S
sonseeker
Guest
Jackman, you are asking a lot of questions in this post; I need time to read it and think about it. I’ve pulled it and will read it and get back to you no later than tomorrow; Lord willing.Ok ok ok
- Status
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
“Predestination” by fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is pretty good. The only thing that bugged me is that the author seems to have more enthusiasm for his position than the evidence would seem to suggest (not that he is wrong in his various opinions, just that he seems to have more of an apologetic flair at times). He is more of a Thomist than anything else and he doesn’t hide his biases in favor of that view.
There is at least one other popular book that deals with this in detail from more of a molinist viewpoint but I can’t remember what it was…
ken
A
Axion
Guest
Calvinist predestination was condemned by the Council of Trent and by subsequent Popes - who also condemned Jansenism, a Catholic variant of Calvinism.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Some Protestants favoured that sort of coercion - others did not. Which why I qualified what I said.
There is nothing very special in the fact that a sixteenth-century Christian Churchman favoured the penalty of death for certain religious offences - Calvin was not holding a view on the matter which makes him stand out from among his contemporaries. So the fact that he favoured the execution of certain people for these offences, tells one little about him in particular. Sebastian Castellio, by contrast, was a Protestant who opposed Calvin on exactly this issue of the rightfulness of executing heretics - he was unusual in holding this opinion, so this piece of information tells one something about him.Lots of Christians at that time were entirely prepared to execute heretics - so saying that about any one of them, does not tell one very much about that person. ##
Quite possibly - but it is not Torquemada who is being criticised; it is Calvin (about whom, it seems, rather more is known than about Torquemada, so the “tracing” is easier: Torquemada has not left behind the vast amount of writing Calvin did).
A
axolotl
Guest
S
sonseeker
Guest
Jackman,Ok ok ok, so If you have been saved, are being saved, and hope to be saved, how does good works not translate into that. We know that in the world there are those who are ignorant of the Christian religion and have no access to Baptism, at the same time they may be saved by the Lord working through them in the way they act. Same goes for unbaptised children. It would make no sense that Christ would totally screw over an entire portion of humanity because they either do not know or don’t have access to the rites of the Christian Church. Therefore, the basic means of salvation lies through Christ and belief in him, yet at the same time a god of infinite mercy would see that someone who confesses to believe in him yet chooses to do wrong would not be in a better situation than those who don’t know of him yet live good and humble lives. To believe in Christ and to follow his example are two different things. I.E. believing in Christ living a wholesome life until one day you go off the deep end and kill 12 people while robbing a bank. You believe in him, yet you still sin. Thus both the Catholic and the Protestant are still left with the same questions and anticipation of salvation. The Protestant says, He never believed, where as the Catholic says he didn’t follow through until the end. Without works and other facets of Salvation you are condemned. After this I would suggest we take a step back to the beginning because at some point this discussion has branched into several different categories
Let me start by saying that I do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. And, if by your statement “those who are ignorant of the Christian religion,” you mean they do not have access to sacraments, I also do not believe sacraments are necessary for salvation.
When you say, “…Christ would totally screw over an entire portion of humanity…,” I cannot help but think that you are viewing God as an abstraction. You need to study, and pray, and meditate, so that you are brought to the understanding of God as an eternal, and a present reality. Read through the Old Testament and watch and see who He is and what He is doing. He is a God of love and mercy, but He is also righteous, just, holy, omnipotent, etc.
God is dangerous, but not capriciously so.
God does not “screw over” anyone. Your understanding of biblical anthropology needs to be worked on, as well as your understanding of sin. Think about it, man sins during his short life, and God deems that to be deserving of forever punishment. Sin is bad, God hates sin. Therefore, people get one of two things from God: Justice, or mercy. If you want justice from God you must be condemned by Him; if you want mercy, perhaps he’ll save you. Therefore, I do not believe that an unbeliever can live a “good and humble” life. Also, it seems that you believe God has an obligation to save people. He does not.
Is it possible for an unbeliever to kill and be saved? Yes. Is it possible for a believer to kill and be saved?..
The commandments say, “thou shall not…,” most people associate that with physically acting out. In the Gospels, Christ raised the bar. He said if you even think it, you’ve done it.
This is the problem of sin, and man, and sin in man, and man in sin.
Some men get what they deserve; some get mercy.
Bill
K
Kevan
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Anything that may be said in one language may be said in any other language. There may be no elegant way to say it in the second language, but it definitely is possible.
To illustrate: If I translated Yo tengo un auto nuevo as “I have a new car,” nobody’s mind would be drawn to the fact that “car” could refer to a railroad car. Nor would any translator think that the Spanish speaker was remarking on the new date for which he is scheduled to be delivered up for execution by the Inquisition. (Auto was short for auto de fe back in the old days.)
Practically none of the legitimate differences between Bible interpreters are problems of translation. To take a passage literally or otherwise is a question pretty much unrelated to translation.
The differences in your translations of the Iliad are not due to linguistic difficulties, but to the translators’ desire to make a translation that sounds nice in English. They change what they have to in order to meet their own standards of literary excellence. With the Bible, though, we try to change nothing. That is why the AV and the Douay translations are so similar.
Anything that may be said in one language may be said in any other language. There may be no elegant way to say it in the second language, but it definitely is possible.
No, a correct translation of a passage should be taken just as literally as the original text should be–no more and no less. But it is, indeed, wrong to press an English word too far in Bible study. A word has a range of meanings, and the range of the English word will not be exactly what the range of the Greek or Hebrew word is. In context, though, the ranges will match up.
To illustrate: If I translated Yo tengo un auto nuevo as “I have a new car,” nobody’s mind would be drawn to the fact that “car” could refer to a railroad car. Nor would any translator think that the Spanish speaker was remarking on the new date for which he is scheduled to be delivered up for execution by the Inquisition. (Auto was short for auto de fe back in the old days.)
Practically none of the legitimate differences between Bible interpreters are problems of translation. To take a passage literally or otherwise is a question pretty much unrelated to translation.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
i’ve never heard the word “auto” used to refer to a train car; i’ve always heard and used “coche”. the problem arises when the word “car” (in english) can relate to both an automobile AND a train car. and the inquisition has been over for hundreds of years…if it was back then, of course it could be interpreted as the faith car. es dificil que traducir unas palabras porque a veces no hay una palabra en el otro idioma que significa una palabra en Greigo. por ejemplo, “amor”. hay una palabra en Griego que significa “amor” pero es diferente que la palabra en espanol, ingles, italiano, ect. no quiere decir el mismo.
and martin luther changed the bible to say salvation by faith alone, rather than faith and good works…that’s the version that protestants use because they always quote it. should we take that literally?
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
im sorry, i guess i wasnt being clear enough. the people i’ve talked to DO try to press the english words. for example, the passage about peter and the rock, the psalms about the dead, ect.
J
JackmanUSC
Guest
But in the end if you live a good and humble life it will help solidify the salvation you desire. The fact of the matter is, that by throwing out the belief in good works, Protestants have opened up the door to the Current state of Humanity. This belief, along with the personal interpretation of scripture has led to what is it…oh yes, the Dictatorship of Relativism.
A
Asking
Guest
In Argentina we say auto
S
sonseeker
Guest
Jackman,
I agree, that living a good life is good for both the individual, and for society.
Anyone can live a good life through God’s common grace (the restraining of and convicting of sin in the world by the Holy Spirit). Truth is, God could make everyone, even unbelievers live a perfect and good life, and not save any of them, because, as I understand God’s word, that is not the requirement for salvation; faith in Christ is.
When you are saved, you will live a good life. You better. God still requires obedience, and the one saved should have a grateful heart, and love God, and because of that strive to please him; and, God promises to help him by giving him the indwelling Holy Spirit. What saves you, is not living a good life, but the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross, in which he atoned for sin. As John says, He was a propitiation, or satisfaction; He took it upon Himself to pay our debt, and it is paid in full.
So again, I believe in good works, and in living a good life (ask my wife, and my friends, and those who know me); what I do not believe is that good works, and living a good life, contribute to my salvation one iota.
To blame protestants, who do not subscribe to good works saving them, but who do subscribe to living good and pleasing lives before the Lord, for the current state of humanity, is _________ . You fill in the blank.
A
atheos_sum
Guest
Salve omnibus Catholicis dico,
The truth of double predestination is a logical extension from the attributes of the Christian God. The National Catholic Almanac offers a generous assortment of attributes from which to choose. According to this source, God is “almighty, creator, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true, wholly good.”
One must first wonder how it is possible to declare God’s incomprehensibility and simultaneously list other attributes. Nonetheless, the issue here is that if God created the universe, and has ultimate foreknowledge, then there is no such human agent which exercises free will and neither can such a God be reconciled with His wholly goodness. Since human agents never choose themselves into existence, their own destinies must of necessity be but His will. And since the destiny of some human agents are ones in which they will spend an eternity in hell, God cannot be wholly good.
By analogy, assume that a father has ultimate foreknowledge of his unborn child: he for certain knows that if he begets this child, the child will undoubtedly murder a hundred House Republicans. If the father, by analogy, wished that no House Republican should perish, he would not have begat the child. Moreover, if the father chooses to in fact beget the child, it would be unjust to condemn the child for the massacre of a hundred innocent House Republicans. Note that the child has no freedom with respect to murdering the House Republicans if indeed the father’s foreknowledge is ultimately true. By extension, God is unjust if He condemns his children to eternal damnation, a most callous task which He unmistakably practices from time to time. If the father in our analogy were on trial for his own insensitive behavior, a court of law would charge him with being an accessory before the fact of a homicide. The same is inescapably true for God.
What is called Hyper-Calvinism, though a logical necessity and corollary of the purported character of God, makes explicit why the belief in any God defined as such is positively irrational.
The truth of double predestination is a logical extension from the attributes of the Christian God. The National Catholic Almanac offers a generous assortment of attributes from which to choose. According to this source, God is “almighty, creator, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true, wholly good.”
One must first wonder how it is possible to declare God’s incomprehensibility and simultaneously list other attributes. Nonetheless, the issue here is that if God created the universe, and has ultimate foreknowledge, then there is no such human agent which exercises free will and neither can such a God be reconciled with His wholly goodness. Since human agents never choose themselves into existence, their own destinies must of necessity be but His will. And since the destiny of some human agents are ones in which they will spend an eternity in hell, God cannot be wholly good.
By analogy, assume that a father has ultimate foreknowledge of his unborn child: he for certain knows that if he begets this child, the child will undoubtedly murder a hundred House Republicans. If the father, by analogy, wished that no House Republican should perish, he would not have begat the child. Moreover, if the father chooses to in fact beget the child, it would be unjust to condemn the child for the massacre of a hundred innocent House Republicans. Note that the child has no freedom with respect to murdering the House Republicans if indeed the father’s foreknowledge is ultimately true. By extension, God is unjust if He condemns his children to eternal damnation, a most callous task which He unmistakably practices from time to time. If the father in our analogy were on trial for his own insensitive behavior, a court of law would charge him with being an accessory before the fact of a homicide. The same is inescapably true for God.
What is called Hyper-Calvinism, though a logical necessity and corollary of the purported character of God, makes explicit why the belief in any God defined as such is positively irrational.
S
sonseeker
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (NASB95)
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, **“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
**20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 ***but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
***28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.
30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
It is not about your wisdom.
W
Writer
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
This reminds me of something else I was thinking on a similar topic (sort of). Before we converted to Catholicism, I had always had great respect for the Catholic Church as a Protestant. I walked out of a service once basicaly because of the preacher’s anti-Catholic drivel. Now, as a new Catholic, I have a hard time feeling as ecumenical (does that even make sense?) towards Protestants. My daughter is involved at Awanis at a local Baptist church, for example, and I find it really uncomfortable to go inside sometimes and pick her up from her Wednesday night activities. The church just doesn’t feel right, and I am uncomfortable there. This is all emotional stuff, because rationally I still believe very strongly for striving towards Christian unity where we can and having dialogue with our brothers and sisters in Christ of other traditions. As I recently wrote in an article I hope to get published in a Catholic magazine soon, we need to work with the Evangelicals and others as we oppose the Culture of Death. Any other new Catholics out there who have caught themselves feeling something similar?
That sounds awful on so many levels… First, that God is so merciless as to arbitrarly pick from the “select” alone. (Of course, He knows in advance who will be saved, but this does not negate free will. He simply knows what we will choose before we do.) Second, what happened to “judge not lest you be judged” likewise? Those sound like the most hate-filled judgemental ramblings I have heard.
This reminds me of something else I was thinking on a similar topic (sort of). Before we converted to Catholicism, I had always had great respect for the Catholic Church as a Protestant. I walked out of a service once basicaly because of the preacher’s anti-Catholic drivel. Now, as a new Catholic, I have a hard time feeling as ecumenical (does that even make sense?) towards Protestants. My daughter is involved at Awanis at a local Baptist church, for example, and I find it really uncomfortable to go inside sometimes and pick her up from her Wednesday night activities. The church just doesn’t feel right, and I am uncomfortable there. This is all emotional stuff, because rationally I still believe very strongly for striving towards Christian unity where we can and having dialogue with our brothers and sisters in Christ of other traditions. As I recently wrote in an article I hope to get published in a Catholic magazine soon, we need to work with the Evangelicals and others as we oppose the Culture of Death. Any other new Catholics out there who have caught themselves feeling something similar?
C
Contarini
Guest
Very true. Now can you explain what differentiates Jansenism or Calvinism from orthodox Augustinianism or Thomism?
Edwin
M
mj330
Guest
Not to mention the wars between the Lutherans and the Calvinists in Germany…odd, I always figured that there would be unity in the ‘true church’ of God.
A
atheos_sum
Guest
What an inane waste of web-space! This is so impressively unpersuasive and so incredibly irrelevant. Your post had nothing to do with Calvinism. Where are we supposed to clash?
The problem with this critique of worldly wisdom is that it is not in fact a critique. There is no argument. It is not a series of reasons and premises leading toward a conclusion, but a sloppy list of conclusions standing naked and undefended, nothing but hot air.
If you said, “I believe Q.” Would it be reasonable if I refuted you by only saying, “I believe P, and therefore Q is not true because P said”? This is remarkably similar to what you said. This would mean you are in the same category of Christians who, still reeking of their mother’s milk, say, “The Bible is true because it says it’s true, and you are wrong because the Bible says you are wrong.” Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but surely this is not an honorable category to be in, is it not?
S
sonseeker
Guest
Are you saying that I am wrong because you say so?
P.S. There is a new thread in this forum about the non-catholic view of the depravity of man. Why don’t you check it out, and comment on it?
A
atheos_sum
Guest
Salvete Catholici,
Wrong with respect to what? You cannot be wrong ‘in general’ no more than you can irrelevant ‘in general.’ You must be irrelevant with respect to something in particular just as you must be wrong with respect to something in particular.
But if you are wrong, it certainly is not on account of my say-so. If I were to say you are wrong, I would say you are wrong on account of these such-and-such reasons. It would never be simply on account of my say-so. The whole point of that last paragraph in the 58th post was to explain exactly this.
But, yes, I think you were mistaken in your reply to my post. Firstly, your comments were irrelevant to Calvinism. Secondly, your critique of worldly wisdom was solely on account of Paul’s say-so. Paul adduced what are called “blanket statements.” This is what you do when you don’t want to treat opposing views with care and tact and thoroughly explain why you think they’re wrong. Instead, the idea is to just summarily refute them. Summarized refutations are extremely hard to swallow, especially if you are sympathetic toward the idea being unfairly refuted. Paul most certainly has not quashed every smidgen of unbiblical philosophy by means of this unfair dismissal. If you think Paul’s approach is sufficient, then there are more problems coming your way in the area of comparative religion.
Wrong with respect to what? You cannot be wrong ‘in general’ no more than you can irrelevant ‘in general.’ You must be irrelevant with respect to something in particular just as you must be wrong with respect to something in particular.
But if you are wrong, it certainly is not on account of my say-so. If I were to say you are wrong, I would say you are wrong on account of these such-and-such reasons. It would never be simply on account of my say-so. The whole point of that last paragraph in the 58th post was to explain exactly this.
But, yes, I think you were mistaken in your reply to my post. Firstly, your comments were irrelevant to Calvinism. Secondly, your critique of worldly wisdom was solely on account of Paul’s say-so. Paul adduced what are called “blanket statements.” This is what you do when you don’t want to treat opposing views with care and tact and thoroughly explain why you think they’re wrong. Instead, the idea is to just summarily refute them. Summarized refutations are extremely hard to swallow, especially if you are sympathetic toward the idea being unfairly refuted. Paul most certainly has not quashed every smidgen of unbiblical philosophy by means of this unfair dismissal. If you think Paul’s approach is sufficient, then there are more problems coming your way in the area of comparative religion.
- Status