J
josie_L
Guest
I don’t know much about what St. Augustine wrote,
, but what makes you think he may have overreached? I’m curious.
- Status
, but what makes you think he may have overreached? I’m curious.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Hello Josie:I don’t know much about what St. Augustine wrote,
Before I address your question on Augustine I want to touch on the two other points you raised. First, no it is not OSAS. Take me as an example, a guy who once had faith; and subsequently walked away from religion. The common response of OSAS would be to say since at one point in life I held and professed a belief in Christ – I will not be lost (to spite my current state of mind). Calvin would say I was either never saved (or had faith) to begin with – or if I truly am one of god’s elect I’ll return to the Christian faith at some point in life. There’s a marked difference (although OSAS did start out as a hybrid of the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints … it has evolved into something much different).
Many in the OSAS camp pull support for their doctrine from chapters like Romans 8 (where Paul very poetically discusses the unfailing love of god). However, to view his words in that chapter as consistent with the rest of scripture it must be viewed as god’s love for his elect alone, and not the entire world. In fact at point Jesus states that he does not pray for the world – but rather only those who come to him (e.g. only those who the father gave him). Calvin drew this distinction very well (and so did Augustine, as I’ll explain below).
With regard to our conscience … I cannot answer whether or not some elements of our conscience is biological. It’s perfectly possible it is. Perhaps some elements of our conscience formed as part of the evolutionary process. For instance a parent’s instinctive love for their children (perhaps this has something to do with survival of the species & maybe to some extent it could be biologically programmed into our wiring). Undoubtedly nurture also plays a significant role (I suspect a dominant role) in forming our conscience – but what the mix might be or whether biology plays any role at all is beyond me (I’m no biologist nor do I claim any degree of proficiency in the subject
). John Locke believed we all started out as a blank slate (contrary to the Christian notion of a soul that endows us with a certain sense of connection with others and conscience … even though it’s obviously beyond our cognition). I think biology offers more clues into this that Locke didn’t consider (given he lived long before Darwin and the many developments in biology since). Of course none of this to a creator god … indeed it really only creates more work for scientists who are trying to unlock these mysteries. It would behoove us (at least those in the scientific community) to view everything as a result of nature – lest they throw up their hands and give up on trying to discover new things under the delusion that certain things are a divine mystery beyond our capacity to understand. I dare say if science took this sort of attitude we wouldn’t be enjoying many of the medical advances we take for granted today.OK – Augustine. I generally don’t think Augustine overreached. I merely said what I said because it is a reasonable point of debate. Augustine and Calvin both agreed that god predestined some to the exclusion of others. They both even agreed that god’s choice was not the result of his looking down the tunnel of time to see who would assent to faith and who would not. Both men would say god is the initiator and perfecter of faith. In other words god didn’t choose anyone because he foresaw them accepting Christ (through their own volition), but rather people accept Christ because god first chose them (there’s a HUGE difference here that cannot be understated).
The differences between Augustine and Calvin are subtle – but there are differences (beyond Augustine’s assent to ideas like apostolic succession & other uniquely Catholic doctrines that Calvin obviously disagreed with). Here I’m restricting my comments to predestination and grace. Calvin never wondered about divine prescience (god’s ability to see the future). It’s not that Calvin didn’t think god could see the future – he did. However, Calvin never pondered the role prescience plays in salvation. Augustine would say that while yes god only elects some and not others, there’s a bigger role for our free will. God not only moves men through the workings of his spirit, but his foreknowledge of our future behavior has a role in the economy of salvation (whereas with Calvin election and salvation was very monergistic).
Both men in essence believed and taught double predestination and irresistible grace. However, Calvin took a higher view of divine providence as compared to Augustine (the term higher view is probably not accurate – I just use it in the interest of brevity). In other words Augustine might say something like god allows us to slip and fall through our our own free will. However, god foreknows our future behavior and uses our freely made choices to shape and mold us into what he intends us to be. He also tugs and pulls at us through the workings of his spirit, but it’s a mix of god moving us and our own freely made choices. However, god only acts this way toward his elect and to both Calvin and Augustine the idea that prevenient grace is imputed universally was fallacious (they would have both viewed this notion as very Pelagian). Calvin would only acknowledge the monergistic part of this equation. For him the only role our free will had was a bad one (and though he never outright called Augustine wrong with regard to his theories on the role of prescience … Calvin would simply say some of Augustine’s conclusions, as logical as they may be, amounted to unsupported speculation). I would say on balance it was good exegesis on the part of Augustine, but both men were the gold standard in Christian theology.
J
josie_L
Guest
Hello Francis:Hello Josie:
The common response of OSAS would be to say since at one point in life I held and professed a belief in Christ – I will not be lost (to spite my current state of mind). Calvin would say I was either never saved (or had faith) to begin with – or if I truly am one of god’s elect I’ll return to the Christian faith at some point in life. There’s a marked difference (although OSAS did start out as a hybrid of the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints … it has evolved into something much different).
With regard to our conscience … I cannot answer whether or not some elements of our conscience is biological. It’s perfectly possible it is. Perhaps some elements of our conscience formed as part of the evolutionary process. For instance a parent’s instinctive love for their children (perhaps this has something to do with survival of the species & maybe to some extent it could be biologically programmed into our wiring). Undoubtedly nurture also plays a significant role (I suspect a dominant role) in forming our conscience – but what the mix might be or whether biology plays any role at all is beyond me (I’m no biologist nor do I claim any degree of proficiency in the subject
OK – Augustine. I generally don’t think Augustine overreached. I merely said what I said because it is a reasonable point of debate. Augustine and Calvin both agreed that god predestined some to the exclusion of others. They both even agreed that god’s choice was not the result of his looking down the tunnel of time to see who would assent to faith and who would not. Both men would say god is the initiator and perfecter of faith. In other words god didn’t choose anyone because he foresaw them accepting Christ (through their own volition), but rather people accept Christ because god first chose them (there’s a HUGE difference here that cannot be understated).
The differences between Augustine and Calvin are subtle – but there are differences (beyond Augustine’s assent to ideas like apostolic succession & other uniquely Catholic doctrines that Calvin obviously disagreed with). Here I’m restricting my comments to predestination and grace. Calvin never wondered about divine prescience (god’s ability to see the future). It’s not that Calvin didn’t think god could see the future – he did. However, Calvin never pondered the role prescience plays in salvation. Augustine would say that while yes god only elects some and not others, there’s a bigger role for our free will. God not only moves men through the workings of his spirit, but his foreknowledge of our future behavior has a role in the economy of salvation (whereas with Calvin election and salvation was very monergistic).
Both men in essence believed and taught double predestination and irresistible grace. However, Calvin took a higher view of divine providence as compared to Augustine (the term higher view is probably not accurate – I just use it in the interest of brevity). **In other words Augustine might say something like god allows us to slip and fall through our our own free will. However, god foreknows our future behavior and uses our freely made choices to shape and mold us into what he intends us to be. He also tugs and pulls at us through the workings of his spirit, but it’s a mix of god moving us and our own freely made choices. **However, god only acts this way toward his elect and to both Calvin and Augustine the idea that prevenient grace is imputed universally was fallacious (they would have both viewed this notion as very Pelagian). Calvin would only acknowledge the monergistic part of this equation. For him the only role our free will had was a bad one (and though he never outright called Augustine wrong with regard to his theories on the role of prescience … Calvin would simply say some of Augustine’s conclusions, as logical as they may be, amounted to unsupported speculation). I would say on balance it was good exegesis on the part of Augustine, but both men were the gold standard in Christian theology.
Does “elect” mean then those who persevere till the end (perseverence of the Saints), and as such, does not the word persevere connote action or cooperation on our part? Why then didn’t Calvin believe we cooperated (free will) with God? I absolutely agree with St. Augustine (part emboldened).
My next question is this, how do you make sense of this:
We know as well that God desires all to be saved (Acts 10:35, 1 Tim. 2:4) and that he judges non-Christian Gentiles according to the light they receive and how they, in conscience, respond to it:
“This is good, and pleases God our saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim. 2:4
"Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” Acts 10:35
J
josie_L
Guest
And what do you make of this:
“For God so loved the world (not just the elect), as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” John 3:16
or
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
How can God judge someone who He has not elected (not chosen from the beginning to believe)?
And what do you make of the Book of Life written of in Revelations?
“For God so loved the world (not just the elect), as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” John 3:16
or
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
How can God judge someone who He has not elected (not chosen from the beginning to believe)?
And what do you make of the Book of Life written of in Revelations?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
my first observation is that the latter part of this sentence does not appear in scripture. The former part (1 Tim. 2:4) was perceived by both Augustine and Calvin as a benevolent statement on the part of god. It states god “desires all people to be saved.” Does that mean scripture assumes all people will be saved? Just read the following:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:18 ESV).
Of course we know many have lived and died without accepting Christ as their savior. Therefore, we know that 1 Timothy 2:4 does not stand for the proposition that all will be saved, but rather only those who accept Christ. Now up till here your point still stands, but here’s where it gets more difficult:
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand John 10:25-28).
But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day (John 6:36-39).
*Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:64-65).
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).*
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16).
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Ephesians 1:4-5).
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Ephesians 1:11).
and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for (1 Peter 2:8).
And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened (Romans 11:6-7).
*"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances (Ezekiel 36:27)
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose (Philippians 2:13)*
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:9).
The point being yes Paul avers that god desires all men to be saved, yet all won’t be saved. Since the preponderance of scripture affirms that god always accomplishes his will, then either everyone will be saved or this was a mere benevolent statement. Sort of like saying I wish we didn’t have to kill a cow to have beef, but since we have to have beef we must kill the cow. Apparently, under the matrix of scripture, destruction of the reprobate is a necessary thing. Just consider these verses:
*The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4).
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But 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?’ " Does 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?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What 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 (Romans 9:19-23).*
This verse stands for the idea that god saves all men without distinction NOT without exception. In other words blood lineage (i.e. being a Jew) no longer demarcates the people of god. Now the word has gone out to all people, the scriptures fulfilled, the true elect revealed, etc. etc. Race, gender, nationality, etc. has no bearing on divine election (as is the common theme of the bible – the flesh doesn’t matter, only the spirit does).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
You should know what I make of all this Josie … it’s obviously all over the place. It’s totally inconsistent & incoherent … therefore a perfect, all knowing, and all powerful god could not have authored such a book. If god truly exists outside of time & exists in the far flung future just as he exists in the here and now then you would think some of that foresight would be reflected in his bible? Just my opinion though …
J
josie_L
Guest
Ok, firstly, there will be no time for me to cogently respond to this post (will do so tomorrow), secondly, how do you absorb all this information in your head? It makes me almost jealous (I can’t remember things so easily). Thirdly, you did not mention the Book of Life in Revelations (how does this fit into the idea of “election”), can you please do so, thanks?
J
josie_L
Guest
Francis, what makes you think your interpretation of the Bible is infallible, and therefore, the contradictions which you see, are not contradictions but rather a faulty understanding of scripture. You may be guilty of the sin of pride, Francis.
And yes, it is just your opinion, for greater minds haved delved into scripture and have still remained Catholic (think of St. Augustine). Maybe your missing something, that is not cohesively putting together everything in its proper place. Did you read a lot of Catholic theologians in your day, like Newman and Knox, Danielou, Peter Kreeft . . . etc. You sound so Protestant in the way you interpret the Bible, and I know you said that you went to Catholic universities and such?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
the idea of a book of life correlates with the Calvinistic view of election quite well. However, it really doesn’t tell us how those people were elected … only that they were elected (and individually – by name). The only thing the book of life really helps us do is debunk corporate election soteriology (or hybrid views like those of Karl Barth). According to scripture there is an elect, a people whom god planned to save from the beginning of time (to the exclusion of all others e.g. just read about what happens to those “not” found in the book of life
)!
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
who knows … or maybe I’m even smarter than Augustine? Hmmm … never know (all my test scores in life have been really really high – plus I know calculus and physicsFrancis, what makes you think your interpretation of the Bible is infallible, and therefore, the contradictions which you see, are not contradictions but rather a faulty understanding of scripture. You may be guilty of the sin of pride, Francis.
)!I know I got rid of my old signature … but remember it said I found Calvin’s rendering of scripture the most compelling. With regard to Newman … yes I’ve read some of his stuff. However, I’ll be honest … Catholic theologians are typically just too far gone for me. At least protestants aren’t as ritualistic and don’t attach so much importance to strange practices and physical objects (i.e. venerating corpses, magical blood, holy water, the burying a statue in the yard type of stuff, etc.).
As a nonbeliever if I have to read someones rendition of ancient mythology – I’d rather they had less bizarre worship rituals (actually it’s less disturbing). Catholicism always seemed superstitious and ritual oriented to me (even when I was a professing Catholic) – and like Judaism it’s very focused on the physical, blood, flesh, objects, etc. (and never seemed to capture the spiritual essence of Christ). In defense of Catholicism I think the EOC’s Pelagian theology at least makes sense from a humanistic standpoint. They’re about the only ones who don’t think mankind is a bunch of hopeless sinners unless we’re given some special dispensation of divine grace.
Anyway … I’m tired as heck. I expect a lashing, but I’ll have to respond tomorrow.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
who knows … or maybe I’m even smarter than Augustine? Hmmm … never know (all my test scores in life have been really really high – plus I know calculus and physics
I know I got rid of my old signature … but remember it said I found Calvin’s rendering of scripture the most compelling. With regard to Newman … yes I’ve read some of his stuff. However, I’ll be honest … Catholic theologians are typically just too far gone for me. At least protestants aren’t as ritualistic and don’t attach so much importance to strange practices and physical objects (i.e. venerating corpses, magical blood, holy water, the burying a statue in the yard type of stuff, etc.).
As a nonbeliever if I have to read someones rendition of ancient mythology – I’d rather they employed worship rituals that aren’t so strange to me. Catholicism always seemed superstitious and ritual oriented to me (even when I was a professing Catholic) – and it seems very focused on the physical, blood, flesh, objects, etc. (and never seemed to capture the spiritual essence of the bible). In defense of Catholicism I think the EOC’s Pelagian theology at least makes sense from a humanistic standpoint (though not from a scriptural standpoint).
Anyway … I’m tired as heck. I expect a lashing, but I’ll have to respond tomorrow.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I just re-read my post (apologies … it came out a little harsher than intended – and it was too late to edit).
J
josie_L
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
"We know as well that God desires all to be saved (Acts 10:35, 1 Tim. 2:4) and that he judges non-Christian Gentiles according to the light they receive and how they, in conscience, respond to it:
“All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when . . . God will judge people’s hidden works through Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:12-15).
Paul says here that the Gentiles’ “conflicting thoughts accuse or defend them” before God, and he goes on to note that “those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment” on those who have the law but transgress it (Rom. 2:27).
These statements, together with Paul’s observation in Romans 2:14 (“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law . . .”), imply non-Christian Gentiles are, by God’s grace, in some way capable of observing the law, and, therefore, in some way capable of being justified through Christ (Rom. 2:10, 13).
The statement that the Gentiles who observe the prescriptions of the law show “the demands of the law are written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:14) is based on Jeremiah 31:33, which speaks of God writing his law in the hearts of the Israelites. That this is applied to non-Christian Gentiles means that they, too, are in some way part of God’s people.
The Bible says that knowledge of God has been given to man through creation so that “people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us” (Acts 17:27). By responding positively to whatever grace and truth they’ve received, non-Christians demonstrate an implicit faith in Christ and desire for him, “the true light, which enlightens everyone” (John 1:9).
The idea, then, that those invincibly ignorant of the fullness of divine revelation in Christ might yet be saved through him with merely implicit faith in no way diminishes the force of Acts 4:12. It is consistent with what Scripture says about God’s universal will to save those who diligently seek him (Heb. 10:6). The necessity of accepting Christ once the truth about him is proclaimed and recognized remains (Luke 10:11), as does the Church’s mission to bring people to an explicit faith in Christ as savior and Lord."
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111chap.asp
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Here are the quotes you cite in context:
*This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:3-5).
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34-35).*
I’ll let scripture speak for itself.
Yes Paul here does posit there is a human conscientiousness that comes from god (that all men are endowed with). Therefore, this provides a justification for punishment. However, this does not negate his other statements pointing to a special dispensation of grace given to the elect. As the gentiles being led by the errors of reason, go headlong into ruin, so the Jews possessed a law by which they are condemned; for this sentence has been long ago pronounced (see Deuteronomy 27:26).
“For the hearers of the law.” This anticipates an objection the Jews might have adduced. The Jews gloried in knowledge of the law. To obviate this mistake Paul declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence. For the righteousness of the law lies in the perfection of works (and only god is perfect so there can be no perfection in works).
This passage cannot be properly viewed as supporting works based justification (or negating particular election). Paul only urges the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law – that by the law they could not be justified (just as the law within our hearts, or following our conscience, cannot justify the gentile). If we are justified by the law or works alone then we have cause to boast in ourselves (see Commentary on Romans, 2:11-13, John Calvin, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, link here).
It is by grace, through faith, not of ourselves or through works (so no man can boast).
No, what you mean to say is they’re without excuse because their conscience convicts them.
Yes the bible does posit a form of common grace (as some would call it). The New Testament affirms that the enlightenment given mankind through god’s earlier revelations (e.g. the law), the human conscience (assumably a manifestation of our soul), and even the revelations of Christ is not enough without faith in Christ. Additionally, under the scriptural construct faith without a witness that it exists within a person was never faith to begin with (see 1 John 2:19).
The bible is clear, those who do not believe are condemned (John 3:18).
God’s wish that all men could be saved is irrespective of this fact. When I was practicing my theory always went something like this. In order for there to be love there must hate, for there to be goodness there must be something to contrast it too (wickedness). In order for god to produce the perfect kingdom the bible avers he ultimately intends to create the subjects of that kingdom must understand the calamity of evil & the absolute reliance on god required to prevent catastrophe. Apparently the only way to accomplish this was through the destruction of some. God wishes there were another way – and since it’s incumbent on the Christian to believe god is all perfect and possesses perfect knowledge, you must be confident there is no other more perfect way to accomplish what you must also assume is god’s perfect purpose.
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, I never meant for you to comment on the latter part of that phrase I quoted from Catholic Answers (mea culpa). I only made mention of it because you said that there was no scriptural basis for non-gentiles to be justified (which is not true as I have provided a scriptural response), and although the Bible speaks of those who do not believe as being condemned, how cruel do you think God would have to be to condemn a person to Hell, if he/she never had the chance to know of Jesus? The CC speaks of people who live in such a state and others who do not have/know the fullness of Truth, as invincibly ignorant. This does not contradict scripture:
"The Bible teaches that salvation is through Christ alone. In Acts 4:12, Peter says, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
The Catholic Church affirms the truth of this statement, yet also teaches that non-believers can be saved:
“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace” (Lumen Gentium, no. 16).
In his recent encyclical Redemptoris Missio, Pope John Paul II reiterates this message:
“Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. . . . For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation” (no. 10).
How do we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable positions? For that matter, how does the Catholic Church reconcile its current position with the traditional teaching that “outside the Church there is no salvation”?
Consider the last question first. The Catholic Church still holds that the Church is necessary for salvation and that no one knowing this can reject it and be saved. Vatican II teaches:
“Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, no. 14).
"The key to this passage is the word “knowing.” Lumen Gentium speaks of salvation for those who “through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church.” This is what Catholic theology calls invincible ignorance. (Ignorance here is used in a technical sense meaning lack of knowledge, not as an insult or put-down, and is called invincible to distinguish it from vincible ignorance, the latter being ignorance for which one is at least partly culpable.) Those who knowingly reject Christ or the Church he established can’t be saved.
Such a view squares perfectly with the Church’s traditional understanding of “outside the Church there is no salvation” since, as officially used, this phrase referred to those who knowingly rejected the truth or authority of Christ and his Church, not to those in invincible ignorance.
That this isn’t an innovation of Vatican II, contrived to fool unsuspecting Protestants or sell-out Tridentine Catholic orthodoxy, can be seen from Pius IX’s encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), which states, “We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.”
PIUS IX goes on to attack indifferentism, the idea that one religion is as good as another and that there is salvation outside of the Church even for those who “obstinately oppose the authority of the definitions of the Church and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church,” but his point about invincible ignorance remains.
to be continued . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
continued here:
"So the Church hasn’t reversed itself on the salvation of non- Catholics. Those who are not in visible communion with Christ’s Church may be invisibly united to it by their desire to do all they believe God asks of them and by their reliance on his grace to do so. Such people are, to use Ronald Knox’s expression, “unconscious Catholics.”
What about Acts 4:12? Doesn’t the Catholic teaching on “invincible ignorance” contradict this passage?
No, because the text says only that salvation comes through Christ, not that only those with explicit knowledge of and faith in Christ will be saved. As C. S. Lewis (admittedly not a Catholic) puts it in Mere Christianity, “We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”
“But how,” it might be asked, “can one who doesn’t know Christ be saved through him?” In a sense, the question is irrelevant. Even if we couldn’t hazard a guess as to how God might pull it off, this wouldn’t mean salvation of non-believers couldn’t, wouldn’t, or doesn’t happen. God is free to save whomever he wishes without revealing the details of the procedure to us.
Still, what we do know about God and his plan of salvation tells us much about the question of the salvation of non-believers. We know, for instance, that Old Testament saints were saved through Christ, even though they may have had only an implicit faith in him, a faith which amounted to little more than a confidence that God would deliver his people. Nevertheless, they responded to whatever light God gave them and were saved."
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111chap.asp
P.S. The latter part of this article I have already quoted in my previous post.
"So the Church hasn’t reversed itself on the salvation of non- Catholics. Those who are not in visible communion with Christ’s Church may be invisibly united to it by their desire to do all they believe God asks of them and by their reliance on his grace to do so. Such people are, to use Ronald Knox’s expression, “unconscious Catholics.”
What about Acts 4:12? Doesn’t the Catholic teaching on “invincible ignorance” contradict this passage?
No, because the text says only that salvation comes through Christ, not that only those with explicit knowledge of and faith in Christ will be saved. As C. S. Lewis (admittedly not a Catholic) puts it in Mere Christianity, “We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”
“But how,” it might be asked, “can one who doesn’t know Christ be saved through him?” In a sense, the question is irrelevant. Even if we couldn’t hazard a guess as to how God might pull it off, this wouldn’t mean salvation of non-believers couldn’t, wouldn’t, or doesn’t happen. God is free to save whomever he wishes without revealing the details of the procedure to us.
Still, what we do know about God and his plan of salvation tells us much about the question of the salvation of non-believers. We know, for instance, that Old Testament saints were saved through Christ, even though they may have had only an implicit faith in him, a faith which amounted to little more than a confidence that God would deliver his people. Nevertheless, they responded to whatever light God gave them and were saved."
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111chap.asp
P.S. The latter part of this article I have already quoted in my previous post.
J
josie_L
Guest
Because of the lenght of your post, I saw it fit to copy and paste this article about what Catholics believe concerning predestination, here goes:
Why there is predestination? Catholics believe that original sin makes us unable to reach salvation, not even will our salvation, without being first moved by God’s Grace. This leads to the question: Since the initiative of our salvation belongs to God, does He predestine who will go to heaven (the Elect) and who will go to hell (the Reprobate)?
All Christians believe in the predestination of the Elect – it is clearly stated in the Scripture (Matthew 25:34, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30). In Catechism of the Catholic Church the term “the Elect” appears in a number of clauses (CCC # 769, 842, 1031, 1045, 1344). How does God predestine the Elect? Is it based on His foreknowledge of our response to His Grace or on His eternal decree when He created the world? The former view is known as Conditional Election and the latter as Unconditional Election. Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who adhere to Calvinism believe in the latter while the so called Arminianist Protestants believe in the former. Until now the Catholic Church does not declare dogmatically on how God predestines the Elect, whether it is Conditional or Unconditional Election. Catholics are still free to choose from a number of predestination views, among which are: Thomism (after Thomas Aquinas) and Molinism (after Luis de Molina). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was philosopher, theologian, Doctor of the Church and patron of Catholic universities, colleges and schools. Luis de Molina (1535-1600) was Jesuit theologian. Thomists (and some Molisnists) teach Unconditional Election while Molinism believes in the Conditional Election.
As for the Reprobate, Catholics believe that God predestines no one to hell. Scripture says God loves the world (John 3:16); He desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and that He has no pleasure on the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). The belief that God predestines no one to evil has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.
We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
Council of Orange (529 AD)
If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon VI of the Decrees on Justification
God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1037
Because God predestines no one to hell, Catholics believe He gives His Grace, through Christ, to everyone and calls every one, no exception, to salvation.
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.
Titus 2:11
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
“‘All men are called to this catholic [universal] unity of the People of God…. And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.‘
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 836
If God gives His Grace to every one and desires all men to be saved, then why can’t all enter heaven? Scripture says that God gives His Grace lavishly to the Elect (Ephesians 1:7-8) and He has mercy but also hardens the hearts of whom He will (cf. Romans 9:18). This is something we cannot question – God is the potter and we are the clay (Romans 9:20-21). In Catholic Church’s terminology God gives the Elect sufficient and efficacious Grace while the Reprobates receive sufficient but inefficacious Grace. Catholics believe God gives everyone sufficient Grace to make him/her, using his/her freedom, turn to God and be saved. One way to explain it is using Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). In the parable the Master gave different number of talents to his three servants according to their abilities. The Master obviously had the right to decide how many talents each servant received. The servant with only one talent was later condemned. Yet his Master did not intend to condemn him by giving him only one talent. Had he deposited it in the bank he would be fine like the other two. The servant was condemned for his own wrong action, i.e. hiding the single talent entrusted to him. Thus Catholics believe that condemnation of the Reprobate always involves their freedom to reject God’s Grace – in other words they are responsible for their damnation. Catholic’s view on Reprobation is called as Positive Conditional Reprobation – when God created the world He, being omniscience, foresaw the Reprobate’s rejection to His Grace and let them use their freedom to do so. Yet God still wants them to be saved and still gives them sufficient Grace.
to be continued . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: ‘In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 600
Protestants and “Bible only” Christians may or may not agree with Catholic’s position on Reprobation. Those who follow Calvinism believe in Positive Unconditional Reprobation, i.e. when God created the world, through His decree, He foreordained the Reprobate to damnation and consequently decided to withhold His Grace from them.
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Westminster Confession III.3
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their heart; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.
Westminster Confession V.6
Westminster Confession is the confession of faith of English-speaking Presbyterians. It was completed in 1646 and approved after some revisions in June 1648. Calvinists believe in common grace, which is given to everyone, however it has nothing to do with salvation. This common grace concept explains why we can find goodness among non-Christians (i.e. the Reprobate), despite their totally deprived nature and it also comes in the form of God’s providence for all mankind – he [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45). To Calvinists what is reserved only to the Elect (and is irresistible to them) is special grace – it is the grace that makes them believe in Christ, sanctifies them and therefore saves them.
Others Protestants believe in Negative Unconditional Reprobation, i.e. God simply bypasses the Reprobate from receiving His Grace for no reason – and without God’s Grace they are doomed to hell. In both Positive and Negative Unconditional Reprobation God is behind the Reprobate’s damnation. In contrast Catholic position makes the Reprobate responsible for their damnation – God gives them sufficient Grace, which they reject using their freedom.
In Calvinist’ Unconditional Election and Reprobation the role of human freedom in responding to God’s Grace for their salvation or damnation is denied. They may argue that we still have freedom but to them it means freedom to choose evil.
“after the fall, though the will itself remains free, its capacity for choice is limited by the sinfulness of human nature. Human beings retain the capacity of choice, but all choosing occurs in the context of sin.”
Encyclopaedia of the Reformed Faith (Editor: Donald K. Mc Kim,) page 145
Catholics, on the other hand, believe that without God’s Grace we can neither believe in God nor obey His commandments – our salvation is impossible without God’s Grace but we have freedom to cooperate with that Grace or not.
To Calvinists God gives His (saving) Grace only to the Elect who can neither reject nor lose it. However Jude 4 says that those who were designated for condemnation pervert the Grace of God – something they cannot do if they do not receive it in the first place. The belief that God gives His Grace only to the Elect was condemned in the Council of Trent.
If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVII of the Decrees on Justification
Calvinists may use God’s sovereignty to defend their position. But here they make presumption, i.e. God first foreordained the Reprobate to eternal damnation when He created the world and because He is sovereign then His will must take place. Catholics do not deny that God is sovereign but He cannot contradict Himself. Scripture does say that God through Christ intends to save all mankind (Romans 5:18, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 1:15, Titus 2:11) – He won’t contradict Himself by, through His decree, foreordaining some (the Reprobate) with no reason to hell.
vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 600
Protestants and “Bible only” Christians may or may not agree with Catholic’s position on Reprobation. Those who follow Calvinism believe in Positive Unconditional Reprobation, i.e. when God created the world, through His decree, He foreordained the Reprobate to damnation and consequently decided to withhold His Grace from them.
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Westminster Confession III.3
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their heart; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.
Westminster Confession V.6
Westminster Confession is the confession of faith of English-speaking Presbyterians. It was completed in 1646 and approved after some revisions in June 1648. Calvinists believe in common grace, which is given to everyone, however it has nothing to do with salvation. This common grace concept explains why we can find goodness among non-Christians (i.e. the Reprobate), despite their totally deprived nature and it also comes in the form of God’s providence for all mankind – he [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45). To Calvinists what is reserved only to the Elect (and is irresistible to them) is special grace – it is the grace that makes them believe in Christ, sanctifies them and therefore saves them.
Others Protestants believe in Negative Unconditional Reprobation, i.e. God simply bypasses the Reprobate from receiving His Grace for no reason – and without God’s Grace they are doomed to hell. In both Positive and Negative Unconditional Reprobation God is behind the Reprobate’s damnation. In contrast Catholic position makes the Reprobate responsible for their damnation – God gives them sufficient Grace, which they reject using their freedom.
In Calvinist’ Unconditional Election and Reprobation the role of human freedom in responding to God’s Grace for their salvation or damnation is denied. They may argue that we still have freedom but to them it means freedom to choose evil.
“after the fall, though the will itself remains free, its capacity for choice is limited by the sinfulness of human nature. Human beings retain the capacity of choice, but all choosing occurs in the context of sin.”
Encyclopaedia of the Reformed Faith (Editor: Donald K. Mc Kim,) page 145
Catholics, on the other hand, believe that without God’s Grace we can neither believe in God nor obey His commandments – our salvation is impossible without God’s Grace but we have freedom to cooperate with that Grace or not.
To Calvinists God gives His (saving) Grace only to the Elect who can neither reject nor lose it. However Jude 4 says that those who were designated for condemnation pervert the Grace of God – something they cannot do if they do not receive it in the first place. The belief that God gives His Grace only to the Elect was condemned in the Council of Trent.
If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVII of the Decrees on Justification
Calvinists may use God’s sovereignty to defend their position. But here they make presumption, i.e. God first foreordained the Reprobate to eternal damnation when He created the world and because He is sovereign then His will must take place. Catholics do not deny that God is sovereign but He cannot contradict Himself. Scripture does say that God through Christ intends to save all mankind (Romans 5:18, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Timothy 1:15, Titus 2:11) – He won’t contradict Himself by, through His decree, foreordaining some (the Reprobate) with no reason to hell.
vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Huh?? I never said such a thing (that’s preposterous). You really really misconstrued my words if you pulled that out of anything I said.
I know they do … doesn’t mean it makes sense from a scriptural perspective (the bible is clear – you don’t believe in Jesus, you were predestined for hell).
sure … if you rip out a few chapters from the New Testament (and add in a few of your own) this might make perfect sense.
Yes but doesn’t this deny divine providence in the administration of human history? In other words why would god work to ensure the non-elect are enlightened with his word? The bible is clear – those not exposed to the gospel are denied the only tangible aspect of grace absolutely necessary for salvation (as Paul states at Rom. 10:14). Hence, as both Calvin and Augustine would say – they are the reprobate destined for wrath.
sophistic drudgery.
so forget about justification by faith … man is justified by works? Sorry Paul I guess you’ve been vetoed by the Vatican!
BTW everything you posted from the Westminster Confession represents what scripture truly says. There’s not a single word in that confession that’s not an absolutely true representation of scripture. However, Catholics are not alone in their contemporary views towards grace and predestination (and the church obviously did a complete 360 since Augustine fought off the Pelagian heresy & since the resulting Council at Carthage). Methodists and others (most Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.) who follow after the soteriology of John Wesley and Jacob Arminius are in full accord with Catholic doctrine in this area. Indeed today the position you articulate is referred to as “Arminian soteriology” and is probably the majority position among Christians (Presbyterians and the few other reformed denominations out there hardly make up a large contingent of Christians – although I understand there is somewhat of a resurgence in Calvinism among certain protestant denominations).
Lutherans have a somewhat different view. They believe in “single predestination” (as opposed to the “double predestination” of reformed Christians). Anyways … I’m getting bored (think I’ll go see a movie or something).
- Status