sit here and argue with Catholics on the computer (asin, if you could see my house you would agree) but I do not have free will to fly. A pagan can obey the speed limit, be faithful to his wife, give his kids good education, but he cannot out of his own natural ability, chose Christ. That takes the drawing of God.

“Did it ever occur to you that all you believe is hinging on the opinion of man that was born well over a millenium after Christ came, and if Calvin was never born, you won’t be Calvinist today?”

Actually, I have read some of Clement and found some similar things there. I don’t know if I could find them again, but if you are really interested, I could try. And there was the debate between Augustine and Plalagius.

Look, I don’t know Sanddusky, I haven’t read all the posts. I have a husband and 8 kids and they are already feeling a bit irritated at me. I do not see Calvinism as a test for salvation and I am not trying to convert anyone to it. It is a theological point, but it isn’t the same as discussing the divinity of Christ. However, if someone would actually like to argue intelligently with Calvinists, if they are just curious what we actually do believe, etc., then I would recommend reading “Chosen By God” And read it a couple times. It took a while for it to sink in with me. I have listened to Catholic Answers Live for about 5 or 6 years now, and read a couple books BY CATHOLICS-(not what Protestants say Catholics believe) and I still would not dream of telling a Catholic what they believe. I think it is a bit arrogant to think your going to blow down an entire belief system of a major world religion by blasting someone on the internet without any real thought to the subject on your own or humble attempt at understanding. And that goes for BOTH sides.

So I guess for now that’s all I will say.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I’ll ask again: where is it said that Christ came to save all men?

It isn’t “said”, it is a conclusion of logical necessity from what is revealed in Scripture - it need not be stated explicitly for us to know it to be true. This is the same standard we apply to much of what we know from Scripture. Example: when it says Christ is without sin, we therefore know he never fornicated even though his not fornicating is not “said” in Scripture. It is a conclusion of logical necessity from Scripture.
Here is the syllogism reflecting this logical necessity:
Scripture states Christ is without sin
Fornication is a sin
Therefore, Christ is without the sin of fornication.

Again, very simple and undebateable - agreed?
In exactly the same manner, we can apply the syllogism to arrive at the logical necessity that Christ came to save all men.
That is precisely what I did in my first post - review it again if you need to. Do you disagree with the conclusion from my syllogism demonstrating that christ came to save all men? If so, on what basis? Is there a false premise? Show it to us. Is the conclusion not valid from the premises stated? Tell us why.

sandusky:

Right. Those He foreknew are the elect who have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Yes, but they are not necessarily the only ones to become conformed to the image of His Son. You have repeatedly implied that without justifying the claim. Those he foreknew are limited to the Israelites alone as I showed you from the previous post. I am not an Israelite - are you? Does that mean I am destined not to be conformed to the image of His Son?

sandusky:

Well, then, if in saying that some have been predestined, it doesn’t really mean that some have been predestined, what does it mean when it says that some have been predestined?

You repeatedly stumble IMHO on the conclusion that since SOME have been predestined to eternal life that they are the ONLY ones who will be saved. Why is that? Why is that a conclusion of logical necessity?
Some have been predestined to persevere while others - still open to God’s gift of eternal life and embraced by Him since he wishes ALL men to be saved - may persevere to eternal life or may not.

sandusky:

But, it is not. It speaks of a specific group of people. Those chosen in Christ, and predestined to be conformed to Christ’s image, and that, before the foundation of the world.

I dont see it stated that way. That is a conclusion you have reached. Those chosen in Christ could simply mean everyone who, as a result of Christs sacrifice, are now able to be saved. That would include every man, woman and child alive on the earth at the time - its an open invitation. And of course it would include those who already came to accept Christ as well…

sandusky:

So, God’s word in this case is irrelevant. Are there any other areas of Scripture that you find irrelevant?

Another illogical, unsubstantiated conclusion. I never said Scripture was irrelevent, I was referring to your question regarding
election/predestination as you understand it. The fact remains that** if** your view of predestination is correct, then there is absolutely nothing for anyone to do about it. It requires no action, thought, prayer or change. When confronted with my next moral dilemma I need not worry about how I deal with it…

sandusky:

What? After someone is judged, he may be predestined? What judgment are you talking about?

Sorry, I used a bad verb tense. I should have said, "Some who achieve eternal salvation(after final judgement) may HAVE BEEN predestined and some may not have been.

sandusky:
Well, Philthy, I guess you better keep your fingers crossed.
This extraordinarily weak reply validates my conclusions considerably. Your inability to refute even a single element of a very concrete line of reasoning on my part speaks volumes. In actuality I don’t need to cross my fingers at all - that would only follow if your views of predestination coincided fully with the reality of the Gospel. They do not (IMHO) and therefore no finger crossing is necessary.
The inescapable conclusion that results from the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination - either Im saved or not and there’s not a thing to do about it - should point one to look deeper at what the possible true meaning of these difficult passages of Scripture can mean.

Not one to judge - hope Im not offending you,

Phil

 

[Lazerlike42]

The Bible clearly says that God wills for all men to be saved.

Catholics (and most Protestants) hold that God wills all to be saved, but He also respects our free will. This explains why even though He wants everyone saved, not everyone is saved.

Calvanists claim that God simply picks people for salvation. I see a really, really big problem here. If God wants all men to be saved, and the only thing that makes a person saved or not saved is God’s choice of them, then why isn’t everyone saved?

This implies and demands that one of two things are true. Either A) God is not powerful enough to do what he wants and save all men, or B) God is schizophrenic and doesn’t want what He wants.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

dts:

Calvinists come in a variety of flavors. If you really want to understand the core of Calvinistic theology, a good starting point is to become familiar with the Westminster Standards:

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Westminster Longer Catechism
Westminster Confession of Faith

opc.org/documents/standards.html

As a former Calvinist, I can say that they are wrongly maligned on many points. Calvinism is probably the only Protestant system of belief that is intellectually comprehensive and rigorous.

I was looking in that link and I saw this page, it looks like the American branch changed and/or dropped what the original confession said. See especially Ch25 (XXV)!

 

[sandusky]

StCsDavid:

That’s quite a leap you make there.

What is the leap that I am making?

StCsDavid:

By the way, where in the bible does it say that you should use it and only it as your basis of belief?

Don’t change the subject. There are ample other threads on this forum for you to deal with that question.

StCsDavid:

I’m more correctly stating that Calvanism is egocentric. It’s all about “me” being selected as one of the elect…perhaps you are humbled by that…perhaps you are proud of that…perhaps you are high and mighty about that…but nevertheless…it’s all about the “me,”

I see. Is that all that you have learned in your study of Calvin?

StCsDavid:

So how does one know whether one’s faith is this gift from God or whether one is caught up in a false faith? As your sacraments are only symbols of grace, how do you know you’ve received it? The only way I can think of is you simply convince yourself that you have…again, egocentrism.

John’s first epistle gives a number of ways one may know that he is saved. Perhaps you should start there.

StCsDavid:

I’m still confused as to why a Calvinist would deem this even necessary since he concludes that he is one of the elect. Surely he doesn’t believe he can convert anyone. That’s already been taken care of by God’s predetermination as to who His people will be. What is it he hopes to achieve in the great commission of Mt28?

You misunderstand. Election/predestination are separate from salvation. Election/predestination is the selection of those whom the Father will save; the means that God uses to bring the elect to salvation is the preaching of the Gospel. Apprehension of, and faith in the Gospel is essential to the salvation of the elect.

StCsDavid:

None of this is ever mentioned by the revelations that have been made public by a multitude of saints. None of this has been mentioned by our Blessed Mother in any of her aparitions. Did Calvin have a divine revelation? I’m serious when I ask that as I don’t know the basis for his understanding other than he simply thought it up as he went.

I reject the notion of revelation with the closure of the apostolic age. Heb 1:1-2 speak with the sense of finality as to God’s revelation to mankind. The Greek strongly states that with the sending of His Son, no further words directly from God will be given until Jesus returns again. God now speaks through His word, which Heb 4 says is living and active.

 

[sandusky]

hilde the dog:

Calvin College graduate class of '88. Grew up in the TULIP (get the pun) capital of the US - Holland ,MI.

Well, I’m a Michigan native, born in Port Huron. I’ve been gone from there for many, many years though.

A graduate of Calvin College. That’s something.
hilde the dog:

Having said that I will never forget infra versus supra lapsarianism or the bifurcation of reality discussions in class at Calvin.

The infralap/supralap has never held my attention. I never could see the point of it; I guess I’m not that smart.
hilde the dog:

I never did like predestination. No I don’t believe God predestined my dog to get hit by that motorcycle.

I hear you. How do you suppose that type of thing happens? Random collision of molecules? Bad karma, perhaps? Faulty alignment of the planets and stars, and the neglect of diligently checking one’s horoscope?
hilde the dog:

If any thing bad happened it was always “That was the Lord’s will”.

A Bible college teaching about the Lord’s will? Imagine that. What with your own will and self esteem to be concerned with. I guess Jesus was kind of foolish to come here and be so concerned with doing the Father’s will.

Well, you won’t have to worry about that anymore, will you. Thank the Lord for…oops, sorry, thank your lucky stars for that.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lazerlike42:

The Bible clearly says that God wills for all men to be saved.

Indeed it does: God our Savior … desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Tim 2: 3-4

The Lord is … not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 How is it then, that a Calvinist can possibly believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was NOT offered for all men, but for only the “elect”? (The “L” in TULIP = limited atonement). Both Paul and John explicitly teach that the atoning sacrifice was offered for ALL men - that the atoning sacrifice was offered for the expiation of the sins of the WHOLE WORLD, and not just the sins of the Christians. Jesus Christ the righteous … is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:1-2

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
1Tim 2:5-6The idea that the atoning sacrifice was offered ONLY for the elect contradicts what is explicitly taught in scriptures.

Catholics (and most Protestants) hold that God wills all to be saved, but He also respects our free will. This explains why even though He wants everyone saved, not everyone is saved.

Absolutely correct. God desires that all men should be saved. God desires that all men should reach repentance. Jesus died on the cross to pay the ransom price for all men. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus is the expiation for the sins of the whole world.

Then why aren’t all men saved? Because, as you point out, even though God desires all men to reach repentance, not all men desire to be repentant. Some men use their free will to reject the repentance that is necessary to receive and abide in the Spirit, and by doing this, they commit the unforgivable sin. If anyone is damned, it is not because God didn’t offer to them the grace necessary for their salvation, it is because they freely chose to reject that grace.

Calvanists claim that God simply picks people for salvation. I see a really, really big problem here. If God wants all men to be saved, and the only thing that makes a person saved or not saved is God’s choice of them, then why isn’t everyone saved?

Excellent point!

The Westminster Larger Catechism asserts that NOTHING happens in time unless God foreordains it: “God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time … .” Sandusky is arguing that anything that happens in time is because God wills it to happen, which is exactly what the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches. But scripture explicitly teaches that God desires all men to be saved and that the atoning sacrifice was offered up as the expiation for the sins of all men. So why aren’t all men saved, since that is the desire of God? How can what God desires be in conflict with what God wills?

This implies and demands that one of two things are true. Either A) God is not powerful enough to do what he wants and save all men, or B) God is schizophrenic and doesn’t want what He wants.

The way that Sandusky answers this question is that God does NOT desire all men to be saved. God actually hates the majority of the men and women that he has created, and he desires that they go to Hell. Since God desires for most men and women to be damned, he simply withholds irresistible grace from them and they are lost for all eternity. “Calvinist” theology of this sort is the diabolical opposite of the Christian Gospel.

God does not hate the majority of the men and women that he has created!

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

It isn’t “said”

Thank you. It is not said.

Philthy:

Yes, but they are not necessarily the only ones to become conformed to the image of His Son. You have repeatedly implied that without justifying the claim. Those he foreknew are limited to the Israelites alone as I showed you from the previous post.

You have only shown that the word “foreknew” is used in Rom 11:2. In Gen 12:1-3, God promises that through Abraham, all of the families of the earth will be blessed. In 1 Pet 1:1-2, the elect, who God foreknew, consists of both Jews and Gentiles. Read Acts 10. There God reveals to Peter that the Gentiles are also among His elect.

Philthy:

You repeatedly stumble IMHO on the conclusion that since SOME have been predestined to eternal life that they are the ONLY ones who will be saved. Why is that? Why is that a conclusion of logical necessity?

Scripture presents predestination, and that only those predestined will be saved, as a fact, not as a conclusion of logical necessity.

Philthy:

Another illogical, unsubstantiated conclusion. I never said Scripture was irrelevent, I was referring to your question regarding

Fair enough. Do you believe that election/predestination is irrelevant to God?

Philthy:

Your inability to refute even a single element of a very concrete line of reasoning on my part speaks volumes.

Yes. I suppose that you are right.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

Isaiah 46:10: Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Is55:
1 "Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2 Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in fatness. 3 Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. 4 Behold, I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples. 5 Behold, you shall call nations that you know not, and nations that knew you not shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you. 6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Proverbs 16:4 (NASB95)
4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.

You didnt define “wicked” properly…example if there are two men A(elect) and B(non elect), if they both commit the same sin B will still be sent to hell no matter what, while A will be sent to heaven no matter what.
In the case of Proverbs the author of that book was none other than King Solomon (very elect), 1Kings11:1 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, E’domite, Sido’nian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods"; Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded. 11 Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant.
We have to interpret this passage carefully. We know Solomon was elect, yet God desired thousands of Idols to be built and worshipped by His people, so He hardened Solomon’s heart to remain in sin for a long time in his old age until the job was done. In the end Solomon was sent to Heaven because he was elect. As we also know from the Bible about pagans and Idols, if a pagan would have built even a single Idol, God would have puninshed him with hell because God is just.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky- (cont)

Paul has anticipated that question:

Romans 9:19-22 (NASB95)
…

Do you now see that your assertions are already stated and answered in Scripture? In light of Rom 9:19-22, will you continue to maintain that it is utter nonsense to assert that God is eternally punishing men for doing what He has foreordained?

The first pope had something to say this about Pauls letters:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.(2Pt3)
Now lets look at Jerimiah18:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.
John Chrysostom, Saint and Doctor of the Church had this to say on Romans 9:19-22 - Ver. 20, 2l. “Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jer. xviii. 1-10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”

Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter’s hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us.** And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire**, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, “He couched, he lay down as a lion;” (Numb. xxiv. 9) let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, “I will meet them as a bereaved bear” (Hos. xiii. 8), let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, “our God is a consuming fire” (Deut. iv. 24; and Heb. xii. 29), the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. …

Now who do you follow Calvin or the Church (Early Church Fathers, Councils, Scripture)? Who would you put more faith in?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

Has it ever occurred to you, that the faith that I hold is based upon the teachings of Jesus and His disciples. Your inference that my hope is in Calvin is silly, to say the least. Calvin was a brilliant theologian, much maligned by those who have never read him. As with everyone, he had his flaws, but his exegesis is superb.

Brilliant yes…Follow him blindlywithout looking into what the Church Fathers really said? NO!
Not when you see how he twisted and ignored the Church Father’s words, especially Augustine’s

As far as your statement that Calvin’s “position on salvation was never a part of the landscape of Christianity until he came into the picture,” you are mistaken. With respect to predestination, irresistible grace, and such, he has much in common with Augustine, whose theology was quashed by Gregory, called the great, who introduced the idea of purgatory, and the mass as sacrifice.

Augustine believed in purgatory, Augustine held many views Calvin rejected in order to follow his agenda.

Gregory lived in a time of obscurantism, superstition, and credulity, and to a degree he reflected his age, bringing such things into the church.

Unfounded.

Did it ever occur to you, that had it not been for Constantine, whose effects on the church, though waning, are still felt, you would be some 1700 years closer to Apostolic Christianity, instead of being separated from it by a great chasm?

What?

Paul, when he left Ephesus, prophesied that after his departure savage wolves would come in and not spare the flock. The corruption of the church was working even as the apostles still breathed.

Yes, so what did he leave behind? The King James? NO! The NT wasnt even fully composed as he spoke those words to the Ephesians, Paul ordained successors like Timothy and Titus (as did other Apostles) who held onto the truth and continue to pass it down.

 

[norwester]

Oh, sigh, I couldn’t stay away. Sandusky, would you describe yourself as a Calvinist or a hyper Calvinist? It seems that you may be arguing from a hyper Calvinist position. If not, what would you see as the difference between your position and that of a hyper Calvinist? I am not trying to be confrontive, just clear.

A Calvinist holds that ALL MEN are born dead. (Could someone please show me if this contradicts Catholic teaching?) If it does not contradict Catholic teaching, could you please show me where the desire for God comes from in the heart of men? If God is equally drawing all men, then is it just that there was something more spiritual about me that I responded to Christ, but not my friends who were with me at the time? I am seeing a lot of criticism of Calvinism here, but not a clear outline of a logical alternative. Maybe I am dense.

God sovereignly intervenes in the hearts of some men to give them a desire for God. He does not intervene in the hearts of others and so gives them what they desired in the first place. Some get grace, others justice. But everybody gets what they wanted.

How does this contradict Augustine? I would like to know. As I understand it his prayer was “Lord give what Thou commandest and commandest what Thou will.” It doesn’t sound like he felt he had “what it takes” within him but was looking to God to change his heart.

And the book I referenced before is by RC Sproul. This would be a mainline Calvinist book.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Sandusky! :tiphat:

sandusky:

You have only shown that the word “foreknew” is used in Rom 11:2.

Actually I showed HOW the word was used and what it meant. And it is an important point because it was the context for the verse that you supplied to support your theory of election/predestination.

sandusky:

In Gen 12:1-3, God promises that through Abraham, all of the families of the earth will be blessed.
In 1 Pet 1:1-2, the elect, who God foreknew, consists of both Jews and Gentiles.

Im not sure of your point here - I never claimed that the elect were limited to the Israelites. I only said, in response to your Romans analysis, that in the context of Romans, those he “foreknew” referred to the people of Israel.

sandusky:

Read Acts 10. There God reveals to Peter that the Gentiles are also among His elect.

Acts 10:34 …God does not show favoritism but accepts (predestines?) men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." Truly an odd thing to say to people who are predestined to either follow his will or not independent of their own free will.

sandusky:

Scripture presents predestination, and that only those predestined will be saved, as a fact, not as a conclusion of logical necessity.

When you say “presents” you mean Scripture doesn’t actually say it? Show me the verse that says “only those predestined will be saved”

sandusky:

Fair enough. Do you believe that election/predestination is irrelevant to God?

I believe my opinion of predestination - if your concept of it is actually correct - is irrelevent. It doesnt matter what I do, think or say, does it? So why ask?

My head is spinning-

Phil

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Is55:
1 "Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2 Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in fatness. 3 Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. 4 Behold, I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples. 5 Behold, you shall call nations that you know not, and nations that knew you not shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you. 6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

What is your point? I am not a mind reader. You obviously want me to understand something or you wouldn’t have posted this. What is it that you want me to understand?
Catholic Dude:

You didnt define “wicked” properly…example if there are two men A(elect) and B(non elect), if they both commit the same sin B will still be sent to hell no matter what, while A will be sent to heaven no matter what.

Please, that is overly simplistic. Prov 16:4 needs no explanation. God has made everything for His own purpose, even the wicked.
Catholic Dude:

We have to interpret this passage carefully. We know Solomon was elect, yet God desired thousands of Idols to be built and worshipped by His people, so He hardened Solomon’s heart to remain in sin for a long time in his old age until the job was done. In the end Solomon was sent to Heaven because he was elect. As we also know from the Bible about pagans and Idols, if a pagan would have built even a single Idol, God would have puninshed him with hell because God is just.

Again, what is your point?
Catholic Dude:

The first pope had something to say this about Pauls letters:
15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.(2Pt3)

An admonition that you also would do well to heed.
Catholic Dude:

Now who do you follow Calvin or the Church (Early Church Fathers, Councils, Scripture)? Who would you put more faith in?

Neither, as I said above to Aquinas.

You throw out a statement by Chrysostom on man’s will, a subject which I was not discussing. I was talking about God’s will, and His right to do as He chooses. You are not tracking with what I have said.
Catholic Dude:

Brilliant yes…Follow him blindlywithout looking into what the Church Fathers really said

What part of “My faith is not in Calvin, or the ECFs” are you not understanding?
Catholic Dude:

Augustine believed in purgatory, Augustine held many views Calvin rejected in order to follow his agenda.

I am not bound to believe what Augustine, or Calvin believed. I reject the notion of purgatory based upon my own study. Purgatory is another thread, and there happens to be one active right now. I am not interested in discussing purgatory, that is why I am not posting on the thread regarding it. I know all of your arguments.
Catholic Dude:

Yes, so what did he leave behind? The King James? NO! The NT wasnt even fully composed as he spoke those words to the Ephesians, Paul ordained successors like Timothy and Titus (as did other Apostles) who held onto the truth and continue to pass it down.

Is that an argument that the wolves’ attack was stopped?

 

[StCsDavid]

Sorry. I’m not a bright man. I know it must frustrate you to no end that I just don’t follow your logic. It just seems like a very self-centered faith that twists sacred scripture to fulfill its end. It is my failing that I don’t understand how a loving God would create such a exclusionary model when throughout scripture God is bending over backwards to bring man to Him.

I did want to ask you about the following

sandusky:

I reject the notion of revelation with the closure of the apostolic age. Heb 1:1-2 speak with the sense of finality as to God’s revelation to mankind. The Greek strongly states that with the sending of His Son, no further words directly from God will be given until Jesus returns again. God now speaks through His word, which Heb 4 says is living and active.

Heb.1
1] In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2] but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hhhhhhhow do you make the leap there that God would not make private revelations to individuals based on those two lines?
Heb. 4
12] For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Do you posit that this was a reference to the Bible as a whole which had not been assembled at the time this was written?

 

[Matt16_18]

norwester:

A Calvinist holds that ALL MEN are born dead.

Obviously all infants are not stillborn, so by “dead”, I take that you don’t mean physically dead. Catholics believe that all men need to be to born again in the Spirit.

If it does not contradict Catholic teaching, could you please show me where the desire for God comes from in the heart of men?

Catholics believe that a man must first receive healing grace from God before he can receive the sacramental grace that makes him born again in the Spirit.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2001** The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:”

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.​

If God is equally drawing all men, then is it just that there was something more spiritual about me that I responded to Christ, but not my friends who were with me at the time?

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
God gave you the healing grace that allowed you to make a free choice for God.

How do you know for sure that your friends didn’t respond to healing grace? Can you read their hearts? God gives grace to us on his terms and in his time. Perhaps your friends weren’t given healing grace the same time as you, and that is why they haven’t drawn close to God.

But suppose for the sake of argument that your friends were given the healing grace that is necessary for them to make a free choice for God. They could make the free choice not to respond to God’s calling, if that is what they want to do. There is no such thing as “irresistible” grace.

I am seeing a lot of criticism of Calvinism here, but not a clear outline of a logical alternative. Maybe I am dense.

I don’t think that you are dense. Calvinism isn’t one thing - it is a very broad range of beliefs. So far, you haven’t said anything that I see as incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Sandusky is an entirely different kettle of fish.

God sovereignly intervenes in the hearts of some men to give them a desire for God.

I had a desire for God when I rejected Christ. My problem is that I didn’t want God to be the way he really is, I wanted to have a God that I found acceptable on my terms. But God never abandoned me when I abandoned God. Eventually I came to realize that the only way that I could get close to God was to let him be the Lord. I had to quit doing things MY way, and I had to accept God’s way. When I did that, I became a practicing Catholic – which was absolutely the last thing I wanted to do. God didn’t give me the desire to become a Catholic when I was given the grace to abandon my will for God’s will. I became a practicing Catholic because that is what God told me to do. I like being a Catholic now, but in my case, that was the last religion I wanted to have anything to do with.

God has given you grace that draws you to him. But can you honestly say that you are perfectly conformed to God’s will? Do you struggle to live a holy life free from all sin? Do you love with perfect love, or you still trying to be more like Jesus? Conversion is a process that has a beginning. First we must be born again. Then we have to mature in our faith. We are always free to give up the struggle for conversion. Many Christians do abandon God after they were born again, and that is why scriptures are full of admonitions to endure to the end.

Only a Christian can commit the sin of apostasy, and scriptures is clear that unrepentant apostates will be damned. That is why all forms of OSAS are heresy.

He does not intervene in the hearts of others and so gives them what they desired in the first place. Some get grace, others justice. But everybody gets what they wanted.

Agreed.

God gives everyone the grace they need to be saved, since God desires that everyone be saved. But some people don’t want to repent of their sinfulness, and God doesn’t force repentance on them. No repentance, no salvation.

 

[Matt16_18]

norwester:

There are, as I understand it-three views of man at birth:

1. Blank slate-man has the equal opportunity to chose God or evil, called Pelagianism-condemned by the Catholic church, I can’t remember what the council was but maybe someone else does-at the time of Augustine.
2. Semi-pelagianism_This holds that man is “sick” He does have something wrong with him, but he still can, by his OWN free will, chose salvation apart from Christ. I believe this was also, I don’t know the word for it, condemned, but not as strongly as Pelagianism.

… So does man have free will. Man has free will to chose what is in his natural ability to do. I have free willl to go down and make my family breakfast. (the right thing to do), sit here and argue with Catholics on the computer (asin, if you could see my house you would agree) but I do not have free will to fly. A pagan can obey the speed limit, be faithful to his wife, give his kids good education, but he cannot out of his own natural ability, chose Christ. That takes the drawing of God.

This is and excellent post, and worth a thread of its own.

The Catholic Church has condemned both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, list these three errors of the Semi-Pelagaians:a)The primary desire for salvation proceeds from the natural powers of man

b) Man does not require supernatural help to persevere to the end

c) Man can merit de congruo the first grace by his own natural endeavors.

1. Now, since I don’t know the technical word here, I am at a disadvantage. But the idea is that man is born Dead. Dead in trespasses and sins and cannot receive Christ unless there is prior to his desire for Christ planted in his heart directly by God. This is the position of Calvinism, but the idea precedes Calvin.

The idea precedes Calvin because this was taught by the Catholic Church long before Calvin. The Catholic Church agrees with you – the primary desire for salvation is supernatural, not natural. The effects of the Original Sin can only be removed from fallen man by supernatural means.

 

[Lazerlike42]

So what is it?

Is God just not powerful enough to predestine all men?

Or is God just plain craaaazy? :whacky:

 

[AquinasXVI]

Norwester:

Thanks for taking your time with us. I hope that this heated exchange doesn’t stop you from providing your (name removed by moderator)ut.

If you took offense of some of the questions and comments let me be the first to bury the hatchet.

It was wrong for me or even some of us to put you and sand. on the same boat…easy mistake for you’re both Calvinist. No malice intended.

I was thinking where does the virtues of Hope and Mercy fit in Calvin’s ideas? Since before we were born we’re already headed one way and not the other.

in XT.

 

[sandusky]

StCsDavid:

Sorry. I’m not a bright man. I know it must frustrate you to no end that I just don’t follow your logic. It just seems like a very self-centered faith that twists sacred scripture to fulfill its end.

I would not say that about you, and forgive me if you got that impression from me. My frustration is that all that is seen in election/predestination is that he who believes in it is self-centered. I was not chosen because of anything that I did. I don’t know why I was chosen, but the Scripture says, I can know that I was, and I know.

That is what people don’t like: that I speak with assurance about my salvation. Scripture is clear about God’s perseverance of the elect to glorification. Scripture is equally clear that one can know that one is saved. I cannot help it if others do not believe that.

StCsDavid:

It is my failing that I don’t understand how a loving God would create such a exclusionary model when throughout scripture God is bending over backwards to bring man to Him.

In the O.T., God chose Israel as His people. That was a national election. God did that to the exclusion of all of the other nations on the earth. He made several unilateral covenants with Israel, that required no action on Israel’s part. Those covenants God will honor, solely because He said that He would. No matter how wicked Israel was, as a nation, they were then, are now, and always will be God’s chosen people. It is so because He promised that.

God drove out the nations from their land, and from their homes, and He gave the land to Israel. This He had the Israelites do mercilessly, ordering them to kill everyone, and everything that they encountered. This they failed to do, and brought grief upon themselves. Israel failed miserably in their charge, and eventually God made it clear, that He was behind their failure. He blinded them, and Christ made it clear, that was also the case in His time. God is behind the blinding, and the giving of light (Rom 11:7; 2 Cor 4:4; 2 Tim 2:26). Remember, Satan does not act independently. He must first obtain God’s permission to do anything (Job 1:12; Lk 22:31).

Do you see that God elected Israel while excluding all of the surrounding nations? If you do, the only difference in the N.T. is that individual election/predestination is revealed. I believe that individual election/predestination is also applicable to the O.T. saints, though it was not fully revealed to them. The Jews understood it however, as they often claimed that being Jews and children of Abraham, they were the chosen people.

I don’t see why the problem with election/predestination. It is set forth in Scripture, both O.T. and N.T.

As far as God bending over backward to bring men to Him, read the O.T. and the Gospels more carefully. I think your eye might be biased, I say that not as a criticism, but as an observation. Christ proclaims that He is the way, that He is truth, but He also does much to discourage people from following Him. He continually tells those who want to follow Him how difficult it is, and that they must give up all claims to their lives for His sake, and for the sake of the Gospel, and more often than not, they abandon Him. Slow down in your reading; it’s right there on the pages.

(cont)